Licensing options for firmware

Ernest Prabhakar prabhaka at
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is my understanding out of date, or does that not matter for your  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 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
>> requirements
> 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.
> Joel

More information about the License-discuss mailing list