RE: [ECOS] Porting for ecos - is GPL SW applicable?

[Fabrice Gautier <Fabrice_Gautier at sdesigns dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Larmour [mailto:jlarmour@redhat.com]
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] Porting for ecos - is GPL SW applicable?

 
> > So now the problem is your application. You must prove that 
> > your application
> > is not a derivative work of the kernel. You could argue 
> > that the use of eCos
> > kernel API is similar to the use of the Linux kernel API by 
> > a proprietary
> > program, which is allowed by the GPL. Let's say again that 
> > we can assume that.
> 
> No unfortunately, that doesn't count either - it would (as you said)
> require LGPL'd, not GPL'd code to make that the case. That's 
> the difference really.

I says that's arguable.

For example you can use linux kernel (which is GPL and not LGPL) APIs - ie
syscalls - (with or without the Glibc) without making your whole app GPL.
Well then you can argue, that when you call cyg_create_thread or using a
normal OS API, and that it is the same kind of use.

I would certainly not says that this kind of argument would win a case in
court, but at least I think it's arguable.


I would also says that eCos is as incompatible with the GPL than windows is.
However you can still write GPLed drivers and applications for Windows (at
least I assume so). And then i still think that the only difference (for
that matter) between eCos and windows is that eCos doesn't allow you to
distribute binaries separately while windows allows that.

Fabrice