[En-Nut-Discussion] RFC: License Considerations
harald.kipp at egnite.de
Fri Jul 6 10:51:29 CEST 2012
On 05.07.2012 23:20, Ulrich Prinz wrote:
> For STM32 there is no license issue. I have the agreement from STM that
> we may use their code and keep the STM disclaimer in front of the BSD
> header and put everything under BSD.
> That was for the original STM library files. But most of them where
> completely rewritten or optimized in a way that original code is almost
> not existing. So the STM diclaimers have been removed.
There are still several files without BSD license statement, e.g. stm32_rcc.c. No hurry, but this should be sorted out before the official release of Nut/OS 5.
> The next thing is that the chip manufacturers do not want to limit the
> code in any way of usage, open or closed source. Why should they, thei
> want to sell the chips.
_Their_ chips. They don't like their libraries running on competing chips and sometimes limit usage to their own products, which is, of course, incompatible with the BSD license. I have some bad experience with Atmel and I appreciate the decision of STM to grant the BSDL.
> They just do not want to be held responsible for any thing that goes
> wrong with the code. So if you build code for an avionic control board,
> the chip manufacturer is not responsible if the plane crash was caused
> by his software library.
Probably yes. But, as we all know, companies are sold. In worst case to investors, which are no longer interested in its former core business. They may only want to make money from the intellectual property they bought.
More information about the En-Nut-Discussion