[ECOS] Are copyright assignments detrimental to eCos?

[Jiri Gaisler]

Using LGPL does not require you ship your firmware as
object files and link later. My understanding of LGPL
is that you can ship proprietary core linked with LGPL
code, without having to open-source the proprietary
code. It is only the modifications of the LGPL code
you must publish, which is exactly what we are after.

Jiri.


Alexander Neundorf wrote:

>> I completely agree with Markus. We are hesitant to contribute our
>> leon2/3 port and drivers because we do not want to have closed-source
>> distributions (e.g. eCos Pro) using our code without contributing
>> back fixes or improvements. The ideal solution would be to license
> 
> So GPL or LGPL would be ok for you ?
> 
>> the eCos code in LGPL. This would allow mixing proprietary applications
>> with the kernel, while force any improvements or bug fixes to be
>> published.
> 
> Well, and it would enforce that company ship their firmware as object files or 
> relinkable static libraries, so that this together with the LGPL part (eCos 
> then) could be relinked to a working firmware image.
> I think that's not a very practical solution.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 

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