RFC : Heap management using TLSF

Tim timcussins at eml.cc
Thu Jul 31 14:59:03 UTC 2008

On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:03 +0200, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> 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


I've already contacted the TLSF team, and they've kindly agreed to
include an exception clause to the TLSF license that permits inclusion
with RTEMS.



More information about the users mailing list