Re: GPLed firmware flasher ...
Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> writes:
> 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.
Hm. So the LGPL is completely useless in practice?
I understand that the GPL has a rather broad approach.
> 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.
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.
Quoting the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html), clause Nr. 2,
second paragraph and following:
"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the
Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate
works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply
to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But
when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees
extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part
regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or
contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the
intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of
derivative or collective works based on the Program."
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.
> 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.
As far as I understand, the LGPL has been created to avoid such
deadlocks.
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...
Michael Below
(not a DD, not a lawyer, not a d-l regular, no special knowledge in
anglo-saxon copyright law)
Reply to: