This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE: ecos license question.
- From: Fabrice Gautier <Fabrice_Gautier at sdesigns dot com>
- To: 'Jonathan Larmour' <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Cc: ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:13:35 -0800
- Subject: RE: [ECOS] ecos license question.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Larmour [mailto:jifl@eCosCentric.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: Fabrice Gautier
> Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] ecos license question.
>
> > I strongly think that having two distinct licenses two
> > reflect those 2 situations, is far less confusing
> > that the current scheme, I dont see how it could be harder
> > to enforce,
>
> Imagine two different example scenarios:
>
> You're given a binary. It contains dual-licensed eCos. You don't know
> whether you are entitled to the source code or not.
How so?
I believe that when someone distribute something that is dual-licensed he
has three options:
1./ Distribute it under MPL
2./ Distribute it under GPL
3./ Distribute it under Dual License MPL/GPL
And I believe that in any case you're entitled to the eCos source code.
> You're given source code from $SOMEONE (not the main site). It's
> dual-licensed eCos. You see the dual licence and think you can use it
> under the MPL, but that someone at some stage introduced GPL code, so
> actually it's being used illegally. The only solution is to
> go through every single file.
Same kind of thing goes for eCos license. If $SOMEONE gives you eCos source
code after introducing some pure GPL code, then the whole thing become GPL.
So its now illegal to use it under the eCos license.
Actually I think one could just take the eCos source code, and make it pure
GPL without even including any other code.
> > I dont know how anyone will be
> > able to enforce the current license. I dont think just
> > using the name GPL will make people more conscious about
> > what they do, probably they will be just more scared.
>
> Good :-).
Hum... now that I know the evil plan i wont be scared anymore. :)
> > but I'm sure there are other arguments, are there ?
>
> GPL has a good "brand" simply.
Hehe... thats an argument for the GPL, but not one against a dual license
that also has GPL in it.
> It's preferable for people on the err on the side of thinking they
> have to release their code than the other way round.
I think it is preferable when people know exactly what they can do, but in
the case its impossible for them (eg in the gray areas) I think I would
agree with you.
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