lwip-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[lwip-users] RE:Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?


From: Paul Sheer
Subject: [lwip-users] RE:Re: [lwip] Should LwIP go (L)GPL ?
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 23:06:51 -0000

------=_Part_6102_1742217.1034951039721
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I believe the post below misunderstands the issues
completely.

Let me explain:

The BSD license does not require one to submit
work back to the source tree. I myself will not be
bothered to commit changes that will in effect
help other companies make better products that
compete with my product, without requiring
those companies to contribute anything at all.

The GPL license forces changes to be submitted,
but also forces any code that links with LwIP
to also be free. Companies would not be allowed
to create applications based on LwIP and keep
those applications secret from their competetors.
Hence, practically no company would be interested
in this.

The LGPL also forces changes to be submitted,
but allows code to be linked that is proprietary.
So a company can use LwIP and still keep its
applications secret that link with LwIP.

So the logical choice is the LGPL because it
promotes developer contribution, while allowing
companies to create proprietary applications
around it.

To summarize, it would make little difference
to any of the developers on this list if LwIP
increased its restrictiveness to LGPL. But you
are certainly going to loose a lot of help if you
keep with the BSD license.

The reason why the BSD license works well
for other projects is because there is some overriding
non-commercial motivation for working on the code.

At the moment, I believe that the reason LwIP
is not progressing is purely because such motivation
is not there. LwIP needs to switch to the LGPL
in order to progress as a project.

The Wine project had a similar delemer and resisted
(L)GPL until companies blatently plagarized their
work for commercial gain while contributed nothing
back (as was allowed by their license). They finally
saw right and recently switched to the GPL (LGPL ?).

This is an important case in point.

I think the only companies that should object to
the LGPL are those that did not understand what
it meant exactly. So be it if this is a reason not to
switch.

-paul

--------------------

> I think the BSD license works best for most of the real developers:
> they can submit important core changes/additions to lwIP, and
> keep platform/product specific stuff for themselves.
> 
> The mailing list shows enough potential to improve and expand the
> lwIP source tree by some serious submitters. Choosing GPL will
> probably drive away some of these submitters from the project, as
> it is a bit too restrictive for companies to work with.
> 
> As for the people who are violating the BSD license; they will
> probably also violate the GPL license, so I wouldn't expect
> any increase in feedback there.
> 
> In short, I think BSD is a very common-sense license with the
> right attitude for people with the right attitude.

Very well put. Also, SICS does not have any interest in going over to
GPL.

/adam

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]


Powered by World Online - http://www.worldonline.co.za



------=_Part_6102_1742217.1034951039721--

[This message was sent through the lwip discussion list.]




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]