So after that what i read in this topic and consultations in my lab i
decided to use BSD license in orocos_componnents stack.

Pozdrawiam
Konrad Banachowicz


2010/11/16 Peter Soetens <peter@thesourceworks.com>

> On Monday 15 November 2010 23:38:52 Ken Conley wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Herman Bruyninckx
> >
> > <Herman.Bruyninckx@mech.kuleuven.be> wrote:
> > > There is absolutely no difference between LGPL and GPL in the context
> in
> > > which I have made my remark: the concept of "derivative code" is
> exactly
> > > the same for both :-) (Both licenses just differ in what they allow you
> > > to do with derived work.)
> > >
> > > Anyway, I am not making any legal stance at all, except that I am
> trying
> > > to make people _aware_ of the existence of such grey zones. There is no
> > > final answer to that 'grey zone' issue, because all legislative systems
> > > (as far as I am aware) will leave it to a judge to decide about such
> > > cases. Since I am very anxious to keep Orocos (and also ROS)
> > > industry-ready, we (Orocos, ROS) should try to avoid any grey zones,
> > > whenever possible, even if it is a grey zone between two free software
> > > licenses: I would not be surprised _at all_ to see a malafide lawyer
> > > attack ROS and Orocos for mutual license violations if that would be a
> > > appropriate strategy for a ROS/Orocos enemy...
> > >
> > > My suggestion would be to dual license this kind of "ROS-Orocos" bridge
> > > code, with LGPL and BSD the obvious license choices.
> >
> > I downloaded the "rtt examples" from the Orocos web site [1]. Within
> > that tarball, I can find no license, except for a GNU FDL license
> > relating to an XML document. As example/tutorial code is documentation
> > of intended use, it seems counter to the LGPL to transfer an LGPL
> > license to it. If that is the intent, then the example code should
> > contain explicit licenses within the source code. Personally, I think
> > it would be a shame to expect developers to avoid tutorials just
> > because they are working on non-GPL/LGPL code.
> >
>
> All example code I wrote is in the public domain, being it on the wiki or
> in
> tar.gz files. Even code I used for training courses. If people want an
> explicit
> license, I can tag it BSD or whatever the lawyers of the community feel
> good
> with.
>
> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users@code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>