This is the mail archive of the ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the eCos project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: ecos license question.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Larmour [mailto:jifl@eCosCentric.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:43 AM
> To: Fabrice Gautier
> Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] ecos license question.
> 
> 
> Fabrice Gautier wrote:
> > 
> > Basically the exception says that you can link non-GPL code 
> with eCos code
> > right.  So basically this is even weaker than LGPL, because
> > 1./ You dont have to enable the user to relink you code 
> with newer version
> > of eCos (by providing the object files)
> 
> Yes the LGPL was seriously considered, and at one point it was the 
> favoured choice. But after some debate, it was considered too 
> onerous... 

You could make LGPL + exception, the exception on the LGPL being far less
intrusive than the one on GPL code. 

> But we do want anything based on eCos itself to be made open 
> so that other benefit.

Depends what you defined by "based on eCos". Imo for the GPL "based on"
means also linked.

> Also it's not clear when you read the LGPL how well it would apply if 
> RedBoot was LGPL'd. They may have changed "Library" to 
> "Lesser" but it's still a libraries licence!

True, but it still unclear to me how the current eCos license applies to
Redboot as well. At least the GPL name in the license is confusing me.
 
> > 2./ You can modify the behaviour of existing eCos code by 
> > adding hooks in eCos code and calling your own proprietary
> > functions with those hooks.
> 
> Actually, according to the FSF under legal advice, not 
> really. This has 
> come up before in the context of the LGPL. It is not a sufficiently 
> separate work. It's a grey area: if you separated it with a 
> sufficiently generic API, then it _would_ be a separate work!
> Yes, these types of things are where lawyers make their money :-|.

So I think we agree, there is a "Grey Area". I hate Grey Area, because you
do something at the beginning its Black and somehow it's going to end up
Grey, and once is Grey anything can happen.

Note that there is already an excpetion in the plain GPL about using "normal
OS mechanism" (like using syscall for example). So you could have stated in
the eCos license that those normal OS mechanisme applys also to calling
documented eCos APIs. But the current exception is going farther than that
because i could take says the ide code in redboot and use it in another
proprietary OS. I would just have to release the IDE source code and provide
a generic API (which probably already exist).

>
> > MPL seems to be the license i know that ressemble the most this eCos
> > license. I still dont get understand why this is called 
> > "GPL with exception"
> > when the exception destroy most of the spirit of GPL...
> 
> But is incompatible with GPL code, a key aim with the licence change.

If i refer to http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/docs/mozgpl.html, it seems quite
easy to modify the MPL for it to be compatible with the GPL. You would just
need to add an exception to section 3.1 in the MPL when it says "You may not
offer or impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or
restricts the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights
hereunder." Just add "As an exception you can distribute the Source Code
under GPL"

Thats what a few projects already do by having dual MPL/GPL licensing.

Anyway if I mix pure GPL code with eCos code, the result is GPL right, so
then I cant mix proprietary code in the result. Same with dual MPL/GPL code.

IMHO, if the eCos license was dual MPL/GPL, the result would be exactly the
same. Except it would be easier than to figure out what the eCos exception
really means. Look at Microwindows, they have basically the same goals and
requirements than eCos regarding the use of their source code, and i think
their MPL/GPL license is just right for that.

> > What would be the difference if eCos was released under MPL ?
> 
> The RHEPL from before was effectively the MPL with the names 
> changed. Note that it's very unlikely that eCos's licence would
> ever be changed now, unless there was some specific legal problem.

As I said, for me Grey Area is the problem. I know I would consider changing
to MPL/GPL, but I'm not a Copyright holder, so that just an opinion...

Thanks,

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]