License problem about embedded erlang

[Wei Cheng]

When delivering embedded systems (with both hardware and software),
some solutions involve paying runtime distribution fees for each
device (such as embedded java and embedded Qt). My question is then
how about Erlang. Can we build a device with erlang runtime on it and
deliver them without paying any money to Ericsson? Thanks.

[Scott Finneran]

The only limitations on distribution are your obligations under the Erlang Public License
(http://www.erlang.org/EPLICENSE) such as making the source available to the customer etc.

Bottom line is that as long as you are compliant with the terms of the license, the media on which
you ship your binaries isn't an issue. This is true whether the media is a CD, an FTP site or
programmed into the flash chips of an embedded system.

Keep in mind that there are also the relevant licenses to check out for the underlying Linux system.

Cheers,
Scott

[ChengWei]

Thanks.

If I understand correctly, that means if we have not modified any part of the Erlang codes (core and libraries) and just developed our own applications upon them, no payment is necessary, at least for the Erlang part. 

For the embedded Linux part, I guess there is also some free options there.

Cheers
Wei Cheng

[Scott Finneran]

I think you may be missing an important point. This isn't just cheap code that
you don't have to write yourself. Reading the licenses will tell you about your
rights regarding distribution. Equally important, you will know what your
obligations are. This includes your obligations in making source code available
to your end users. These obligations may be different for various licenses.

For example, certain licenses (eg the GPL that covers Linux) require that you
provide your own copy of all of the source when you ship binaries. Pointing to
someone else's repository won't cut it.

What you do in regards to an erlang application that you offer is your business
because you will provide it under your own terms.

Cheers,
Scott

[ChengWei]

Thanks for the kind reminding. Certainly we will provide a copy of the source code if we use any GPL licensed software, e.g. the Linux Kernel and many GNU applications.

Just a pedantic question. My understanding of GPL v3 differs from what you said: " Pointing to someone else's repository won't cut it." . According to GPL v3 clause 6d, the corresponding source may be on a different server operated by a third party, as long as it is available.

• d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.

 Moreover, it is fine to just deliver a written offer to give anyone have the binary the right to ask for the source codes according to 6b.

Besides, I am talking about the OS and programming language to use, not some specific libraries or applications. I don't think they are some 'cheap codes' that I don't need to write myself. Honestly, I am afraid writing these codes is way beyond my ability. :-)

I am just want to make sure there's no hidden cost. For example, Embedded Qt is licensed with LGPL, so it could be used for free in commercial applications as long as we use dynamic linking and there's no modification. To deliver an embedded device (with some exceptions, namely devices based on Nokia platforms) with the Qt binary installed, however, requires buying license for each device delivered.

Cheers.
Wei Cheng

[Scott Finneran]

ChengWei wrote:
> Thanks for the kind reminding. Certainly we will provide a copy of the
> source code if we use any GPL licensed software, e.g. the Linux Kernel
> and many GNU applications.

Apologies if I implied otherwise. The focus of your question was very
much on royalty payments. I was just trying to highlight the other
obligations that sometimes get forgotten.

> Just a pedantic question. My understanding of GPL v3 differs from what
> you said: " Pointing to someone else's repository won't cut it." .
> According to GPL v3 clause 6d, the corresponding source may be on a
> different server operated by a third party, as long as it is available.
>

> * d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated

> place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to
> the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place
> at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy
> the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the
> place to copy the object code is a network server, the
> Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by
> you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying
> facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the
> object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
> Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you
> remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as
> needed to satisfy these requirements.
>
> Moreover, it is fine to just deliver a written offer to give anyone
> have the binary the right to ask for the source codes according to 6b.

I've learned something today too! I remember reading about a case where
distributors got themselves into bother because a third party server
went away. Perhaps the issue was that the the distributor is still
responsible for ensuring the availability of source. Either way, you're
right. I can't argue with the license.

> Besides, I am talking about the OS and programming language to use,
> not some specific libraries or applications. I don't think they are
> some 'cheap codes' that I don't need to write myself. Honestly, I am
> afraid writing these codes is way beyond my ability. :-)
>
> I am just want to make sure there's no hidden cost. For example,
> Embedded Qt is licensed with LGPL, so it could be used for free in
> commercial applications as long as we use dynamic linking and there's
> no modification. To deliver an embedded device (with some exceptions,
> namely devices based on Nokia platforms) with the Qt binary installed,
> however, requires buying license for each device delivered.

Agreed, although if I understand correctly, that is because Nokia in
that instance is exercising their right to offer their code under an
alternative commercial license ie. dual licensing.

Regards,

Scott

> <mailto:scottf...@yahoo.com.au

[ChengWei]

Thanks. I see now. The runtime distribution fee of Qt is only applicable to the commercial license. The LGPL 2.1 has it's own requirement, that is to provide the source code with the binary form together.