[ECOS] Re: eCos version 2.0 is a GPL-compatible Free Software license

[Peter Vandenabeele <peter dot vandenabeele at mind dot be>]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 12:42:14PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Sorry, I'm blocking on Eben here.  While I was going to ping him about
> it, I realized that we don't have a good link for the new license.  I
> googled around a bit, but couldn't find one.  Do you have one?

David,

The license is to my knowledge not "published" since the last time I 
looked, the official (not actively maintained) Red Hat site still has 
the old license. The new license is in all the packages that you can 
download.

That is why I have included the license in my original request
(see below).

Thanks for looking into this,

Peter

> On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 14:04, Peter Vandenabeele wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > The current version of the GNU licensing page about free software 
> > licenses, non-free licenses etc. still mentions:
> > 
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
> > 
> >   ...
> > 
> >   The following licenses do not qualify as free software licenses. A non-free 
> >   license is automatically incompatible with the GNU GPL.
> > 
> >   ...
> >   
> >   eCos Public License
> >       This was the old license of eCos. It is not a free software license, because 
> >       it requires sending every published modified version to a specific initial 
> >       developer. There are also some other words in this license whose meaning 
> >       we're not sure of that might also be problematic.
> > 
> >       Today eCos is available under the GNU GPL with additional permission for 
> >       linking with non-free programs. 
> > 
> > However, a time ago I sent a request to the Free Software Foundation
> > to take a new look on the new version 2.0 license and recently we received
> > this response from Mr. David Turner on that matter (which I take as good 
> > news).
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > Date: 11 Nov 2002 13:05:14 -0500
> > > From: David Turner <novalis@gnu.org>
> > > To: Alexandre.Dulaunoy@ael.be
> > > Subject: Re: [Activists-ael] Organizational issues (fwd)
> > > 
> > > Yes, we agree that this is a GPL-compatible Free Software license. 
> > > However, I haven't yet had the will to push through the changes to the
> > > license list -- this is a bit of a process.  I will start that now.
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 2002-11-09 at 11:07, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> > > > Hello David,
> > > > 
> > > > I  forward  you  an  issue   regarding  the  new  ecos  license  (from
> > > > RHAT). This is a standby question  from two activists at AEL. Have you
> > > > already discussed the matter at FSF ? 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks a lot. 
> > > > 
> > > > adulau
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > --			      Alexandre Dulaunoy -- http://www.foo.be/
> > > > --         http://pgp.ael.be:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x44E6CBCD
> > > > "People who fight may lose.People who do not fight have already lost." 
> > > > 							Bertolt Brecht
> > 
> > [...]
> >  
> > > > From: Peter Vandenabeele <peter.vandenabeele@mind.be>
> > > > To: licensing@gnu.org
> > > > Cc: Peter Vandenabeele <peter.vandenabeele@mind.be>
> > > > Subject: your vision on the eCos 2.0 license; gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
> > > > Date: 28 Sep 2002 15:20:19 +0200
> > > > 
> > > > Dear Sir,
> > > > 
> > > > I kindly request your review of the eCos 2.0 license, in relation to analysis
> > > > made of different alternative Free Software and proprietary licenses mentioned
> > > > on the page:
> > > > 
> > > >   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
> > > > 
> > > > Your current comment on the eCos 1.3 license is correct, but please note that
> > > > eCos 2.0 was licensed by Red Hat under a new license, that I have copied below 
> > > > for your reference:
> > > > 
> > > > //####ECOSGPLCOPYRIGHTBEGIN####
> > > > // -------------------------------------------
> > > > // This file is part of eCos, the Embedded Configurable Operating System.
> > > > // Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Red Hat, Inc.
> > > > //
> > > > // eCos is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under
> > > > // the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free
> > > > // Software Foundation; either version 2 or (at your option) any later version.
> > > > //
> > > > // eCos is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY
> > > > // WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
> > > > // FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License
> > > > // for more details.
> > > > //
> > > > // You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along
> > > > // with eCos; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
