gnupic: PIC vs GPL question
Subject:
Re: PIC vs GPL question
From:
David Willmore ####@####.####
Date:
3 Nov 2004 01:00:55 +0000
Message-Id: <200411030100.iA310OWP027775@localhost.localdomain>
> I'm familiar with the requirements when using 3rd-party GPL software
> when developing programs for distribution - eg, thou shalt provide
> source code to the 3rd party GPL code, plus everything that links to it.
Yes, the GPL requires that if you release a binary or object code that
relies on GPL licensed code, you must release all code which links with it.
> But what's the situation if I'm using 3rd party GPL code in my PIC firmware?
You must release the source code for your part of the firmware.
> If I market a PIC-based consumer applicance, and my firmware internally
> uses a 3rd-party GPL'ed library, does this mean that I have to enclose
> the full firmware source code, including my own code, in the appliance's
> packaging? If so, would it suffice to enclose a printed disassembly
> listing in the back pages of the appliance manual, or would I need to
> also enclose machine-readable media such as a CD?
Machine readable isn't required. The general understanding is that you
just need to make the source available, but you don't have to ship it
with every product. Making it available to people on request is generally
considered sufficient. You are even allowed to charge a reasonable fee
to do so, IIRC. Not to make money, but to pay for the cost of distribution--
postage, media, time to perform the copy, etc.
What has to be distributed is the actual item that was GPL'ed. If it's the
source of the code used (linked) in the firmware, then that needs to be
included. If it was a binary or object file that was GPL'ed (an unusual
occurance, but allowed), then just that needs to be made available.
Did that clarify anything or just make it more confusing?
Oh, in case it's not clear, I'm *not* a lawyer. You may wish to consult
someone at the FSF or their web site--which has a large amount of good
information.
Cheers,
David
