ubersauce wrote on Saturday, May 26, 2018:
The FreeRTOS+FAT library is still in the lab according to the page on the main FreeRTOS website.
The 160919 release of FreeRTOS+FAT contains the following notes in its licensing header:
FreeRTOS+FAT can be used under two different free open source licenses. The
license that applies is dependent on the processor on which FreeRTOS+FAT is
executed, as follows:
If FreeRTOS+FAT is executed on one of the processors listed under the Special
License Arrangements heading of the FreeRTOS+FAT license information web
page, then it can be used under the terms of the FreeRTOS Open Source
License. If FreeRTOS+FAT is used on any other processor, then it can be used
under the terms of the GNU General Public License V2. Links to the relevant
The FreeRTOS+FAT License Information Page: http://www.FreeRTOS.org/fat_license
The FreeRTOS Open Source License: http://www.FreeRTOS.org/license
The GNU General Public License Version 2: http://www.FreeRTOS.org/gpl-2.0.txt
The FAT license information page linked above says the following:
FreeRTOS+FAT is now provided under the same MIT license as the FreeRTOS kernel. Note the labs download contains an older version under the older dual licensed scheme.
My question is, if the labs download contains the older dual-licensed version, then where can I download the current MIT-licensed version? This download does not seem to be available anywhere.
heinbali01 wrote on Saturday, May 26, 2018:
Hi Bryce, I’m afraid that I don’t know much about the licensing neither. But I know all about the FreeRTOS+FAT library.
While +TCP was moved to the AWS release, +FAT stayed in the /Labs section. We didn’t do official updates, but I did implement changes that were requested, and I did make some changes to make it better.
In April I attached the latest +FAT sources to a post here, which is an unofficial release:
I am sure that your question about the licenses will be answered here soon.
ubersauce wrote on Wednesday, June 13, 2018:
Thanks Hein, I appreciate the response. Unfortunately I really do need to find an answer to the licensing question specifically, since I’m not particularly comfortable with opening my project up to the GNU GPLv2.
When I made my original post I could not find the FreeRTOS+FAT license information web
page referenced by the license header of the 160919 release, so I was not able to confirm if my project could be licensed under the FreeRTOS Open Source License. I’ve since found an archived copy of the FreeRTOS+FAT license page from 28 Oct 2017, which says that the following processor families can be used with the FreeRTOS Open Source License:
- Atmel SAM family
- Xilinx Zynq
- ST STM32 family
- NXP LPC family
Unfortunately my target does not fall within any of these categories so I really am stuck waiting for the MIT-licensed release to become available. Do I need to contact Richard Barry directly (as others seem to have done in the past) to receive a pre-release version of the FreeRTOS+FAT lab under the new licensing?
I’m happy to develop using the labs release and later update when the MIT-licensed source is publically available, but wouldn’t want to commit to using an API in the meantime that I can’t license, when said release has no publically-known schedule for completion.
rtel wrote on Wednesday, June 13, 2018:
We can provide the existing code under MIT - just need to make sure it
is the latest version.
ubersauce wrote on Sunday, June 17, 2018:
Is the team currently working towards updating the licensing information for the latest version?
danewalton wrote on Tuesday, July 24, 2018:
I’d like to hopefully get an eta on this as well if possible
hwaldman100 wrote on Thursday, September 13, 2018:
I have the same question/concern. I would love to use the FreeRTOS-Plus-FAT project on an ARM4 based commercial project. But the GPL license will prevent me from doing so. Is it possible to get any version of this with the MIT license? That would be much helpful and appreciated.
rtel wrote on Thursday, September 13, 2018:
Attached - note caveats in the header comments about this not being ‘productized’ yet.