[riot-devel] Switch to BSD?

Matthias Waehlisch m.waehlisch at fu-berlin.de
Fri Apr 10 10:55:08 CEST 2015


Hi,

  same from FU side: we are also fine with keeping LGPL license.



Cheers
  matthias


On Thu, 9 Apr 2015, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote:

> Hi Emmanuel, all,
> 
> forgot to reply on this: We at HAW are fine with keeping LGPL license. So no
> conflict from our side.
> 
> Best,
>  Thomas
> 
> On 22.03.2015 14:02, Emmanuel Baccelli wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > thanks for the input from everyone on this topic. It is a tough case to
> > decide, based on our long and detailed exchanges on this subject.
> > 
> > But it is probably time to conclude. At INRIA, we came up with the
> > following observations:
> > 
> > - there is no enthusiastic majority for a license change to BSD/MIT,
> > 
> > - as solutions competing with RIOT are quasi-exclusively BSD/MIT, (L)GPL
> > is a way to stand out positively.
> > 
> > Concerning this last point, we observed that staying on the (L)GPL side
> > strengthens our position comparing ourselves to Linux -- which has been
> > one of our key non-technical arguments so far.
> > 
> > Furthermore, studies such as [1] show that small companies and start-ups
> > are going to determine IoT. More than bigger companies, such small
> > structures need to spread development and maintenance costs for the
> > kernel and all the software that is not their core business. Our
> > analysis is that this is more compatible with (L)GPL than with BSD/MIT.
> > 
> > We are of the opinion that, compared to BSD/MIT, (L)GPL will improve
> > final user experience, security and privacy, by hindering device
> > lock-down, favoring up-to-date, and field-updgradable code. We think
> > this a more solid base to provide a consistent, compatible,
> > secure-by-default standard system which developers can build upon to
> > create trustworthy IoT applications.
> > 
> > Last but not least, we think that (L)GPL is a better base than BSD/MIT
> > to keep the community united in the mid and long run.
> > 
> > For these reasons, even though we still believe a switch to BSD/MIT
> > would facilitate RIOT's penetration rate initially, we want to continue
> > releasing under LGPLv2.1.
> > 
> > I also want to point out that even though this is basically "status
> > quo", we think this discussion was far from useless, because it helped
> > clarify where we stand, and for what.
> > 
> >  From our point of view, the next steps are now to set up a non-profit
> > legal entity for RIOT, and to put CLAs in place, allowing non-exclusive
> > rights for the code to this legal structure.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Emmanuel
> > 
> > 
> > [1] http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2869521
> 
> 

-- 
Matthias Waehlisch
.  Freie Universitaet Berlin, Inst. fuer Informatik, AG CST
.  Takustr. 9, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
.. mailto:waehlisch at ieee.org .. http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/~waehl
:. Also: http://inet.cpt.haw-hamburg.de .. http://www.link-lab.net




More information about the devel mailing list