Licensing options for firmware

Joel West svosrp at
Wed Apr 6 16:49:55 UTC 2005

On 9:26 AM -0700 4/6/05, scott at doth scribe:
>I read over the paper, and it seems to me that the key in dual licensing is
>the requirement for code sharing under the free license.  In my case, this
>has no teeth - my code would almost certainly be used in a separate module,
>probably connected to the rest of the device through a header or flex cable
>jumper.  The interface with the radio's controller, if any, would be a
>simple serial link.

I don't know your situation, but it sounds like a realistic interpretation.

>2. When used as a module or subassembly of a larger device, the whole device
>will be considered a combined work, subject to the same disclosure

This sounds fairly similar to the goals of the Sleepycat license. BTW the Sleepycat license is a lot shorter than most and thus easier to understand.

If you are looking to implement #2, perhaps you should start from the Sleepycat license and ask a lawyer if it would meet your goals, or, if not, what changes are necessary.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list