gnupic: PIC vs GPL question
Subject:
Re: PIC vs GPL question
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
3 Nov 2004 07:20:46 +0000
Message-Id: <418886B4.3030300@linuxhacker.org>
David McNab wrote:
> 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
Is it really GPL or is it LGPL? If the latter, you may be OK only
distributing the source of the library and linkable object files for
your own code on request by one of your customers (and your own object
files don't need to be under a license which allows them to be passed on
to third parties). If it's full blown GPL then as soon as the firmware
leaves your company all of it becomes GPLed (hence why people refer to
it as an 'infectious' license) and you will need to provide source code
for all of it to your customers on request.
> 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?
No, a disassembly wouldn't be sufficient, you need to provide the actual
full source code with comments etc. that you used to build the firmware,
but only if somebody who bought the product from you requests it, and
you are entitled to make a 'reasonable' charge for this (ie. the cost of
burning and posting a CD).
--
------------ Alex Holden - http://www.linuxhacker.org ------------
If it doesn't work, you're not hitting it with a big enough hammer
