gnupic: PIC vs GPL question
Subject:
Re: PIC vs GPL question
From:
Marco Pantaleoni ####@####.####
Date:
3 Nov 2004 08:39:22 +0000
Message-Id: <20041103083851.GA25498@lucifero>
On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:00:23PM -0500, David Willmore wrote:
>
> > 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.
You are in fact "combining two modules into one program", and your entire
program (even if a firmware) must be licensed under the GPL.
This doesn't mean that you have to always give away the source code.
This means that any _entitled_ third party may ask you the source code
(and you are obliged to satisfy their request). The entitled third parties
are the ones who receive a copy of the program (or firmware), directly
or indirectly.
Please see the FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid
>
> > 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.
This is almost correct, except that machine readable _is_ required (and
it must be machine-readable _source code_). See section 3 of the GPL.
And in any case, you have to include a copy of the GPL.
> 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.
No, this is not true.
If you link a GPL'ed piece of software in your program, your _entire_
program must be distributed under the GPL (that's different for LGPL).
Please see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
And section 3 applies here also. Machine-readable source code is mandatory.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it". So object, binary, or obfuscated source code are ruled
out.
Hope it helps, but please be sure to read carefully both the GPL and the
GPL FAQ.
Cheers,
Marco
--
========================================================================
Marco Pantaleoni ####@####.####
Padova, Italy
elastiC language developer http://www.elasticworld.org
