This is the mail archive of the
ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the eCos project.
Re: PPP status?
- From: Grant Edwards <grante at visi dot com>
- To: Gustav Kälvesten <gustav dot kalvesten at axis dot com>
- Cc: ecos-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:02:24 -0500
- Subject: Re: [ECOS] PPP status?
- References: <B6B64A8D263A4945BB5DCF3F9F400EB4014C6C8C@mailse02.axis.se>
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 04:35:17PM +0200, Gustav Kälvesten wrote:
>
> > > Porting GPL'd code to eCos would violate the GPL license or
> > require eCos to
> > > be GPL'd as well. E.g. the Kaffe port to eCos can not be
> > considered to be
> > > legal.
> >
> > IANAL, but why couldn't GPL'd source code be ported to eCos
> > without violating the license? The GPL doesn't prohibit
> > modifications, it only controls how those modifications are
> > distributed. Porting GPL'd code to eCos then distributing it
> > seperately from eCos as source code shouldn't be a problem,
> > should it?
>
> The GPL'd code "infects" the non-GPL'd code as soon as it's linked
> to it.
>
> That is very hard to avoid in an embedded system such as eCos.
You can ship an embedded system with GPL'd code. You just have
to make source code available for a small fee.
> > Once you start shipping binaries, then things get complicated...
>
> Well, if you will keep the product on your desk I guess no one will care :)
Not a very useful distinction, I know...
--
Grant Edwards
grante@visi.com
--
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss