6 ms·
As the project is GPL’ed I guess they sell a commercial version. GPL is toxic for embedded commercial software. But it can be good marketing to sell the commerc
by jpfr 6mo ago
As the project is GPL’ed I guess they sell a commercial version. GPL is toxic for embedded commercial software. But it can be good marketing to sell the commercial version.
Edit: I meant commercial license
- LoganDark 6mo agoYou don't need a commercial version, many projects get away with selling just a commercial license to the same version. As long as they have the rights to relicense this works fine.
- RealityVoid 6mo agoI think they might sell a commercial version as well. It makes sense with the GPL. But I can't really recall that well.
- anthonj 6mo agoIn my company we used their stuff often. They have an optional commercial license for basically all their products. The price was very reasonable as well.
- cpach 6mo ago“GPL is toxic for embedded commercial software” Why is that?
- dietr1ch 6mo agoHe probably meant viral or tried to make a deadly twist on virality
- bobmcnamara 6mo agoMany bare metal or RTOS systems consist of a handful of statically linked programs (one or two bootloaders and the main application), many companies would rather find a non-GPL library rather than open up the rest of the system's code. Sometimes a system contains proprietary code that may not be open sourced as well.
- 1718627440 6mo agoIn the embedded world you don't really sell software you sell devices with firmware. Unless the library OS is AGPL, it doesn't matter too much.
- tjoff 6mo agoYes it matters a lot?
- bobmcnamara 6mo agoIt matters because: 1) you may not have the right to open the rest of the code on the system 2) although you make money when you sell devices, it also makes cloning trivial