FOSS license compliance for Zephyr based products #70545
-
I'd like to know whether there are any good real-world examples of how companies selling (proprietary) Zephyr-based products achieve compliance with its FOSS requirements? BackgroundZephyr is licensed under the Apache-2.0 (or compatible licenses). It is quite permissive, yet carries some obligations for (binary only) distribution, such as:
Seems easy, just include the Apache 2.0 license text?
Not sure if this has an effect when distributing only the binary form?
Not sure if this has an effect when distributing only the binary form?
Zephyr itself does not, but some modules do have one (e.g. mcuboot). Including those should be enough? Bottom line: How does everyone out there comply with the license obligations? Not just Apache 2.0, but also e.g. the BSD licenses used in certain modules. Related |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
Did you manage to find an answer? Interested to know the answer as well. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
I just came across this link: https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-licenses-101-apache-license-2-0/
I'm not able to answer this question, but the clue is in the following statement from the above link. 🤔
Requirements
Anyone who uses open source software licensed under Apache 2.0 must include the following in their copy of the code, whether they have modified it or not:
The third requirement listed above is a major differentiator between the Apache License 2.0 and other …