Licensing options for firmware
prabhaka at apple.com
Wed Apr 6 17:55:02 UTC 2005
Hmm. Last I checked the Sleepycat license was not "open source" --
is my understanding out of date, or does that not matter for your
-- Ernie P.
On Apr 6, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Joel West wrote:
> On 9:26 AM -0700 4/6/05, scott at opentrac.org 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
>> 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