gnupic: gputils license query
Subject:
gputils license query
From:
David McNab ####@####.####
Date:
16 Jan 2005 21:53:07 +0000
Message-Id: <41EAE239.20206@rebirthing.co.nz>
Hi,
On responding to a license query regarding pic18forth, I looked up the
license for gputils.
According to gputils website, gputils is issued under the GPL.
I need to ask - does the GPL 'infect' any binary code generated by
gputils? For instance, would the GPL automatically apply to:
- .o files generated by gpasm from user-written .asm files?
- .a files generated by gplib?
- .hex files generated by gplink?
and let's not forget:
- .o/.hex files generated by gpal?
If so, then for developers writing firmware for commercial PIC-based
hardware, it would become mandatory to make the firmware's source code
available to end customers of the hardware.
For instance, if Joe Bloggs built and sold a 'smart Christmas tree
lighting system' based on PIC, and wrote the firmware in GPAL, and
compiled the runtime image with gpal/gpasm/gplib/gplink, then this
firmware could be seen as a 'derived work', which would mean that Joe
Bloggs has to enclose a CD of his source code with the product, or write
a URL into the manual for downloading this source code.
I'd like some clarification on this. If it's not the gputils developers'
wish for GPL to 'infect' user-created firmware, then it might be an idea
to add a special exclusion to this effect to the gputils website and doco.
--
Cheers
David
