[PATCH] Add Blackfin support in newlib

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 18:23 -0400, Robin Getz wrote:
> >Did Analog Devices really intend to apply this requirement on people 
> >fielding Blackfin applications using newlib (from LGPL section 6)
> 
> Yes - kind of.
Then we (rtems) should stay with the policy we had always applied:

The LGPL is not acceptable to us, because it imposes restrictions to
RTEMS and other embedded systems (static linkage), at least we don't
want to impose on users (LGPL/GPL our and their code).

I am bit surprised Jeff seems to be willing to accept the LGPL in case,
despite he had reject other similar submissions in the past. If I were
to decide, I would not accept it.

> 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.
Hmm? People facing technical issues with your code will contact this
list, not you.

> 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?
Well, IMO, you can choose: Having bfin user-base on embedded systems or not.

Ralf