embedded development vs. GPL (was: Re: Sarge Release?)
On Wed, August 11, 2004 5:58, James said:
> Let's face it, most of linux's problems are a result on not being
> about to recruit a sufficient talent pool of low level embedded
> developers. Most of those that do convert (after a convoluted learning
> path) end up at a proprietary shop that puts linux on a processor, and
> hides the key low level details.....
I would add a note here, a recent discussion of licenses on an embedded
microcontroller list that shall remain anonymous pointed out that the GPL
(and more appropriately the LGPL)'s restrictions on static linking make it
VERY difficult to develop for embedded processors using Linux and create a
marketable product.
Most compilers for small microcontrollers can't take advantage of dynamic
linking, there's simply not enough storage space on the devices.
Statically linking brings bad connotations under the LGPL, so development
of libraries for embedded microcontrollers end up choosing to use licenses
like Artistic, BSD, etc.
I'm just repeating this summary comment from another mailing list as I'm
curious how the Debianistas feel about this. If I were an embedded
developer this would be highly disappointing/discouraging. (I'm not.)
Personally I'm just curious what folks who eat and breathe licenses think
about this situation.
Unfortunately I'll send it to -laptop since I'm not subscribed to the
tidal-wave known as -devel. ;-)
Maybe I'll cross-post to -user... hmm. Okay. Just this once.
--
Nate Duehr, nate@natetech.com
Reply to: