Well hey, the "internet as we know it" has disappeared every year since I've been on it (1985) and I'm sure its been going on longer than that.
But don't get discouraged, the change is more illusion than reality. The fact that the Internet doubles in size very fast has meant that the majority of the population at any given time are newbies. Another large fraction have gotten through the newbie stage and have become dismayed by how many more newbies have come along and ruined things. But in reality, things have stayed about as messed up as they ever were. The "change" most of you are experiencing is just the change in yourself relative to the state of the Internet.
And things may actually stabilize in the forseeable future. Eventually the flood of newbies must end. The global population can't grow as fast as Internet users. So things may actually get better. Maybe someday people won't even post warnings about blue star stamps to the whole world on Usenet.
In reality the Internet is still a place you can go, get some data from a satellite (SOHO) orbiting at the L1 point between the earth and sun in near real-time, and discover new comets the pro's overlooked as they whiz past the surface of the Sun. (here's how) And that's awsome!
I think opening an Ask Slashdot thread to discuss open source licensing issues for embedded systems is a great idea.
I agree with your point that the intention of the GPL is probably not to exclude use in embedded systems but its wording makes it unsuitable. On the other hand, the GPL was intended to draw developers in to the open source game so maybe we would be breaking the intent by using GPL'd code in new products without giving something back to the community. But what I've just realized in the last couple days is that the other open source licenses (BSD, eCos, and some others) aren't as restrictive as the GPL.
As for eCos, even though it is put out by Cygnus, I don't think it is based on Linux or other GPL code. I think those guys built their embedded OS from scratch. That's why they aren't bound by the GPL.
After this interesting discussion I've taken a look at the BSD license and the Cygnus eCos license. Both seem to have better attributes for embedded systems development.
Some of the BSD licenses (there are variations) only require acknowledgement in the product and/or advertising. The BSD license does not place further restrictions on derivative works.
The eCos license is interesting in that it requires modifications to the "covered" (i.e. the OS) code be published in source form but accomodates the combination of non-covered (i.e. proprietary) code and covered code in commercial products. Way to go Cygnus!
So it looks like BSD and Cygnus sources are fertile ground for embedded systems work. More so than GPL. And do I even have to say, IANAL.
Why do you say the viral nature of GPL doesn't extend outside the kernel. If someone has gone to the effort of developing software outside the kernel such as a VPN client or a word processor and decides to release it under the GPL, wouldn't it get the same protections as the OS kernel since it using the same license?
In our product (part of which functions as a router) we would like to use components of the IP stack found in Linux distributions. Doing so would only require minor modifications (if any) to the GPL'd code to adapt it to our system. The rest of our system would not be derived from any GPL'd code. But the hitch is that our software is distributed in ROM in a piece of physical hardware. It is not possible to distribute our system software without the GPL components as "separate works". Hence the terms of the GPL seem to extend to the entire work and the poison pill goes to work. If the commercial embedded systems market is going to work with the GPL, I think the GPL needs to change the way it defines what is considered a separate work.
Incidentally, I think the embedded systems world could benefit from some open source platform and component developments (like eCos) but the GPL is an inappropriate license for the reasons describe above.
Yes, licensing is the real problem. As an embedded developer I've often found that some functional component I need in my system is right there in the linux sources. But for a variety of reasons it isn't possible to release the source for our product, as the GPL requires. We usually end up buying commercial packages or reinventing the wheel. The GPL has been great for promoting linux and a lot of software for the workstation/desktop environment but its more like a poison pill for embedded software in commercial products. Until someone clarifies how GPL code and proprietary code can coexist in one product without compromising the proprietary part, I think embedded system developers will tend to stay away.
Slashdot Mirror
But don't get discouraged, the change is more illusion than reality. The fact that the Internet doubles in size very fast has meant that the majority of the population at any given time are newbies. Another large fraction have gotten through the newbie stage and have become dismayed by how many more newbies have come along and ruined things. But in reality, things have stayed about as messed up as they ever were. The "change" most of you are experiencing is just the change in yourself relative to the state of the Internet.
And things may actually stabilize in the forseeable future. Eventually the flood of newbies must end. The global population can't grow as fast as Internet users. So things may actually get better. Maybe someday people won't even post warnings about blue star stamps to the whole world on Usenet.
In reality the Internet is still a place you can go, get some data from a satellite (SOHO) orbiting at the L1 point between the earth and sun in near real-time, and discover new comets the pro's overlooked as they whiz past the surface of the Sun. (here's how) And that's awsome!
I agree with your point that the intention of the GPL is probably not to exclude use in embedded systems but its wording makes it unsuitable. On the other hand, the GPL was intended to draw developers in to the open source game so maybe we would be breaking the intent by using GPL'd code in new products without giving something back to the community. But what I've just realized in the last couple days is that the other open source licenses (BSD, eCos, and some others) aren't as restrictive as the GPL.
As for eCos, even though it is put out by Cygnus, I don't think it is based on Linux or other GPL code. I think those guys built their embedded OS from scratch. That's why they aren't bound by the GPL.
Some of the BSD licenses (there are variations) only require acknowledgement in the product and/or advertising. The BSD license does not place further restrictions on derivative works.
The eCos license is interesting in that it requires modifications to the "covered" (i.e. the OS) code be published in source form but accomodates the combination of non-covered (i.e. proprietary) code and covered code in commercial products. Way to go Cygnus!
So it looks like BSD and Cygnus sources are fertile ground for embedded systems work. More so than GPL. And do I even have to say, IANAL.
Why do you say the viral nature of GPL doesn't extend outside the kernel. If someone has gone to the effort of developing software outside the kernel such as a VPN client or a word processor and decides to release it under the GPL, wouldn't it get the same protections as the OS kernel since it using the same license?
In our product (part of which functions as a router) we would like to use components of the IP stack found in Linux distributions. Doing so would only require minor modifications (if any) to the GPL'd code to adapt it to our system. The rest of our system would not be derived from any GPL'd code. But the hitch is that our software is distributed in ROM in a piece of physical hardware. It is not possible to distribute our system software without the GPL components as "separate works". Hence the terms of the GPL seem to extend to the entire work and the poison pill goes to work. If the commercial embedded systems market is going to work with the GPL, I think the GPL needs to change the way it defines what is considered a separate work.
Incidentally, I think the embedded systems world could benefit from some open source platform and component developments (like eCos) but the GPL is an inappropriate license for the reasons describe above.
Yes, licensing is the real problem. As an embedded developer I've often found that some functional component I need in my system is right there in the linux sources. But for a variety of reasons it isn't possible to release the source for our product, as the GPL requires. We usually end up buying commercial packages or reinventing the wheel. The GPL has been great for promoting linux and a lot of software for the workstation/desktop environment but its more like a poison pill for embedded software in commercial products. Until someone clarifies how GPL code and proprietary code can coexist in one product without compromising the proprietary part, I think embedded system developers will tend to stay away.