[riot-users] [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?

Pierre Ficheux pierre.ficheux at openwide.fr
Thu Dec 4 17:54:01 CET 2014


Hi, 

LGPL is much different (then pure GPL) as you can link your - proprietary - code with RIOT kernel. Do you mean
they plan to write proprietary code for RIOT ?

What's the real problem for companies? Linux Glibc is LGPL and everybody uss it without  problem.

regards

----- Mail original -----
> De: "Emmanuel Baccelli" <Emmanuel.Baccelli at inria.fr>
> À: "RIOT OS users list" <users at riot-os.org>
> Envoyé: Jeudi 4 Décembre 2014 17:42:57
> Objet: Re: [riot-users] [riot-devel] Switch to BSD?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi again everyone,
> 
> 
> If we're going for a license that is less restrictive than LGPL, it
> does indeed make sense to consider alternatives such as Apache and
> MIT -- and not only BSD.
> 
> 
> However, I think we need to distinguish between two aspects:
> - the ideas
> - the effects in practice
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we consider moving away from LGPL is because, although the
> *idea* of GPL is great, its *effect* is a problem for us in
> practice. Experience so far shows LGPL is stopping RIOT adoption for
> too many companies we interact with.
> 
> 
> So where I'm getting at is: we need to make sure that we don't fall
> into the same trap with a new license. For example: if the idea of
> Apache seems better to us, but it turns out that in practice most
> companies we interact with do not want to read the term "patent" in
> the license, we're back to square one, which may or may not be what
> we want [1]. Let's assume it's not what we want.
> 
> 
> For the moment, surprisingly, I have not heard any company rant
> against BSD -- quite the contrary in fact. So while BSD may be
> considered old and incomplete, it is still a strong contender in my
> opinion.
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree that the idea of the Apache license seems better,
> indeed. But let's check what IoT company (lawyers) think about the
> Apache license. I think we have to assess whether or not Apache is,
> in our case, yet another "good idea" which turns out to be a
> show-stopper in practice.
> 
> 
> Caveat: IANAL -- a funnily appropriate acronym I just saw in a
> related post [2]. If anyone has professional or personal ties with
> an IoT company lawyer, please do not hesitate to chip in at this
> point.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Emmanuel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Note that we could also choose to stay in square one, and
> dedicate time/energy to fight for the idea. But in my opinion, we
> have to choose our battles: our plates are already full with other
> things that none other than us fight for (i.e. RIOT adoption &
> quality IoT code ;).
> 
> 
> 
> [2]
> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/40561/is-bsd-license-compatible-with-apache
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Emmanuel Baccelli <
> Emmanuel.Baccelli at inria.fr > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi again everyone,
> 
> 
> If we're going for a license that is less restrictive than LGPL, it
> does indeed make sense to consider alternatives such as Apache and
> MIT -- and not only BSD.
> 
> 
> However, I think we need to distinguish between two aspects:
> - the ideas
> - the effects in practice
> 
> 
> 
> The reason we consider moving away from LGPL is because, although the
> *idea* of GPL is great, its *effect* is a problem for us in
> practice. Experience so far shows LGPL is stopping RIOT adoption for
> too many companies we interact with.
> 
> 
> So where I'm getting at is: we need to make sure that we don't fall
> into the same trap with a new license. For example: if the idea of
> Apache seems better to us, but it turns out that in practice most
> companies we interact with do not want to read the term "patent" in
> the license, we're back to square one, which may or may not be what
> we want [1]. Let's assume it's not what we want.
> 
> 
> For the moment, surprisingly, I have not heard any company rant
> against BSD -- quite the contrary in fact. So while BSD may be
> considered old and incomplete, it is still a strong contender in my
> opinion.
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree that the idea of the Apache license seems better,
> indeed. But let's check what IoT company (lawyers) think about the
> Apache license. I think we have to assess whether or not Apache is,
> in our case, yet another "good idea" which turns out to be a
> show-stopper in practice.
> 
> 
> Caveat: IANAL -- a funnily appropriate acronym I just saw in a
> related post [2]. If anyone has professional or personal ties with
> an IoT company lawyer, please do not hesitate to chip in at this
> point.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> Emmanuel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Note that we could also choose to stay in square one, and
> dedicate time/energy to fight for the idea. But in my opinion, we
> have to choose our battles: our plates are already full with other
> things that none other than us fight for (i.e. RIOT adoption &
> quality IoT code ;).
> 
> 
> 
> [2]
> http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/40561/is-bsd-license-compatible-with-apache
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Joakim Gebart <
> joakim.gebart at eistec.se > wrote:
> 
> 
> I am also very much in favor of using a license which requires
