3 ms·

No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different. I think that added restriction actually make

No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different. I think that added restriction actually makes it GPL incompatible, and disqualifies it from being an actual open source license.

comex 10y ago
I guess it depends on how you interpret this clause: > Linking FreeRTOS with other modules is making a combined work based on FreeRTOS. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License V2 cover the whole combination. Does this mean the combination (which could be a trivial combination) can be licensed under the pure GPLv2, or is it just an explanation of the consequences of "combined work", and "the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License V2" is actually intended to mean the modified version thereof?
- slavik81 10y ago
  That's a good point. I would think they meant with the exception, because their first sentence is very clear: > Any FreeRTOS source code, whether modified or in it's original release form, or whether in whole or in part, can only be distributed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License plus this exception. The "thus" in your quote also seems to imply it's a clarification of the consequences of previous rules, not a new rule itself. But, IANAL.
cyphar 10y ago
> No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different. Then they actually are not allowed to call it the "GNU General Public License" (or in fact, they are not allowed to modify the license terms). It's the first condition in the license text of the GPL, I'm surprised their lawyers didn't notice that little chestnut.
- slavik81 10y ago
  You clearly have a better understanding of this issue than I do. My reading was that they were calling theirs the "FreeRTOS open source license", and it just referenced the GPL.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    Hmmm. I'm not sure what the FSF's opinion on it would be. Since they don't call it the GPL (I must've skipped over that part) then they might be in the clear -- though they're still modifying the license text by prepending restrictions to it that make the rest of the license text contradictory.
    - pfalcon 10y ago
      I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        Email rms@gnu.org. That's literally all there is to it. If he thinks there's a valid case then he'll forward it to the right FSF people.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        I emailed RMS. His response was that he will investigate it. If it becomes a thing there'll probably be a post on HN describing what went down.
        pfalcon 10y ago
        Thanks for response cyphar, and thanks for taking an action. And glad to hear RMS reads email and even replies, I'd think one would need to chase FSF's legal advisers to bring up this matter.
pfalcon 10y ago
I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net. [sorry for cross-post]
mindcrime 10y ago
I think that added restriction actually makes it GPL incompatible, and disqualifies it from being an actual open source license. I can't see any way that this license could be considered Open Source by the Open Source Definition[1], as that benchmarking clause is almost certainly going to trip over the "no field of use restrictions" bit. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

comex 10y ago

I guess it depends on how you interpret this clause: > Linking FreeRTOS with other modules is making a combined work based on FreeRTOS. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License V2 cover the whole combination. Does this mean the combination (which could be a trivial combination) can be licensed under the pure GPLv2, or is it just an explanation of the consequences of "combined work", and "the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License V2" is actually intended to mean the modified version thereof?

slavik81 10y ago
That's a good point. I would think they meant with the exception, because their first sentence is very clear: > Any FreeRTOS source code, whether modified or in it's original release form, or whether in whole or in part, can only be distributed by you under the terms of the GNU General Public License plus this exception. The "thus" in your quote also seems to imply it's a clarification of the consequences of previous rules, not a new rule itself. But, IANAL.

cyphar 10y ago

> No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different. Then they actually are not allowed to call it the "GNU General Public License" (or in fact, they are not allowed to modify the license terms). It's the first condition in the license text of the GPL, I'm surprised their lawyers didn't notice that little chestnut.

slavik81 10y ago
You clearly have a better understanding of this issue than I do. My reading was that they were calling theirs the "FreeRTOS open source license", and it just referenced the GPL.
- cyphar 10y ago
  Hmmm. I'm not sure what the FSF's opinion on it would be. Since they don't call it the GPL (I must've skipped over that part) then they might be in the clear -- though they're still modifying the license text by prepending restrictions to it that make the rest of the license text contradictory.
  - pfalcon 10y ago
    I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      Email rms@gnu.org. That's literally all there is to it. If he thinks there's a valid case then he'll forward it to the right FSF people.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      I emailed RMS. His response was that he will investigate it. If it becomes a thing there'll probably be a post on HN describing what went down.
      - pfalcon 10y ago
        Thanks for response cyphar, and thanks for taking an action. And glad to hear RMS reads email and even replies, I'd think one would need to chase FSF's legal advisers to bring up this matter.

pfalcon 10y ago

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net. [sorry for cross-post]

mindcrime 10y ago

I think that added restriction actually makes it GPL incompatible, and disqualifies it from being an actual open source license. I can't see any way that this license could be considered Open Source by the Open Source Definition[1], as that benchmarking clause is almost certainly going to trip over the "no field of use restrictions" bit. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated