Re: [threadx] Clarification on 6.1.1 License

[hmnews@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Hi Frédéric,

"including older releases, is available under the MIT license"

But this statement would only apply to the current state of the github repo I presume, not for repository clones done before the handover to Eclipse or?

It appears that LWM2M and exFAT which were previously part of the source on github vanished from github's history without a trace even for the versions they have been part of.  My local `v6.2.1_rel` repo clone has the `lwm2m` folder while the `v6.2.1_rel` tag on github has this folder removed.

So were is the regard for commit history preservation in this case?

And what is the license status of those "vanished" components?

Regards,

Henrik

------ Original Message ------

From "Frédéric Desbiens via threadx" <threadx@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To "ThreadX community discussions" <threadx@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc "Frédéric Desbiens" <frederic.desbiens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date 31/07/2025 12:55:22 AM

Subject Re: [threadx] Clarification on 6.1.1 License

Hi Renz.

Everything available in the Eclipse ThreadX repositories, including older releases, is available under the MIT license. You can disregard the licensing information found in the older 6.x releases made by Microsoft. We did not update those releases retroactively to preserve the commit histories of the relevant repositories.

Best,

Frédéric DESBIENS

Project Lead | Eclipse ThreadX  

Senior Manager — Embedded and IoT | Eclipse Foundation

Mastodon: @fdesbiens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Eclipse Foundation: The Community for Open Innovation and Collaboration

On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 23:46, Renz Bagaporo via threadx <threadx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,
 

We want to confirm if the change to MIT license applies retroactively to versions before 6.4.1, which is when the transition to open-source has completed as per this article. In the same article, it has been hinted that this change applies to all 6.x versions:

However, in the ThreadX repository, the old Microsoft license still remains for 6.1.1 (I understand that this is because versions are just tags and not on a separate branch where the license can be updated if it changes) - but I did not find this potential retroactive license change to be written anywhere else other than the article above.

I guess I am just looking for official confirmation that 6.1.1 really can be considered to be under the MIT license now. 

*Note: Why 6.1.1? It seems to be the latest version with safety certifications. While certifications for 6.4.1 are planned, we prefer to work with what's available now.

Renz Bagaporo

_______________________________________________
threadx mailing list
threadx@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://accounts.eclipse.org