> openness but like Adam said, in the embedded world it is quite common
> that changes will be necessary in order to support some hardware
> configuration. Additionally, the interpretation that we would need
> dynamic linking in order to comply with the license without opening
> up
> all application code makes this a quite important question.
> 
> Companies are not always willing or even able (because of patents,
> NDAs or other contracts) to release the source of proprietary
> applications. The use of LGPL in RIOT has been the source of some
> discussion between me and my colleagues and I hope to see some other
> license in the future where it is possible to still distribute
> proprietary applications that run on RIOT.
> 
> Eistec (see www.eistec.se ) generally has the policy that anything
> related to the platform and OS (cpu drivers, device drivers, etc)
> will
> be sent upstream to related OSS projects, mainly RIOT and Contiki for
> now (but we have also provided some patches for other tools we use,
> such as OpenOCD), but we usually want to keep application code
> (algorithms, higher level service implementations etc.) proprietary.
> Since we work as a consulting firm it is also common that we do not
> own the code to the applications themselves but have to negotiate
> with
> the client on what parts to release, clients are usually fine with
> sharing bug fixes and low level driver and OS code with upstream.
> So far we have only used Contiki commercially but I personally would
> like to see that change in the future, but for now I think the risk
> of
> ending up in a situation where someone can demand any proprietary
> application code from us makes this a bit too dangerous.
> 
> This is my personal view on the license situation, but I know that
> many of the people I work with share this concern.
> 
> Best regards
> Joakim Gebart
> Managing Director
> Eistec AB
> 
> Aurorum 1C
> 977 75 Luleå
> Tel: +46(0)730-65 13 83
> joakim.gebart at eistec.se
> www.eistec.se
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Adam Hunt < voxadam at gmail.com >
> wrote:
> > While I've been a fervent supporter of the GPL for many years I'm
> > on board
> > with a change to a simple BSD or MIT style license. Initially I was
> > skeptical about the need to move away from the LGPL but in the
> > world of
> > embedded systems it's very common to make changes to the core
> > codebase in
> > order to work on various platforms. Under the LGPL such changes
> > would have
> > to be tracked, checked for IP conflicts, and made available. This
> > requirement may very well end up being so onerous that it may vary
> > well push
> > companies to adopt a more suitably licensed alternative over RIOT.
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014, 2:14 PM Thomas Watteyne <
> > watteyne at eecs.berkeley.edu >
> > wrote:
> >> 
> >> Emmanuel,
> >> I support the change to BSD. One of the reasons is that OpenWSN is
> >> also on
> >> BSD, so integration of the different code bases might be easier
> >> when both
> >> have the same license.
> >> Thomas
> >> 
> >> On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, Emmanuel Baccelli
> >> < Emmanuel.Baccelli at inria.fr > wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Dear RIOTers,
> >>> 
> >>> we have been receiving an increasing amount of negative feedback
> >>> from
> >>> various companies concerning the practical usability of our LGPL
> >>> license in
> >>> their context, being a show-stopper.
> >>> 
> >>> For this reason, INRIA, Freie Universitaet (FU) Berlin and
> >>> Hamburg
> >>> University of Applied Science (HAW) are currently considering
> >>> changing the
> >>> license of their contributions to RIOT to a less restrictive
> >>> license (i.e.
> >>> BSD, potentially as soon as next release).
> >>> 
> >>> Such a switch to BSD is betting that the effect of a potentially
> >>> smaller
> >>> percentage of user/devel contributing back to the master branch
> >>> will be
> >>> dwarfed by the effect of a user/devel community growing much
> >>> bigger and
> >>> quicker. This seems doable considering the current momentum
> >>> around RIOT.
> >>> 
> >>> In a second phase, if such a license switch takes place for
> >>> INRIA/FU/HAW
> >>> contributions, we would then contact other contributors
> >>> individually, to
> >>> check their status concerning a similar switch for their own
> >>> contributions.
> >>> 
> >>> But in the first place, we would like to debate this topic. In
> >>> particular: is anyone violently opposing the idea of migrating to
> >>> a less
> >>> restrictive license, such as BSD? If so, why? On the other hand,
> >>> if you
> >>> explicitly support the license change, feel free to indicate this
> >>> as well.
> >>> Please send your opinion to the list before Dec. 10th.
> >>> 
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> 
> >>> Emmanuel
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> devel mailing list
> >> devel at riot-os.org
> >> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list
> > devel at riot-os.org
> > http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at riot-os.org
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at riot-os.org
> http://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 

-- 
Pierre FICHEUX -/- CTO OW/OWI, France -\- pierre.ficheux at openwide.fr
                                         http://ingenierie.openwide.fr
                                         http://www.linuxembedded.fr
I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code


More information about the users mailing list