This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Licensing of OpenSource code and eCos
- From: Peter Vandenabeele <peter dot vandenabeele at mind dot be>
- To: Iztok Zupet <iztok dot zupet at vsr dot si>
- Cc: eCos-discuss <ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com>, Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 22:36:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] Licensing of OpenSource code and eCos
- Organisation: Mind Linux Solutions in Leuven/Belgium -- http://mind.be/
- References: <1032983032.12542.26.camel@alatka>
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 09:43:51PM +0200, Iztok Zupet wrote:
> OK, let's start a new thread (who's maintaining CVS).
I am not sure there is a lot of enthousiasm for that, but anyway.
> The fact is, that eCos is a self contained and self evolved product,
> thus it should be published under the eCos license (as the whole!), to
> whatever that license evolves (and whoever is the holder).
I do not clearly understand what you try to explain.
> GPL: can't be used here without the exception, because it prohibits
> linking of the eCos with the end user application.
This is correct if the end user application is not GPL. In most
commercial projects you don't want the end user app to be GPL.
> It's hard to get an
> approval from the FSF to publish some GPL-ed code under the eCos GPL
> with the exception. Only the RMS at FSF can give such an approval.
The philosophy of FSF is different and very precise on this matter. You
can read the motivation of the FSF on this page:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
This discussion on LGPL defines exactly why FSF strongly prefers to use
GPL as much as possible and avoid an LGPL (and for that matter ECOS-style)
license when possible. This is a deliberate, political choice for "Freedom"
as defined by FSF.
> There can be a workaround if all the original authors of the GPL-ed
> code agree to publish it under the eCos GPL. As far as I know they have
> been granted that right when they assigned the copyright to FSF.
It is very impractical to trace back all authors and ask them to republish
the work under another license. This why the holder of centralized
Copyright of GPL-style licenses (including the ECOS license) has a large
advantage over the spread-out group of individuals that Assigned Copyright
to a central Copyright holder. We could argue if that advantage for the
central Copyright holder is a fair advantage or not. It may be a fair
advantage to compensate for the development effort that the central
Copyright holder has invested in the project to publish Free Software,
but then again, this advantage can only be valorized into money, by
making a version of the program that is (at least temporarily)
proprietary or non-Copyleft. While the money that is recouped by
selling/developing a non-Free version helps the centralized Copyright
holder to further develop the Free Software code base, the specific
code that was written for the customer or by the customer itself is
not available for the Free Software community and this is a pity.
A little off-topic, but relevant in this light: In a discussion yesterday
on modified BSD, we came to the interesting conclusion that in modified
BSD, Copyright Assignment does not show this problem. In modified BSD,
every single person, also a small contributor that signed a Copyright
Assigned to e.g. the Apache Foundation, still has the same right as
the Apache Foundation itself, namely to derive a proprietary work from
the complete public code base.
> BSD: It seems OK to publish the BSD code under the eCos public license,
> as long as the original BSD license is also in-there.
This is what I believe personally. Am I correct that there could be two
possible implementations ?
- what was originally mod-BSD is "upgraded" to the ECOS license
(this is a one way path, because the ECOS license is Copyleft
and mod-BSD is not)
- mod-BSD code is included in the project as separate files, retaining
the mod-BSD license
(I believe this is allowed since the ECOS exactly limits the scope of
the Copyleft to the work itself and excludes other works that together
form the "whole").
Jonathan, I did not understand exactly under which of these option the
inclusion of the lwIP as established mod-BSD licensed work could occur
in the eCos tree.
> PS.: Am I wrong? According to the copyright law, if the original code is
> modified by more than 20%, the one who modified it that way can claim
> copyright.
I am not aware of that.
Peter
> Regards
> iz
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss