Re: gEDA-user: GPLv3 question

[Dave N6NZ <n6nz@xxxxxxxx>]

On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Geoff Swan 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.

IANAL, but that is not my interpretation.  Certainly, GPLv3 precludes you from making it impossible to update the software by requiring secret keys and such.  But I always thought  you were in compliance as long as you provided all source, and that someone with the skills and easily available tools could reprogram the device.  I don't even see the necessity of providing the standard ISP or JTAG connector.... as long as the nets are exposed and you can clip into them with an octopus pod on a JTAG ICE, you are in compliance, although it won't win you many friends. 

After all, if you write an open source pcb design package, you don't have to ship a color monitor with it to be in compliance with the GPL, the user can provide his own.  The user can provide his own AVRISP clone just as well.

-dave

> 
> 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