gnupic: PIC vs GPL question
Subject:
Re: PIC vs GPL question
From:
David Willmore ####@####.####
Date:
3 Nov 2004 18:02:04 +0000
Message-Id: <200411031801.iA3I1HqY030750@localhost.localdomain>
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 08:00:23PM -0500, David Willmore 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
> > > 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.
'source code' as used in the GPL was incompatable with the general term
'source code' in the english language.
But, you're right, in this case 'comercial distribution', machine readable
is required.
> > 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.
That's a contradiction. The 'prefered form of the work for making modifications
to it' does not disallow an object or binary. *IF* they are the prefered
for for making modifications.
> Hope it helps, but please be sure to read carefully both the GPL and the
> GPL FAQ.
From rereading through the FAQ, it seems like the best action would be to dual
license the code. Forget about the GPL for the actual firmware product, but
make your code available separately through some other means--web site, etc.
under whatever license you feel comfortable with. The GPL isn't always the
best license for software.
This seems possible under: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCFSWithNFLibs
There might be a better license than the GPL for firmware.
Cheers,
David
