Re: gEDA-user: firmware and the GPL license

[Randall Nortman <geda-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:10:11AM -0500, al davis wrote:
[...]
> RMS has claimed that GPL is not appropriate for hardware.  
[...]

I think he said this in reference to the actual hardware design, not
so much the firmware that runs on it.  But the statement is really
just as true of the firmware.  Imagine the firmware running on your
microcontroller-based refrigerator, which has no accessible user
interface, and no way to get data in or out of the hardware without
physically hacking it.  What does it mean to make the software
available to the user in this case?  Even in the case of BSD-type
licenses that require credit to be given "in the documentation
accompanying the software", what documentation?  Sure, you could stick
it in the manual for the appliance, but that would be confusing to the
average consumer.  What if the embedded device is truly embedded in
such a way that the consumer doesn't even realize there's a computing
device present -- maybe it's embedded into the structure of their home
in the form of, say, moisture sensors that detect water leaks.  The
homeowner probably won't even see a manual or any documentation for
something like that.  Maybe it's buried inside the intelligent LED
light bulbs intended to replace incandescent bulbs.

Even the LGPL (which is used by uClibc, for example) isn't really
appropriate for this kind of thing, since you still need to make the
source of the library itself available to the "users".  That's just an
obnoxious requirement for the manufacturer of those light bulbs, for
example.  The users will never take them up on it.  Instead of using
uClibc, they will just write their own code from scratch or purchase
proprietary libraries.  Admittedly, the light bulb example is a bit
contrived, but I think it illustrates the point -- software is going
to be increasingly embedded *everywhere*, and just for the sake of
economic efficiency, it would be nice if it were largely based on
free/open-source software, but the current licenses are not friendly
to this sort of thing.  So instead everybody reinvents the wheel, and
as a result more bugs creep into your refrigerator.  (And the
development tools for those proprietary libraries are, of course,
Windows-only, which isn't good for open-source either.)

I would like to see uClibc in particular released under a more
embedded-friendly license.

Sorry to rant here, as it's not really relevant to gEDA.  I should be
ranting on the uClibc mailing list, I guess.  I'm sure I wouldn't be
the first.


_______________________________________________
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user