This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sourceware.org
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: Project ideas for graduate course
Hi Andrew,
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Andrew Lunn wrote:
IANAL, but i would want to take a close look at the license agreement
before using this software.
Me neither, but put in human words, the license agreement is there to
ensure 'derived software' (as defined in GPL) stays compatible with
the (open) EtherCAT standard and assures you won't suffer from patent
claims in case it does.
Also, it is GPL, which is probably not what you want.
Who do you mean with 'you'? - IIRC the OP was asking for ideas for projects
to be conducted by
graduate students, so I don't see why they would object agains the GPL.
- We (FMTC) wrote and open sourced the code
- As stated on the website, interested companies wishing to use this
for closed products can obtain a LGPL version against a license fee.
I mean "you" as in anybody wishing to use eCos and EtherCat. The
problem is that it forces the application to be GPL. Most uses of eCos
are in commercial products. Having eCos use "GPL+exception" is
O.K. because it does not force the application to be
GPL+exception. That is what the exception is for. The application,
which contains all the IP, can remain closed. However once you make
use of this GPL code, your application becomes GPL and you have to
give the sources away. Most people using eCos would not like this.
How many open source eCos applications do you know of?
Close source application then need to use the LGPL version. However,
this i don't understand. Since it is LGPL, what is to stop a customer
buying the LGPL version and then distribute the sources under LGPL? It
seems like to me, if you are selling a version for closed source
applications you would use a closed source license to stop it being
redistributed.
I'm not sure (again :-) what you mean by "customer":
- a customer of FMTC that wants to sell a (closed source) product
based on eCos + EML pays a licence fee to FMTC, obtains a LGPL
version of EML and can create a closed source product, right? If
they want, they can modify the EML code [Let's call this customer
CustomerFoo]
Note: the LGPL version is exactly the same codebase, only provided a
with a different license. That code is "in the open" anyway with a
GPL license, so why would we object against CustomerFoo
redistributing the code.
- a customer of CustomerFoo buys a closed source product. That's it.
The GPL code is also licensed under another license at the same time
as being GPL. This i don't understand. How can it be GPL and something
else at the same time. This is where i would want copyright lawyers to
take a close look.
As I said, IANAL either :-), the exact "wording" from the license
comes from lawyers@beckhoff. However, as I understand it (and that
was the spirit of the license), you can consider it exactly the same
mechanism as above where you state that eCos is licensed under GPL
_plus_ exception. EML is GPL (or LGPL) + exception too, and the
exception says that derived code should be compliant with the EtherCAT
standard (in case you distribute/sell it, that is). So you should
consider the 2 licences as being complementary, not being something
else.
Klaas
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss