gnupic: PIC vs GPL question


Previous by date: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, David Willmore
Next by date: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, Marco Pantaleoni
Previous in thread: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, David Willmore
Next in thread: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, Marco Pantaleoni

Subject: Re: PIC vs GPL question
From: Marco Pantaleoni ####@####.####
Date: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000
Message-Id: <20041103181035.GC28362@lucifero>

On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 01:01:17PM -0500, David Willmore wrote:
> > 
> > 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.

Well, rarely object code is the preferred form for making modifications.
It could be in the case you are writing machine language (not assembly!)
directly. In that case source code and object code would be the same thing.

> > 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

You can't dual license if your code include GPL'ed third party modules.
If you include GPL modules written by others, the program must be
distributed under the GPL.
Of course dual licensing is possible when you are the author of the
GPL modules that you are using. You can distribute code for which you
have the copyright under as many licenses as you want...

> There might be a better license than the GPL for firmware.

Of course, but then you can't use GPL code in the firmware...

Cheers,
Marco

-- 
========================================================================
Marco Pantaleoni                                  ####@####.####
Padova, Italy
elastiC language developer                   http://www.elasticworld.org

Previous by date: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, David Willmore
Next by date: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, Marco Pantaleoni
Previous in thread: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, David Willmore
Next in thread: 3 Nov 2004 18:11:11 +0000 Re: PIC vs GPL question, Marco Pantaleoni


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.