gnupic: PIC vs GPL question
Subject:
Re: PIC vs GPL question
From:
Julian Green ####@####.####
Date:
4 Nov 2004 15:58:27 +0000
Message-Id: <20041104155949.D34981-100000@pschulz.lon.yahoo.com>
Alternativly turn the code protect bit on and nobody is any the wiser.
Shhh! who said that!
Julian
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 03, 2004 at 01:12:34PM +1300, David McNab wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm familiar with the requirements when using 3rd-party GPL software
> > when developing programs for distribution - eg, thou shalt provide
> > source code to the 3rd party GPL code, plus everything that links to it.
>
> Good.
>
> >
> > But what's the situation if I'm using 3rd party GPL code in my PIC firmware?
>
> "thou shalt provide source code to the 3rd party GPL code, plus everything
> that links to it."
>
> Which for firmware means the source for the entire project.
>
> > 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?
>
> No. That's one option. You need to make the source available. It can be with
> the product. Or on a website. Or even simply a written offer. Of course sending
> with the machine satisfies all requirements, so it may be easier.
>
> > 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. And it must be the actual source.
>
> GPL isn't the right tool for the job.
>
> BAJ
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