> > > > // 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA.
> > > > //
> > > > // As a special exception, if other files instantiate templates or use macros
> > > > // or inline functions from this file, or you compile this file and link it
> > > > // with other works to produce a work based on this file, this file does not
> > > > // by itself cause the resulting work to be covered by the GNU General Public
> > > > // License. However the source code for this file must still be made available
> > > > // in accordance with section (3) of the GNU General Public License.
> > > > //
> > > > // This exception does not invalidate any other reasons why a work based on
> > > > // this file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
> > > > //
> > > > // Alternative licenses for eCos may be arranged by contacting Red Hat, Inc.
> > > > // at http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/ecos-license/
> > > > // -------------------------------------------
> > > > //####ECOSGPLCOPYRIGHTEND####
> > > > 
> > > > To my review, this would qualify the license on eCos 2.0 as a "Free Software"
> > > > license, compatible with Free Software, but with a weak Copyleft.
> > > >                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > >                          GNU GPL
> > > > 
> > > > In a recent discussion on the matter on the ecos-discuss mailing list, I 
> > > > posted the statement below (http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2002-09/).
> > > > The whole discussion started around the issue or Copyright Assignment to 
> > > > Red Hat (http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2002-09/msg00302.html)
> > > > that set-off a debate on this and the eCos 2.0 license. This is now continued
> > > > under the thread 
> > > > (http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss/2002-09/msg00398.html):
> > > > 
> > > >  "The ECOS 2.0 license also allows for proprietary applications, linked with
> > > >   eCos as a library. This is exactly the point of the modifications of the
> > > >   ECOS 2.0 license with respect to GPL: of cleary defining and limiting the
> > > >   scope of Copyleft. A universal advantage of the _clear definition_, is that
> > > >   it avoids some potential discussions over the "whole work" concept as
> > > >   worded in the GPL. The mention to not being allowed to link from a non-GPL
> > > >   work to a GPL library is only mentioned as a comment on the end, that points
> > > >   to the LGPL license that could be used if that is your intention. The base
> > > >   concept that is named in article 2 of GPL 2.0 is much more general in the
> > > >   sense that, if some part of the "whole work" was received under a GPL
> > > >   license, the whole work can only be redistributed as GPL.
> > > > 
> > > >   From the GPL 2.0 license:
> > > >   
> > > >     These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
> > > >     identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> > > >     and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> > > >     themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> > > >     sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
> > > >     distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
> > > >     on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
> > > >     this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
> > > >     entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
> > > >     it.
> > > > 
> > > >   The _limitation_ of the scope of Copyleft in the ECOS 2.0 license to not
> > > >   include others works through linking, is not a general advantage, but
> > > >   a deliberate "political" choice, to allow practical commercial use of eCos.
> > > >   Some people will be in favor, others will object it, based on political
> > > >   views of how "Free Software" should be promoted best. My personal view
> > > >   (for what its worth), is that in this context of embedded systems, the
> > > >   ECOS 2.0 license makes a lot of sense."
> > > > 
> > > > I you wish to reply to the ecos-discussion list, with your review of the
> > > > eCos 2.0 license, the address is: ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> > > > 
> > > > Sincerely,
> > > > 
> > > > Peter Vandenabeele
> > > > Mind (http://mind.be)
> > > > ----
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > -- 
> > > -Dave "Novalis" Turner
> > > Free Software Licensing Guru
> > > Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Activists-ael mailing list
> > > Activists-ael@ael.be
> > > http://www.ael.be/mailman/listinfo/activists-ael
> > > 
> > -- 
> > Mind: Embedded Linux, eCos and JVM Development in Europe
> > Mind (http://mind.be)              tel:  +32-16-30.96.66
> -- 
> -Dave Turner
> GPL Compliance Engineer
> Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://sources.redhat.com/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/ecos-discuss