Re: [avr-libc-dev] Open Source license for embedded systems

[Frédéric Nadeau]

Why don't you do like Micro$oft?, hide the acknoledgement in your binary.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=BSD%20Code%20in%20Windows

It does however use some code space, but heck, sure you can spare 200
bytes for that :)

I do not encourage it, but it is sure an alternative to having the
acknowledgement in the manual.

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Sebastien Lelong
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Dear AVR guys,
>
>
> I'm here to ask you some feedback about using an open source license for
> embedded systems, particularly the BSD license. I'm currently working on a
> project, jallib, trying to build a set of libraries, compatible with jalv2
> compiler, target chips being Microchip PICs (but I come here in peace :)).
>
> jallib is licensed under BSD. We've released the first beta version few days
> ago, and several license issues came to the surface... It appears one clause
> in the BSD license may not be appropriate for embedded systems. It says:
>
> "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
> and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
>
> The problem here is the programmed chips, which are considered as binary
> forms. So here are my questions:
>
>  1. first of all, do you think programmed chips are binary forms (I do), and
> thus should follow the BSD rules ?
>  2. in that case, how do you deal with the redistribution ? Should they
> reproduce the copyright notice, as stated in the license ?
>  3. is there anybody using avr-libc in commercial projects ? Has BSD too
> much restrictions for commercial products in the embedded world, or is it an
> appropriate license ? If possible, I'd like to have some feedback both from
> developers and people using it in commercial products...
>  4. Combining 2. and 3., how the redistribution, with the copyright notice,
> is done ? On a bill ? On a website ?
>
> Here are the two main arguments we're currently discussing:
>
>  1. BSD license has too much restrictions, because it forces users to
> distribute a copyright notice when distributing/selling programmed chips. A
> zlib license is more appropriate, because reproducing the copyright notice
> when distributing programmed chips is not mandatory in this case.
>
>  2. BSD is an appropriate license to distribute programmed chips.
> Distributing/selling programmed chips requires the copyright notice to be
> reproduced, but that's a restriction people have to deal with if they want
> to use it.
>
> I'm 100% in favor of argument 2.: I consider when using Open Source software
> or libraries, you have to accept restrictions, one of these being : "give
> credit where credit is due". But people in argument 1. say reproducing a
> copyright notice is not possible, and/or don't think programmed chips should
> require to give credit (while considering them as binary forms), and say
> BSD, as many other OS licenses, is not designed for the embedded world.
>
> What's your opinion on this ? How did you deal with this ?
>
> You may say it's not related to your project, which I fully understand. I
> tried to find several open source projects doing the same, and this one
> appears to have a lot of similarities, so here I am. I would be very
> grateful if you could give me some feedback on this, even if it's not
> directly related to your project.
>
> Some links as references:
>
>  * jallib: http://code.google.com/p/jallib/
>  * jallist topic talking about license issues (long):
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jallist/message/25915
>
> Let me know if you need any other information. Many thanks in advance for
> your help and feedback.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Seb
> --
> Sébastien Lelong
> http://www.sirloon.net
> http://sirbot.org
> _______________________________________________
> AVR-libc-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-libc-dev
>