Clarification on open source license for the teensy librayr

H

hmaarrfk

Member
Hi Paul,

Just wondering if you could clarify your stance on the code you license and how you intend to distribute your teensy libraries.

I understand that the code you wrote is mostly under MIT. Thank you for the simplicity.

However, it seems that a few string libraries are licensed from https://github.com/WiringProject/Wiring/
as LGPL/GPL family licenses. Is this your intention?

Specifically, any files in the cores that seem to start with W seem to have been taken from there.
https://github.com/PaulStoffregen/cores/blob/master/teensy3/WMath.cpp

Thanks!

Mark

PS. I didn't want to post on a 5 year thread but this is some relevant information i found
https://forum.pjrc.com/threads/29382-open-source-license-issues-when-using-teensy-products
 
First a standard disclaimer: this message isn't meant to amend or modify or even explain any open source license. For that, you need to refer to the actual license terms. To truly understand what those terms mean for in a practical sense may require "legal advice", which this message most certainly is not!

Usually I choose the MIT license for files I have created "from scratch". My intention is to allow that code to be used in any way. Many people have described MIT as "permissive" and having "license compatibility" for other open source use. This wikipedia page is one such source.

I also like the simplicity of MIT license. Or at least it's apparent simplicity from how short and easy it is to read. I've heard this same sentiment from many others, which weighs heavily on my choice. But I will admit, I'm an engineer and not an attorney. At least one friend who does work in law ("paralegal" might be a better term) has told me that less verbiage of MIT may not necessarily be best.

When I modify files originally created by others, I leave the license they chose. Virtually all open sources licenses require this, so I don't even consider changing the license unless I have completely replaced all of the original code. Even then, I usually don't alter the license info.

The Arduino developers have written about licenses used. I seem to recall seeing talk of what they consider LGPL to mean. Maybe you can find it by searching?
 
Thanks!

We've been transitioning some of our things from the prototype stage to a final product so this stuff came up.


A few posts I found for other passer by's
https://www.postscapes.com/arduino-prototyping-to-product/
https://forum.arduino.cc/index.php?topic=240434.0
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/lgpl-2.1/

I'm not sure if you are open to pull request to rewriting those portions of the code.

Maybe in an other life I'll have time to do it, but for now, the business case is a little unclear for us to rewrite things from scratch.

Standard disclaimer for myself: IANAL, but It seems that due to the leading L in the LGPL, we need to disclose the object files, but not the source files for our end users.

Best,

Mark
 
Hmm... Could it be possible, a flashable binary has not a proof re-relation to the originating source code, that is, nobody can prove that a binary is made from a specific source or maybe another one with just the same functionality ending up as the same binary machine code?

Everything depends on honesty and in an ideal world we would all be honest, but this is Homo economicus dystopicans now the dominating species on Earth in 2020...
 
Yeah. For such a small part of our product, seems not worthwhile to lie about.

But you are correct, the world kinda works on honesty
 
If you're not careful with strings and such, fingerprints can be found. Back in the day I worked on a product called avisynth, and we had a real problem with everyone in the world shipping a DVD ripper bundling our software, sometimes right in the executable. Even when you know about someone ripping off a project it's hard to do anything about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top