Developing with RTEMS on the host
russ.haley at gmail.com
Mon Jun 5 07:22:15 UTC 2017
On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Chris Johns <chrisj at rtems.org> wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 13:08, Russell Haley wrote:
>> Sorry for the top post. My understanding is that the license is only applicable to the bootloader code.
> In this case yes and from what I can see it is GPLv2.
>> As there is no linking to the rtems code, it is a non issue unless you modify the bootloader itself.
> If I make a product that contains this bootloader it is my understanding I need
> to make available the source, or make an offer that is valid for 3 years to
> provide the code. If the product is commercial I cannot provide information I
> received as the offer to distribute (3.c of GPLv2).
> This means I need to consult any legal team in the company to clear this
> activity, capture and archive the source code and I suspect inform others in the
> company a request could happen. If there are variants or versions in the field I
> would need to track those against the bootloader's source shipped.
Or you could just provide the license and a link to the project
archives/git account. It's up to someone to prove it's not built using
the original source. And since it IS built using the original source,
and you are NOT linking to it in anyway they wouldn't be getting
themselves very far. We capture our source for all external libraries
anyways because its suicidal not to on embedded products with any life
Anyway, I believe he was looking for a tool to cross build and load
things automagically, not release a new product. Nothing wrong with
using it in his toolchain.
More information about the users