On 13-09-2015, at 8:26 AM, Ben Coman btc@openinworld.com wrote:
Unfortunately the distinction you make between static and dynamic linking is incorrect for GPL code [1][2], and true only for LGPL code.
Now I notice that although [3] indicates the license is GPL, [3] points to original post [4] which was LGPL. A little confusing since neither [3] nor [4] state a license in the C source files. It seems [4] is the same author, so maybe its worth a polite query as to why the license changed from LGPL to GPL.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic [2] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html [3] http://www.x-io.co.uk/open-source-imu-and-ahrs-algorithms/ [4] https://code.google.com/p/imumargalgorithm30042010sohm/
Ah, this brings back memories of arguing license for month after month….
To further confuse things, the madgwick code isn’t released as a library but rather just as some code to include in your own system. And the page for the c++ (hack, spit) version shows it as creative commons share-alike 3.0
And as an extra bit of excitement, I spotted a webpage where some corrections to the algorithm were mentioned along with a claim that the x-io site copies would be soon updated. Dating back at least a couple of years...
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful random insult:- If his IQ was two points higher he'd be a rock.