RFC : Heap management using TLSF

[Tim]

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

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.

http://rtportal.upv.es/rtmalloc/node/9


Cheers,
Tim