This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sourceware.org
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [PATCH] Add Blackfin support in newlib
- From: Robin Getz <rgetz at blackfin dot uclinux dot org>
- To: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at oarcorp dot com>
- Cc: bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de, newlib at sources dot redhat dot com, jzhang918 at gmail dot com
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:23:30 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add Blackfin support in newlib
Did Analog Devices really intend to apply this requirement on people
fielding Blackfin applications using newlib (from LGPL section 6)
Yes - kind of.
We are a small group - always trying to justify our existence, on why we
should give away all the work that we do. I know why we should do it - You
understand, even some of our VP's get it - not everyone.
This is a small way, we can get people who are aware of things to contact
us, and we can put it under a BSD license for them. That was the intent -
so see how many people are actually using things.
A BSD license, where the adverting clause is removed, and a email me for
permission, is added - is even worse in my opinion - there are too many
licenses out there already...
I can't help but believe that the inconsistency is going to lead to users
unwittingly violating the license.
I understand the concern - and the copyright maintainer (ADI) is not going
to go after anyone who is using this on products that they make (kind of
selfish, but we all have to pay rent/eat). If someone bases a different MSA
port on this work (Intel has a MSA Core), I don't want them keeping it
internal (which is what a BSD license would allow).
Thoughts?
-Robin