On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 11:36 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2015 8:06 PM, "Daniel Gutson" > <daniel.gut...@tallertechnologies.com> wrote: >> >> In the f2fs/jffs2 thread a point about licensing arose. >> Martin mentioned that the original code is part of Linux, assuming >> that it is GPLv2 (we'll check). >> However, Chris asked for a dual licensing scheme in order to include >> it in RTEMS. >> I read in https://www.rtems.org/license/LICENSE "...GNU General Public >> License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version >> 2..." so I'm confused: why should we ask for a dual license? Isn't >> GPLv2 indeed the same RTEMS uses? >> > > The RTEMS version includes an exception paragraph that neuters the viral > nature. See the second paragraph. > > https://www.rtems.org/license/LICENSE
So adding a pure GPLv2 file would turn the entire code base free software... I understand. Then, what licenses are compatible? I imagine Boost for example, or MIT, right? > >> Please explain me. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Daniel. >> >> -- >> >> Daniel F. Gutson >> Chief Engineering Officer, SPD >> >> San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 >> Córdoba, Argentina >> >> Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211 >> Skype: dgutson >> LinkedIn: http://ar.linkedin.com/in/danielgutson >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list >> devel@rtems.org >> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- Daniel F. Gutson Chief Engineering Officer, SPD San Lorenzo 47, 3rd Floor, Office 5 Córdoba, Argentina Phone: +54 351 4217888 / +54 351 4218211 Skype: dgutson LinkedIn: http://ar.linkedin.com/in/danielgutson _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
