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

[Sebastien Lelong]

Hi guys,

Many thanks to all of you, for your feedback, suggestions and real-life
examples. It's good to hear BSD license is practical neough to be
appropriate in embedded stuff. Even if  this was my own opinion, these
consolidate my thoughts.

I also understand that some of you would prefer to put a license notice (or
abstract) in chips, whereas others would prefer in a documentation (or any
other materials), to save some precious space. Whatever the place, what is
important IMHO is the license says you have to put it somewhere. Some may
not put the notice, without any way to know it. That's just the way it is,
and I'm also ok with this. I just don't want to contribute to a project
released under a license which *explicitely* discards users from giving
credit where it is due (zlib license, for instance).

Anyway, thanks again for all your clarifications.



Oh... BTW:

> I assume that you heard that Atmel *rejected* the Microchip offer?

;) I'm not tied to any microcontrollers, I'm only tied to my curiosity.

Now I'm leaving in peace :)


Cheers, and have fun guys !
Seb
-- 
Sébastien Lelong
http://www.sirloon.net
http://sirbot.org

2008/11/4 Sebastien Lelong <address@hidden>

> 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
>
>