[avr-libc-dev] Open Source license for embedded systems

[Sebastien Lelong]

Dear AVR guys,


I'm here to ask you some feedback about using an open source license for
embedded systems, particularly the BSD license. I'm currently working on a
project, jallib, trying to build a set of libraries, compatible with jalv2
compiler, target chips being Microchip PICs (but I come here in peace :)).

jallib is licensed under BSD. We've released the first beta version few days
ago, and several license issues came to the surface... It appears one clause
in the BSD license may not be appropriate for embedded systems. It says:

"Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

The problem here is the programmed chips, which are considered as binary
forms. So here are my questions:

 1. first of all, do you think programmed chips are binary forms (I do), and
thus should follow the BSD rules ?
 2. in that case, how do you deal with the redistribution ? Should they
reproduce the copyright notice, as stated in the license ?
 3. is there anybody using avr-libc in commercial projects ? Has BSD too
much restrictions for commercial products in the embedded world, or is it an
appropriate license ? If possible, I'd like to have some feedback both from
developers and people using it in commercial products...
 4. Combining 2. and 3., how the redistribution, with the copyright notice,
is done ? On a bill ? On a website ?

Here are the two main arguments we're currently discussing:

 1. BSD license has too much restrictions, because it forces users to
distribute a copyright notice when distributing/selling programmed chips. A
zlib license is more appropriate, because reproducing the copyright notice
when distributing programmed chips is not mandatory in this case.

 2. BSD is an appropriate license to distribute programmed chips.
Distributing/selling programmed chips requires the copyright notice to be
reproduced, but that's a restriction people have to deal with if they want
to use it.

I'm 100% in favor of argument 2.: I consider when using Open Source software
or libraries, you have to accept restrictions, one of these being : "give
credit where credit is due". But people in argument 1. say reproducing a
copyright notice is not possible, and/or don't think programmed chips should
require to give credit (while considering them as binary forms), and say
BSD, as many other OS licenses, is not designed for the embedded world.

What's your opinion on this ? How did you deal with this ?

You may say it's not related to your project, which I fully understand. I
tried to find several open source projects doing the same, and this one
appears to have a lot of similarities, so here I am. I would be very
grateful if you could give me some feedback on this, even if it's not
directly related to your project.

Some links as references:

 * jallib: http://code.google.com/p/jallib/
 * jallist topic talking about license issues (long):
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jallist/message/25915

Let me know if you need any other information. Many thanks in advance for
your help and feedback.


Cheers,
Seb
-- 
Sébastien Lelong
http://www.sirloon.net
http://sirbot.org