Re: [ECOS] Licensing of OpenSource code and eCos

[NavEcos <ecos at navosha dot com>]

On Thursday 26 September 2002 04:51 pm, Iztok Zupet wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 22:36, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That is true for Linux. The applications there are run as processes and
> drivers can be loaded as modules. This scheme allows for proprietary
> applications and drivers.
>
> To achieve that "freedom" with the eCos as an OS, perhaps we need:
>
> 1. a system/user space program loader with memory protection support
> 2. a funny OS interrupt/exception
> 3. a driver module loader/unloader
>
> Only then it could be fully GPL-ed.

As far as I can tell from reading the license of eCos2.0, it's not *fully* 
GPL.  GPL requires that if you link (statically) to a GPL libary that you 
release the code that links to the library.  The eCos2.0 license is GPL with 
the exception that people who write applications that link to the static 
library of eCos (eCos is a library when all is said and done) don't have to 
release their application code.

I think it's the most perfect license you can get and I don't want it to 
change at all.  It allows modifications to the eCos kernel, and it allows 
people writing code using eCos to protect their IP.

Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, but I'm quite certain I'm correct.  If I'm not, 
I sure hope somebody corrects me.

-Rich

--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss