Re: question regarding eCos license not covered yet

[Jonathan Larmour <jifl at eCosCentric dot com>]

Fendt Oliver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> my name is Oliver Fendt, I'm working for a Siemens central division,
> currently we want to evaluate eCos, because it seems to be a really
> interesting operating system.
> But when I looked at the license I recognized a point which puzzled me and
> which is not really clear to me, so I want to ask you whether you can
> provide me with some clarification.

Sure, although I should say of course that I Am Not A Lawyer, this is not 
legal advice, etc.etc. :-). But as one of the people who put together the 
license I think I have a good idea....

> Here is my question:
>
> 1. Is the following the correct license:
> eCos is licensed under GPL with the following add on:
> "As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use macros
> or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it
> with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not by
> itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public
> License. However the source code for this file must still be made available
> in accordance with section (3) of the GNU General Public License.
>
> This exception does not invalidate any other reasons why a work based on
> this file might be covered by the GNU General Public License." 
>
> 2. For a first look this add on is really good but if you look deeper on it,
> it might also bring a problem, because of the last sentence
> "This exception does not invalidate any other reasons why a work based on
> this file might be covered by the GNU General Public License."
>
> The GPL says for example in chapter 2
>
> ...If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
> distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
> on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
> this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
> entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
>
> Now the problem is that if I link my drivers and my application to eCos one
> would expect that the GPL does not apply to my code, because of the GPL
> barrier you defined. But in my opinion all my work has to be GPL'd when I
> distribute the drivers statically build in the kernel and all my
> applications when they are statically linked to eCos. Because your GPL
> barrier does not take care of the "distribution clause" of the GPL.
> Furthermore statically linked is not regarded as mere aggregation.
> Can you please help me on that question? And I right or wrong and if I'm
> wrong, why am I wrong?

Because of the exception, the resulting work as a whole is not covered by 
the GPL, and thus distribution makes no difference, because the GPL simply 
does not apply to that resulting work as a whole. In other words the bit 
you quote in the GPL that says "the distribution of the whole must be on 
the terms of this License," is specifically overridden for those parts of 
the eCos source code covered by the eCos license, because of the exception 
in the eCos license.

The purpose of the section: "This exception does not invalidate any other 
reasons why a work based on this file might be covered by the GNU General 
Public License."  is to deal with the situation when you link eCos licensed 
code (GPL+exception) with pure GPL'd code. That's all.

The end result (and very much the intended one) is that you need only 
distribute the source code to the eCos licensed files under the GPL terms 
(although the exception can then still apply if those source code files are 
then linked into another file).

As well as any derived works of those files of course, so for example if 
you do a new port or write a new driver, based on an existing port or 
driver, then even despite heavy modifications it would still be a derived 
work and so source code must be distributed. So your drivers and 
application must have been wholely written from scratch and mustn't have 
used eCos code even only as a starting point.

> Another question I have is regarding the stuff which has to be delivered in
> source form, is it also necessary to deliver the config file of the package
> database if I want to deliver eCos with a binary only driver, where I not
> intend to deliver the sources (assuming that I'm wrong regarding my first
> question ;)).

You're referring to the ecos.ecc file, right? That is a derived work of the 
ecos.db file and the CDL files (it is a work based on those files), which 
are all covered by the eCos license, and so yes that should be delivered.

I hope this helps clarify things!

Jifl
--
eCosCentric    http://www.eCosCentric.com/    The eCos and RedBoot experts
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine