gnupic: PIC vs GPL question
Subject:
Re: PIC vs GPL question
From:
Byron A Jeff ####@####.####
Date:
4 Nov 2004 14:54:33 +0000
Message-Id: <20041104145426.GB13988@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>
On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 08:12:09AM +0000, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Marco Pantaleoni wrote:
>
> >>>>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...
> >
> >
> >
> I believe the exception in Section 6 of LGPL allows static linking if
> you satisfy item a).
The bottom line with the LGPL is that whatever it takes so that the LGPL
code can be updated must be provided to the user. Generally it's called the
relinking requirement.
Providing source is an easy way to do that. If a linker is available then
you can just provide relinkable objects.
The wxWindows license modifies the LGPL to drop the relink requirement. It
makes sense in embedded enviroments. Pretty must ends up with the ability
to mix up wxWindows licensed code and proprietary code without having to
provide proprietary code in any form. However any changes to the wxWindows
licensed code must be source published. A compromise in environments such
as embedded systems.
BAJ
