[riot-devel] Switch to BSD?

Pekka Nikander pekka.nikander at iki.fi
Sun Mar 22 14:47:21 CET 2015


Dear Emmanuel, all;

Personally, I laud this decision.  It appears reasonable and based on a well founded analysis.

Congratulations, to the whole community!

--Pekka

> On 2015–03–22, at 15:02 , Emmanuel Baccelli <Emmanuel.Baccelli at inria.fr> 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 <http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2869521>_______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at riot-os.org
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.riot-os.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150322/e6a6e4e9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4891 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.riot-os.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150322/e6a6e4e9/attachment.bin>


More information about the devel mailing list