Re: gEDA-user: GPLv3 question

[Geoff Swan <shinobi.jack@xxxxxxxxx>]

ah, cheers - really appreciate the clarification.

Geof

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 9:30 AM,  <asomers@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No.  GPLv3 says that it must be _possible_ for the user to update his
> GPLed code, but it need not be easy.  You can even ship GPLv3 code in
> an OTP chip.  Basically, just don't use DRM to prevent the user from
> changing his code when he could otherwise.  The intent is to prevent
> GPLed code from being locked down, trusted computing style.
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Geoff Swan <shinobi.jack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> So just to clarify - if you distribute an embedded device that runs a
>> GPLv3 binary; to comply with the GPLv3 you must not only provide the
>> source, but also a hardware-programmer/uploader?
>> I suppose in most cases this isn't necessarily a huge issue - where
>> firmware upgrade capability is built into the device (such as most
>> routers, and development style boards).
>>
>> I play with the Atmel AVR range a fair bit and typically only create
>> boards that require a separate hardware programmer to upload firmware.
>> In this case to distribute such a board with GPLv3 firmware I would
>> technically need to provide the in-circuit-programmer with the board
>> and source.
>>
>> I could imagine in some cases the uC may be programmed *before* it is
>> soldered in place and no mechanism provided by the circuit for
>> firmware modification. In this case I presume you would not be able to
>> make use of GPLv3 firmware - as no mechinism is readily available to
>> modify the firmware...
>>
>> I know these are perhaps somewhat unrealistic scenarios - but if I
>> have understood them correctly it certainly seems that GPLv3 could
>> have been a little more embedded platform friendly.
>>
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Geoff
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:01 AM, DJ Delorie <dj@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You don't need to deliver *any* source code unless it is requested
>>>> by the user.
>>>
>>> In the case of an embedded product, with GPLv3, the *only* way to not
>>> include the source is to include the written offer, which opens you up
>>> for a DDNS.  You can only use the "web download" option if the binary
>>> is itself "web downloaded".
>>>
>>> Also - for embedded products, to comply with GPLv3 you must enable the
>>> user to change the code *in the device*.  Just providing source code
>>> isn't enough unless they can use it too.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> geda-user mailing list
>>> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> geda-user mailing list
>> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geda-user mailing list
> geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
>


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