This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: lwip license p.s.
- From: Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>
- To: Jani Monoses <jani at iv dot ro>
- Cc: eCos Maintainers <ecos-maintainers at ecos dot sourceware dot org>,Andrew Lunn <andrew dot lunn at ascom dot ch>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:57:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: lwip license p.s.
- References: <408E18FA.8050504@eCosCentric.com> <email@example.com>
[ maintainers list cc'd ]
Jani Monoses wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:25:30 +0100
Jonathan Larmour <jifl@eCosCentric.com> wrote:
Just by the way, have a look at the thread about lwip and ppp on
ecos-maintainers in the archive from 15th april:
I forgot in the recent mail I sent that ppp requires special treatment.
I read those posts back then and now again. What I understand is that ppp
too can go in ecos but it would have been better if it did not have the adv
Hmmm, I've just had a look myself at
http://savannah.nongnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/lwip/lwip/src/netif/ppp/ I can't
see any file with an advertising clause. Andrew, what files were you
thinking of when you said about the advertising clause before?
Although I am still not usre which files can/should have the GPL header
and which cannot.
This may be a non-issue if there is no advertising clause. If there is an
advertising clause, then the whole lwip package should _not_ be GPL'd. The
GPL is incompatible with the advertising clause.
eCosCentric http://www.eCosCentric.com/ The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine