lwip-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [lwip-users] License compliance without customer confusion


From: Jonathan Larmour
Subject: Re: [lwip-users] License compliance without customer confusion
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 12:10:48 +0000
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070530)

Timmy Brolin wrote:
> Jonathan Larmour wrote:
>> Timmy Brolin wrote:
>>   
>>> I have been thinking about how a manufacturer of a embedded system which
>>> includes the lwip stack can comply with the BSD-license without
>>> confusing its customers.
>>> The license is written assuming distribution in software form, binary or
>>> source code. It is not really written with distribution as part of a
>>> piece of hardware in mind.
>>> The first two conditions of the license are not valid for a embedded
>>> system since further distribution is not really possible,
>>>     
>>
>> Well, the first doesn't apply as that's for source form only. But the
>> second condition does - it is being distributed in binary form.
>>   
> Yes, it is, but the customer of the embedded device will not be able to
> distribute it further. Well, with the exception of selling the device
> itself second hand of course.

Exactly so.

> My point is that to people who are not familiar with BSD-style licenses,
> the text in the license will sound very strange when put into context of
> a hardware device.

But it contains software. If it helps you could include in your preamble to
the license "This product contains software which......"


>>> I assume several people on this mailing list are in fact producing
>>> embedded systems containing lwip code. How do you comply with the
>>> license without confusing your customers?
>>>     
>>
>> That's what smallprint is for. Direct customers' attention to what matters,
>> and put the items they need to be informed about but aren't as equally
>> important in the smallprint.
>>
>> Jifl
>>   
> So the solution is to use smallprint so that the customer does not read
> the confusing text. :-)

Well, so they know that it probably isn't important for them to read for
day-to-day use certainly :-) - but is there should they ever be interested
in knowing (and there for proper acknowledgement).

Have you ever read the Microsoft EULAs in their entirety? Somewhere in
there are BSD licensed code too. :-)

Jifl
-- 
eCosCentric Limited      http://www.eCosCentric.com/     The eCos experts
 **  Visit us at ESC Silicon Valley <http://www.embedded.com/esc/sv>  **
 **  April 15-17 2008, Booth 3012, San Jose McEnery Convention Center **
Barnwell House, Barnwell Drive, Cambridge, UK.       Tel: +44 1223 245571
Registered in England and Wales: Reg No 4422071.
------["Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere"]------       Opinions==mine




reply via email to

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