This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
RE : [eCos] Why eCos licence and not LGPL?
- From: "Vincent Catros" <Vincent dot Catros at elios-informatique dot fr>
- To: "'Andrew Lunn'" <andrew at lunn dot ch>
- Cc: <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 16:45:33 +0100
- Subject: [ECOS] RE : [ECOS] [eCos] Why eCos licence and not LGPL?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn [mailto:andrew@lunn.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:55 PM
> To: Vincent Catros
> Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] [eCos] Why eCos licence and not LGPL?
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:26:20PM +0100, Vincent Catros wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > It seems to me that eCos licence and LGPL are equivalent.
> >
> > Is it true?
> >
> > If yes, why this licence (eCos) has been created insteed of using
LGPL?
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2002-05/msg00206.html
Thanks Andrew to point me there.
I've never paid attention to the fact that work linked with LGPL code
must be released, at least, as object files.
This is effectively a big problem.
Regards.
Vincent
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss