Re: GPLed firmware flasher ...
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> writes:
> sven.luther@wanadoo.fr wrote:
>>My understanding of this is that neither the firmware constitute a
>>derived work from the flasher, nor the flasher constitute a derived
>>work of the firmware. The fact that they are individually packaged in
>>the same elf binary does not constitute a linking act, nor a
>>derivation/modification act, but mere aggregation, and is thus not a
>>problem for the GPL.
> Correct. The firmware is not some other code which the loader is
> interacting with, it's just some data which happens to be stored in an
> ELF binary.
> But anyway, the definition of "derived work" is something which can
> only be settled by a court.
That last sentence is the key bit, I think. This is enough of a grey
area that if you can tweak things so as to make the derived work
question go more clearly in your favor, you probably should.
Michael Below's suggestion of shipping the firmware as a separate data
file, for example, would make it less likely that you get an unpleasant
surprise down the road. That way it would more clearly be mere
aggregation because your program could theoretically work with some
other (as yet unwritten) firmware blob.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: