[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [avr-libc-dev] avr-lib-c-extentions library

From: Weddington, Eric
Subject: RE: [avr-libc-dev] avr-lib-c-extentions library
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 10:19:51 -0700


> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> address@hidden 
> [mailto:address@hidden
> org] On Behalf Of David Brown
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 1:30 AM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] avr-lib-c-extentions library
> Weddington, Eric wrote:
> >> . same license as avr-libc to improve re-usability in closed source
> >>   projects (that's the major distinction from Procyon AVRlib)
> > 
> > I'm open to having the LGPL license on such a library project.
> > (Definitely not the GPL, though.) I can be persuaded to 
> either the BSD
> > or LGPL license.
> > 
> > Eric
> > 
> I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen a couple of open source embedded 
> projects get themselves into trouble by misunderstanding 
> licenses (the 
> LGPL in particular).
> The LGPL is no good for embedded development - it only really differs 
> from the GPL in that you can dynamically link to a LGPL'ed library 
> without any restrictions on the license for the rest of your 
> code.  If 
> you are linking statically, you must GPL (or LGPL) all your code.

You're going to have to back up your claims on this one. I have never
seen, nor heard of such a limitation.

FYI, the libgcc library that ships with GCC, and many times gets linked
into your AVR application, is licensed as LGPL.
Eric Weddington

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]