[etherlab-users] License clarification

[Florian Pose]

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:18:35PM +0200, Manfred EHRHART wrote:
> We have considered a lot of industrial actors (field bus area :
> ethernetip, profinet io, sercos, ethercat) and we are very
> disappointed about the lack of linux support (no driver for hardware
> controllers based, or master stack code at prohibit coasts for small
> companies). We are interested in the IgH EtherCAT® Master but some
> question aboutthe license arise. I apologize for my tiny knowledge of
> licensing question. We develop our first commercial project with linux
> materials (currently windows os...)

> - can we actually consider that using master stack code is not a GPL
> derived work. Consequently our application (test beds) is not reached
> by the GPL, and our final customers are not disturbed with legal
> complicated questions.

if you use the kernel application interface of the master, this is an
issue of using a kernel API. This is usually not considered as a derived
work in terms of the GPL.

BTW, I'm currently developing a userspace library implementing the
master application interface. It will be released under LGPL, so this
won't be an issue any more.

> - what is the IgH point of view about the license questions:
> - linux side : "Loadable device drivers using the normal
> kernelinterfaces", "loadable modules using non standard kernel
> interfaces" "standalone kernel modules"

Sorry, I don't understand the question, but I think this is what I wrote
above.

> - beckoff side vs the linux side - FMTC
> (http://ethercatmaster.berlios.de/) has removed the source code and
> the status is not clear with the LGPL license. Will the IgH remain GPL
> based ?

Our intention is definitely to stay open source and to support the open
source principles. In particular, we aim to continue providing our
software from the EtherLab project according to the spirit and terms of
the (L)GPL. In order of doing so, we are currently reviewing the wording
of our license statements.

> - Beckoff (and others) are not interested with small company
> like mine

We also are not that big, but Beckhoff supports us in many aspects.

> - Because working with commercial "big" actors tend to be
> very tediousor error prone (or impossible) for small and micro
> companies, we are ready to support open project.

Great. If you have any suggestions, or you want to participate actively,
please let me know.

-- 
Best regards,
Florian Pose

http://etherlab.org