[ECOS] RE : [ECOS] [eCos] Why eCos licence and not LGPL?

Vincent Catros Vincent.Catros@elios-informatique.fr
Tue Mar 16 15:41:00 GMT 2004


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Lunn [mailto:andrew@lunn.ch]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:55 PM
> To: Vincent Catros
> Cc: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: [ECOS] [eCos] Why eCos licence and not LGPL?
> 
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 03:26:20PM +0100, Vincent Catros wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > It seems to me that eCos licence and LGPL are equivalent.
> >
> > Is it true?
> >
> > If yes, why this licence (eCos) has been created insteed of using
LGPL?
> 
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2002-05/msg00206.html

Thanks Andrew to point me there.
I've never paid attention to the fact that work linked with LGPL code
must be released, at least, as object files.

This is effectively a big problem.

Regards.

Vincent


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



More information about the Ecos-discuss mailing list