Re: GPLed firmware flasher ...
Sven Luther wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 09:24:29AM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>
>>Despite the letter of the GPL and its post-amble, "linking", generally
>>construed as "stitching together (normally executable) object (as
opposed to
>>source) files and resolving fixups so the result is an executable
file" does
>>NOT make a derivative work. Derivative works are made when you have
>>intelligent *transformation* of the original work. Linking is not
>>intelligent -- much au contraire, it's fully automatic.
>>
>>So, no, if it doesn't fit, you must acquit -- IOW: the fact of
embedding the
>>flasher and the flash in the same ELF file does not make the combined
work a
>>derivative work on any of them; only a "collective" work on both.
>>
>>Collective works are treated separately by copyright law. To distribute a
>>collective work, the distributor must comply with both licenses
individually
>>(flasher=GPL, flash=proprietary). If the flash albeit proprietary is
>>redistributable, the combined ELF is Ok.
>
>
>Is this collective work the same thing as the 'mere aggregation' that
the GPL
>and/or GPL FAQ mentions?
Now I will say the same thing you did: "vide" the discussion on firmware
binary
blobs. But to spoil the suspense: I don't believe the this is the same
thing,
but the afterall effect is the same.
>>With the obvious caveat that it couldn't be distributed _by_ _Debian_.
>
>Well, no, but the flasher code with a script or makefile to link any
random
>firmware in and produce a flasher would be.
Agreed.
>The combined work is also distributable in the non-free section of our
>archive.
I'm sure you mean it, but to clarify: IIF the flash is distributable.
>Friendly,
>
>Sven Luther
HTH,
Massa
Reply to: