Re: [PATCH] Add Blackfin support in newlib

[Robin Getz <rgetz at blackfin dot uclinux dot org>]

> Did Analog Devices really intend to apply this requirement on people 
> fielding Blackfin applications using newlib (from LGPL section 6)

Yes - kind of.

We are a small group - always trying to justify our existence, on why we 
should give away all the work that we do. I know why we should do it - You 
understand, even some of our VP's get it - not everyone.

This is a small way, we can get people who are aware of things to contact 
us, and we can put it under a BSD license for them. That was the intent - 
so see how many people are actually using things.

A BSD license, where the adverting clause is removed, and a email me for 
permission, is added - is even worse in my opinion - there are too many 
licenses out there already...

> I can't help but believe that the inconsistency is going to lead to users 
> unwittingly violating the license.

I understand the concern - and the copyright maintainer (ADI) is not going 
to go after anyone who is using this on products that they make (kind of 
selfish, but we all have to pay rent/eat). If someone bases a different MSA 
port on this work (Intel has a MSA Core), I don't want them keeping it 
internal (which is what a BSD license would allow).

Thoughts?

-Robin