[Canfestival-devel] Ad: Re: LGPL in embedded systems (WAS: Re:Porting canfestival to the C2000 and the LGPL in embedded systems)

[<can...@li...>]

Hi,

First off I am no lawyer, but I do not think you need to ask every 
contributor to change the license as long as you have copyright.
For me it looks like people contributing to openstreetmap still has the 
copyright of there work and only license it out to openstreetmap.

Kind Regards

Lars E. Susaas

can...@li... wrote on 19.02.2012 19:41:37:

> Fra:
> 
> can...@li...
> 
> Til:
> 
> can...@li..., 
> 
> Dato:
> 
> 19.02.2012 19:43
> 
> Emne:
> 
> Re: [Canfestival-devel] LGPL in embedded systems (WAS: Re:Porting 
> canfestival to the C2000 and the LGPL in embedded systems)
> 
> Hi Edouard,

> you are right, providing objects and a Makefile is sufficient.

> But i still think that a GPL with linking exception
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
> would be better for embedded systems. In this case you would not have to
> provide the object code and Makefiles.

> A change of license is tricky. Openstreetmap is doing it right now. They
> are asking every contributor. If one contributor denies the new license,
> his data is removed from the database.

> Asking every contributor for this project would be difficult and a lot
> of work. If i'm the only one who would like to have another license, we
> should stick to LGPL

> Christian

> Am Samstag, den 18.02.2012, 13:22 +0100 schrieb
> can...@li...:
> > Hello.
> >
> > FreeRTOS exception applies to GPL, not LGPL.
> >
> > Section 6 constraints distributors to provide object code, not source
> > code. You would just have to provide a Makefile and an 'application.o'
> > file along with your changes in CanFestival to your customers. Section
> > 6c even let you just make an offer to provide those files, and then
> > only do it on customer request, for no more than what it cost...
> >
> > In my opinion, there is no exception needed. Also, how does it work to
> > change license on code coming from multiple developers ? Vote ?
> >
> > Edouard
> >
> >
> > 2012/2/18  <can...@li...>:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > >> > In particular the sticking point is section 6 in LGPL2.1 or
> > >> > section 4.d in LGPL3.  Unless I?m misunderstanding something,
> it seems like
> > >> > I would be required to provide an unlinked version of my 
> application along
> > >> > with the linking tools in order to be LGPL compliant.  Is that 
right?
> > >>
> > >> No idea, sorry.  Anyhow, I believe that if ever one day some "LGPL
> > >> enforcement agent" break your door, you will be able to provide him
> > >> with an application.o and a canfestival.o to prove him you did 
'just'
> > >> link it. But who cares, really ?
> > >
> > > I would like to see the freertos exception (very much) in 
canfestival,
> > > too. I think it would be used more often, then.
> > > At the moment, you violate the LGPL if you link statically to
> > > canfestival and do not provide the whole source of you program.
> > >
> > > -> Please add this exception.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Christian

> 
> 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Virtualization & Cloud Management Using Capacity Planning
> Cloud computing makes use of virtualization - but cloud computing
> also focuses on allowing computing to be delivered as a service.
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51521223/
> _______________________________________________
> Canfestival-devel mailing list
> Can...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/canfestival-devel