Freescale HAL licencing + processor selection help

[Chris Johns]

On 17/06/2015 9:54 am, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> This can be true and tends to reflect internal corporate structures in
>> companies than technical reasons. Bringing about change here takes time
>> and patience. I am always positive chip companies want to make and sell
>> devices and we just need to keep reminding them their actions
>> negatively
>> effect us directly and them indirectly.
> 
> I haven't thought it was good practice to be public about vendor licenses but maybe we should consider making a list of vendor licenses we might have interest in, review them, and post our conclusions. Not legal advice obviously but public commentary on the potential problems they cause.
>

I think we are heading in this direction. It needs to be simple to
access and explain the status without being critical. We need to respect
the wishes of the chip makers even if we do not agree.

In the case of an SDK with a covering EULA which is more restrictive
than some of the code it contains a user can agree to the EULA and use
the code and that may suite their use and project. The problem is each
user needs to do the same and that is a waste of effort and time. My
hope is the companies doing this are doing it because the EULA has to
meet the most restrictive part of package and this makes sense. If the
BSD licensed code contained in a package is really a BSD license all the
chip maker needs to do is provide it as a tarball on their web site
without restriction. This does not dilute any EULA issues contained else
where in their package.

> If we do that, we may be able to enlist some help from the other free OS people we have met over the years.

I am happy with this as long as the type of license does not become an
issue.

Chris