3 ms·
> FreeRTOS is GPL with an exception for static linking making it effectively free if you make no modifications. There is, however, an onerous clause prohibiting
by cyphar 10y ago
> FreeRTOS is GPL with an exception for static linking making it effectively free if you make no modifications. There is, however, an onerous clause prohibiting the publication of comparative benchmarks. [2]
This is why I don't like the GPLv2 and wish more people would switch to the GPLv3. Section 6 of the GPLv2 implies that you can remove the restrictions you mentioned from the license, but section 7 and 10 of the GPLv3 make it clear that such restrictions would not be binding and could be removed by recipients of the software.
Also, "effectively free if you make no changes" doesn't make sense -- free software requires you to have the freedom to make changes to the software.
But as far as I can see, clause 2 is very broad (what is a "competitive purpose"). I consider that to be an "additional restriction" under section 6 and as per the license terms they've given us, I'm allowed to ignore that restriction. Otherwise they've modified the license and must not call it the GPL. In addition, if that term is actually binding it would not classify in my book as free software.
- duskwuff 10y ago> Also, "effectively free if you make no changes" doesn't make sense -- free software requires you to have the freedom to make changes to the software. The GPL places some conditions on distribution; most notably, anyone distributing binaries is required to also make the source available. In the "standard" GPL, this applies even if the distributed binaries are compiled directly from the upstream source -- this is sometimes used as a "gotcha" to harass companies that use GPLed code (e.g, in embedded devices), but which fail to make every single piece of source code available for download. The exception granted by FreeRTOS makes perfect sense in this light.
- cyphar 10y ago> In the "standard" GPL This is only true for GPLv2. GPLv3 fixed this problem, as well as many other real problems (though I don't agree that it is as big of a problem as you claim). > The exception granted by FreeRTOS makes perfect sense in this light. Which exception is that? I read it as "this is kinda like the LGPL, but you also can't be 'competitive'". Also, none of this has anything to do with the statement "effectively free if you make no changes". Requiring you to provide the source does not make the software non-free.