Re: GPLed firmware flasher ...
Michael Below wrote:
Hm. So the LGPL is completely useless in practice?
Don't tell RMS, but in my analysis I believe it's safe to link a
non-derivative work with a GPL'd library. Especially if you are
dynamic-linking. But even otherwise.
The problem is that only after Abstraction, Filtration and Comparison
you can determine if a work is derivative or not.
In the case of the Linux kernel, part of the job is done by the
copyright holders in the form of the EXPORT_SYMBOL* macros. They are a
very good document of the author intent of a symbol to construe its use
as "intimate implementation relationship" or not.
I think you are right, we are talking about a collective work. But I
still believe that the GPL demands the distribution of the flash image
under GPL terms, when both image and flasher are distributed together.
Oh, I know it demands it -- but can it demand it? The GPL FAQ excludes
explicitly the "mere aggregation inside the same ELF binary". But ITOH,
it's not in the text of the license, that says that things can be
together "on a volume of storage or distribution medium", meaning
primarily the same disk, but leaving open the interpretation to "on the
same ELF binary in a separate section/variable that is being used as a
medium to distribute the stuff".
If I am wrong, then you also coudn't make an InstallShield installer for
GPL'd software. I don't think so.
The flash image is an identifiable part of the collective work
"flasher+image", right? And the flasher would be a GPL program, on
which the work "flasher+image" is based. So I think the last sentence
of clause Nr. 2, second paragraph does apply here: the whole must be
distributed under GPL terms.
This doesn't depend on the applicable law (US copyright law? brazilian
equivalent? german Urheberrecht?). The GPL is in essence a
contract. If there is a clause in a contract, it has precedence over
the law, as far as allowed by law. I believe this is universal (you
may prove me wrong, at least in Germany there are binding rules and
non-binding "default" rules in the law). And from this starting point,
I don't see a reason why this clause should be forbidden by any one of
the applicable laws, even if it re-defines some terms also used in
national law.
Even if the GPL is a contract (and down here in Brasil software licenses
*are* contracts), in *no* place in the GPL (unless you argue that the
post-amble "how to use the GPL" is a binding part of the contract, and
IMHO it's not) "linking" is mentioned as a prohibition. The section 2
permits 'mere aggregation', and I think lots of people (and judges and
juries) would agree that the random hello_world.c is *not* a derivative
work on glibc, and that even a statically-linked gpl_hello_world.c +
proprietary libc is distributable -- as long as the proprietary libc
part allows for distribution.
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.
The GPL seems to say something different in clause Nr. 2, last
sentence. So the distributor is bound by contract to distribute
everything under GPL. And since he is not allowed to do that, he may
not distribute it at all, clause Nr. 7.
Unless you are "merely aggregating"...
As far as I understand, the LGPL has been created to avoid such
deadlocks.
Yes, you are right.
I wouldn't insist that a judge would necessarily follow my
understanding. But I think there is a certain risk that he/she would
do so. And to avoid that risk, I would avoid GPL...
Going back to the subject, I don't think there is a strong reason to
avoid the GPL in the case of a firmware flasher.
Michael Below
(not a DD, not a lawyer, not a d-l regular, no special knowledge in
anglo-saxon copyright law)
HTH,
Massa
(NAL, not a DD, d-l irregular, paralegal, married to [another] DA for
the last 8 years)
Reply to: