gnupic: PIC vs GPL question
Subject:
Re: PIC vs GPL question
From:
Marco Pantaleoni ####@####.####
Date:
3 Nov 2004 19:18:32 +0000
Message-Id: <20041103191801.GF28362@lucifero>
On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 01:50:31PM -0500, David Willmore wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I was thinking of PCB layouts where the 'source code' would probably be the
> netlist, but that's not as useful as the actual layout info. It gets confusing
> as to what is a derived work--the schematic or the layout.
But what can you manipulate more easily to modify the layout? The netlist or
the layout itself?
> Yeah, if the whole lot is GPL, then the GPL issues get simpler, but
> he's still stuck with the printing the license and offerng the code
> via postal mail requirements--which are sort of onerous for a small
> scale product.
AFAIK you could simply make the code available on a website, and give
a link in the accompanying documentation.
>
> > > There might be a better license than the GPL for firmware.
> >
> > Of course, but then you can't use GPL code in the firmware...
>
> Unless it's GPL compatable. And, who knows, maybe he meant LGPL. Most
> people would be hard pressed to know the difference--unless the issue has
> bit them before.
LGPL mandates that you either distribute source code (as GPL does) or
link _dynamically_ with your program. I hardly doubt that he is
dynamic linking in a firmware :-)
In his case, in any case, by using GPL code, he is obliged to satify
the GPL, hence distributing source code to entitled third parties...
Ciao,
Marco
--
========================================================================
Marco Pantaleoni ####@####.####
Padova, Italy
elastiC language developer http://www.elasticworld.org
