RFC : Heap management using TLSF

[Pavel Pisa]

On Wednesday 23 July 2008 07:43:57 pm Keith Robertson wrote:
> Chris Caudle wrote:
> > Is LGPL compatible to ship with the GPL-plus-exceptions license of RTEMS?
> > I have to admit, I'm not quite clear on what the difference is between
> > RTEMS variant of GPL and LGPL, or why RTEMS did not use LGPL.  Is it
> > historical, e.g. LGPL did not exist at the time the decision was made?
>
> I seem to recall that a member of the list (possibly Pavel?) knew the
> author of TLSF and thought that if there was a licensing problem, the
> author may be willing to relicense it under an rtems compatible license.
>
> As an aside, I too would be interested to understand the difference
> between LGPL and GPL + rtems exception.

Hello Alfons and Ismael,

there is discussion on malloc implementation replacement in
RTEMS community again and your TLSF is considered as good
choice. As you know, I am strong supporter of TLSF and I promoted
its use in RTEMS long time ago, but nobody (including me) have not
found time to try that. But may it be, that this time there
would be more luck.

There is one question regarding TLSF licensing. The RTEMS core
is published under GPL with exception which allows linking
of public/GPL licensed code to be statically linked with applications,
because RTEMS is typically used as single image system
(core+application).

Do you agree to add next exception to TLSF GPL license
into TLSF copy included or adapted for RTEMS?

| As a special exception, including RTEMS header files in a file,
| instantiating RTEMS generics or templates, or linking other files
| with RTEMS objects to produce an executable application, does not
| by itself cause the resulting executable application to be covered
| by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not
| however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be
| covered by the GNU Public License.

I am not sure, which kind of the possible confirmation considered
as mandatory by Joel.
To Joel: Is PGP signed mail by authors enough?

Thanks for reply in advance,

                        Pavel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.rtems.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20080731/71dd32a4/attachment-0001.bin>