This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: ecos licensing
Christopher Cordahi wrote:
On 09/08/06, Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> wrote:
Christopher Cordahi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This might be a silly question, but what is the difference between the
> ecos license (GPL with a special exception) and the LGPL?
It's similar in principle. But binary forms of eCos code are not always
delivered as a "library". Take RedBoot for example.
Reading the LGPL license more carefully, I see that although they redefine
that a library is a collection of code, they still cling to the idea
that it be a
library which is not completely standalone. But then I don't understand
how
OpenOffice.org can use it for a license, but that's way off topic.
I agree. The incongruity with legal wording is asking for trouble, and
that's certainly not something we wanted.
Then there's ambiguity about the legal status of inline code and macros,
which eCos uses extensively.
Do you mean that the LGPL would restrict the use of inline code and macros
available in eCos headers by proprietary code. Their use by eCos shouldn't
be a problem since it is GPL compatible.
The delineation of where a derived work starts and stops is far more
difficult in the context of inline code and macros. You only have to look
at a GCC intermediate .i file to realise that it can be hard not to
potentially spread the GPL/LGPL terms into application code, and our
absolute goal with the exception is to make clear that (proprietary)
application code is separate from eCos itself. So that's what this aspect
of the exception tackles.
The same issue is faced by libstdc++, and if you look at its license
wording (a different form of GPL + exception) it makes the same allowances.
But it still wasn't quite appropriate literally, or in our opinion, clear.
Altogether that leads to the current license wording.
Thanks for the clarification, I think I understand.
Although the essence of the LGPL is commonly understood, the wording
of the LGPL seems to introduce additional requirements producing a legal
grey zone.
The eCos special exception is much clearer, downside is one
more license to manage.
Indeed. It would be nicer if the FSF had some standard sets of exceptions.
But there'd probably be a philosophical objection to appearing to condone
it (despite it happening all the time with libgcc, libstdc++, GUILE, etc.etc.).
Jifl
--
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
------["The best things in life aren't things."]------ Opinions==mine
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss