<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#cccccc">
On 18/11/2009 13:20, Joel Sherrill wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B03E68D.7000107@oarcorp.com" type="cite">This
software is pure GPL and we have not included pure GPL licensed code in
RTEMS
<br>
because we statically link with proprietary user code and we do not
want the GPL
<br>
to automatically apply to end users.
<br>
</blockquote>
I *know* joel. That is why I stated that appweb license was also
problematic in my first mail...<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B03E68D.7000107@oarcorp.com" type="cite"><br>
Submitters to appweb apparently have to sign a submittal agreement.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.appwebserver.org/developers/contributorsAgreement.html">http://www.appwebserver.org/developers/contributorsAgreement.html</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
Yes. But this also hold for code included in classical GNU project or
when you want to transfer copyright. I remember having to sign a
document to transfer code to GDB at some point in time. If the
maintainer was not doing this he would not have the right to sell the
new code without all copyright owner agreement.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B03E68D.7000107@oarcorp.com" type="cite">FWIW
GoAhead was not GPL.
<br>
</blockquote>
Honestly I do not remember. But I do remember we indeed clarified the
licensing issues.<br>
<br>
-- eric<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>