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

[Jonathan Larmour <jlarmour at redhat dot com>]

Fabrice Gautier wrote:
> 
> > -----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.

The GPL says:

-=-=-=-
 However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
-=-=-=-

In the case of eCos the component accompanies the executable. Although I
don't think this case was meant to cover the kernel being GPL'd anyway.

But it all comes down to the definition of a "work based on the Program":
-=-=-=-=-
a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it
-=-=-=-=-

A GPL'd eCos application would contain eCos. A GPL'd Linux application
would not contain Linux.

NB The Linux kernel has this explicit comment at the top of it's COPYING
file:

   NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
 of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".

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

Well of course none of this has been tested in court, but I think you would
be on shaky ground. IANAL of course :-).
 
> 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.

This type of issue has not escaped our attention. In the short term, I
suppose anyone who required a difference licence could approach Red Hat to
arrange a different licence. But in the medium term, being incompatible
with the GPL is untenable. Watch this space.

Jifl
-- 
Red Hat, Rustat House, Clifton Road, Cambridge, UK. Tel: +44 (1223) 271062
Maybe this world is another planet's Hell -Aldous Huxley || Opinions==mine