[ECOS] ecos license question.

Fabrice Gautier Fabrice_Gautier@sdesigns.com
Sat Jan 18 02:31:00 GMT 2003


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Larmour [mailto:jifl@eCosCentric.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 3:42 PM
> To: Fabrice Gautier
> Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] ecos license question.
>
> > I strongly think that having two distinct licenses two
> > reflect those 2 situations, is far less confusing
> > that the current scheme, I dont see how it could be harder 
> > to enforce,
> 
> Imagine two different example scenarios:
> 
> You're given a binary. It contains dual-licensed eCos. You don't know 
> whether you are entitled to the source code or not.

How so?

I believe that when someone distribute something that is dual-licensed he
has three options:
1./ Distribute it under MPL
2./ Distribute it under GPL
3./ Distribute it under Dual License MPL/GPL

And I believe that in any case you're entitled to the eCos source code. 

> You're given source code from $SOMEONE (not the main site). It's 
> dual-licensed eCos. You see the dual licence and think you can use it 
> under the MPL, but that someone at some stage introduced GPL code, so 
> actually it's being used illegally. The only solution is to 
> go through every single file.

Same kind of thing goes for eCos license. If $SOMEONE gives you eCos source
code after introducing some pure GPL code, then the whole thing become GPL.
So its now illegal to use it under the eCos license. 

Actually I think one could just take the eCos  source code, and make it pure
GPL without even including any other code.


> > I dont know how anyone will be
> > able to enforce the current license. I dont think just 
> > using the name GPL will make people more conscious about
> > what they do, probably they will be just more scared.
> 
> Good :-).

Hum... now that I know the evil plan i wont be scared anymore. :)

> > but I'm sure there are other arguments, are there ?
> 
> GPL has a good "brand" simply.

Hehe... thats an argument for the GPL, but not one against a dual license
that also has GPL in it.

> It's preferable for people on the err on the side of thinking they
> have to release their code than the other way round.

I think it is preferable when people know exactly what they can do, but in
the case its impossible for them (eg in the gray areas) I think I would
agree with you.

Thanks

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss



More information about the Ecos-discuss mailing list