Re: GPLed firmware flasher ...
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> Well, no, the at arm length is about executable code, since you recognize it
> is data, the whole thing is moot and it is not a derived work.
I think this is too quick. See the first sentence of the GPL, it
doesn't apply to programs only: "This License applies to any program
or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder
saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public
License."
But I admit that I was wrong, probably your flasher and the flash
image together are a collective work.
> Consider the case of a compression program which produce auto-uncompressing
> files. Is the compressed file a derivative work of the compression program, or
> just data. I think if in that case there is no doubt, and the flasher is
> mostly the same case, since it basically uncompresses the firmware, and moves
> it to the flash instead of the filesystem.
I have to admit that I'm not sure about this one. I do agree that this
feels like the GPL shouldn't cover the contents in this example. But
as I wrote in my other mail, the GPL is pretty broad in its
demands. So one could interpret it like: the sfx archive is a
collective work (extraction software + content), and for collective
works the GPL demands distribution under GPL for everything.
If you wanted to start distributing copyrighted content using
self-extracting archives, I would recommend using something other than
a GPL compression program, just to be sure.
> Do you believe then also believe that a linux kernel with embedded initrd in a
> .initrd section of the elf kernel file constitute a derived work of said
> kernel ?
Don't understand... I'm not a developer, just a Debian user, and I
don't use initrd (as far as I know). What is embedded where?
I believe that it's a derived work if one takes an existing work or
part of it and creates something new out of it, so in the end there is
only one work. I know this is not very precise.
Michael Below
Reply to: