| Re: [mihini-dev] Mihini Licensing for redistributable runtime parts ? |
|
Hi Martin, Technically I see no prb in doing the switch or even dual licensing. To be honest, I did not do my homework and did not even know we had a choice ! I am all in favor to help adoption so a BSD like license is better I guess. However, Mihini also depends on some third party components which we cannot change license of, of course. I think that they are all BSD compatible though. (Lua and its modules are MIT, some other are BSD) I am curious, how would you leverage Mihini at WindRiver ? Thx, Cuero From: mihini-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mihini-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Oberhuber, Martin Dear Mihini team, hi Benjamin – A new group at WindRiver might be interested leveraging Mihini, but there are concerns that we cannot link EPL code into target runtimes that we sell to our end users. IIRC, a main concern is that end users who have some EPL code in their devices would have to ship a licensing document with the device that gives details about where to obtain source code – and that’s not practical, or even impossible with some devices. For that reason, the EDL (“Eclipse Distribution License”), which is BSD, was defined a couple years ago and we use it in the TCF project for any code that’s meant to be linked into runtimes. In fact, the TCF agent is dual-licensed under EPL + EDL. http://wiki.eclipse.org/TCF#How_is_TCF_licensed.3F Has such a licensing change been considered by Mihini so far ? For us in TCF, it was a key point for getting any serious adoption. And we decided to change the license early, before there’s too many independent contributors … each contributor would have to be asked, therefore a licensing change is much easier when the project is new in Open Source and mostly backed up by a single company. Any thoughts ? Thanks, Martin -- Martin Oberhuber, SMTS / Product Architect – Development Tools, Wind River direct +43.662.457915.85 fax +43.662.457915.6 |