On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 01:44:20PM -0400, Isaac Marino Bavaresco wrote:
> I have seen several discussions about this matter and have found that
> indeed the LGPL is not as free as it seems.

The LGPL is exactly as free as it's supposed to be. The problem is that
level of freedom doesn't work for embedded system environments.

> 
> Several sources suggest re-releasing the code under a BSD-style license.
> 
> See http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html
> 
> I will study the BSD license and perhaps I re-release the code under it.

Just understand the consequences of that move. Often the BSD is too lax
whereas the GPL/LGPL are too restrictive.

The likely requirements for a license that you want are as follows:

1) Anyone can use the library in their product without having to release
their source.

2) Anyone that improves the library is required to release the improvements
under the same license as the original library.

Now technically the LGPL meets both of those requirements. However it falls
down when it adds what is known as the relink requirement:

3) The end user must have sufficient resources to update the library to a
newer version if they so choose.

This is what falls down in embedded systems environments where usually the
combination of library and application occurs at the source level. So if
you want to update the library, then you need the source to the
application.

What is needed is a license that is good on 1 and 2 but does not require 3.
None of the contenders so far meet all those requirements. The GPL fails on
1. The BSD fails on 2. The LGPL requires 3 which in general boils down to
failing 1.

So think about your objectives before you release. If you only want free
software to use your code, then the GPL or LGPL is fine. If you don't wish
to get back any updates to you code, then the BSD is fine. It's still
sticky when you want wide usage but continued updates to the library
itself.

Hope this helps,

BAJ
> 
> 
> William "Chops" Westfield escreveu:
> > On Sep 21, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Isaac Bavaresco wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Now I am releasing them under GNU LGPL v3.
> >>
> >
> > So any code that uses them has to be released as open source?
> >
> > Or what did you MEAN to happen when using a GNU license for embedded
> > code that by definition must be statically linked?
> >
> >   :-(
> > BillW
> >
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Fa?a liga??es para outros computadores com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
> http://br.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
> 
> --
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist