Re: Results of "downloading compressed program images" request

[Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>]

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Robert J. Brown wrote:

> Why does an embedded system impose special considerations for
> licensing?  If you are concerned about distribution in binary only
> form, this is allowed, provided that you give a reference to where the 
> source may be found.  If you make the compression routine a seperate
> task and tie it in with a pipeline, then you need not coply with the
> GPL for the rest of your system, so what is the problem?

Someone else may be able to give a better explanation but let's take the
Every discussion I have ever seen of the LGPL on-line says that if you
use an LGPL'ed library in your application, then you must provide
the proprietary part of your application in a form such that it
can be relinked against the LGPL'ed code.  This allows the user
to modify the support code your application depends upon.  If you
think about this a while, you will realize that it means that a
user can potentially relink your application, break it, and sue you
for damages.  They are morally at fault and you may win but will
end up bankrupt defending yourself.

If this perspective is not right, then why does support code like
libgcc.a and the gnat run-time come with disclaimers that linking
that code in your application does not impose any restrictions on
you.

LGPL for example.  I have assumed for so long that the GPL is
inappropriate for libraries and link-in code, that I have forgotten
why it is not appropriate.  Someone on this group should be
able to comment.

I am sure others on the list can offer better explanations.  If I am
wrong, I would be happy to be corrected.  RTEMS is not under the vanilla
GPL because the team viewed it as burdensome for fielded applications.
That is why versions up to 3.6.0 use a BSD-ish style license.  The
upcoming release uses a license like the gnat run-time and libgcc.

>     Joel> I dismissed kermit because I remembered that it could not be
>     Joel> included in Linux distributions because of the licensing.
>     Joel> That leads me to believe that its license is too restrictive
>     Joel> for my purposes.
> 
> I think I commented that I did not remember the details here.  Is it
> that each user of Kermit must download his own copy, or what?

I was a bit lazy for not looking this up.  I should have been more
diligent.  The license terms found on
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/aaxcom.html seem clear to me that you
should not user kermit without obtaining written permission.  Here is an
excerpt from their license which I think makes the Linux situation very
clear:

"Kermit software may not be distributed, remarketed, bundled, embedded,
adapted, given away, or otherwise redistributed by commercial enterprises
to their customers, clients, or prospective clients without written
permission from the Office of Kermit Development and Distribution at
Columbia University, which will be granted under the conditions enumerated
in this document. Commercial distribution includes, but is not necessarily
limited to, bundling of Kermit software with hardware or software
products; furnishing Kermit software to institutions, government agencies,
or corporations under contract; including Kermit software on CD-ROM
distributions of any kind; inclusion of Kermit software by Internet Access
Providers in software kits provided to their customers; embedding of
Kermit software in industry-specific applications such as medical claims
submission packages;  or any other arrangement in which Kermit software is
furnished to customers, clients, or prospective clients for any purpose. " 

--joel
Joel Sherrill                    Director of Research & Development
joel@OARcorp.com                 On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
   Support Available             (205) 722-9985