Re: GPLed firmware flasher ...

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:00:59AM -0500, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, but consider that it is the usual practice in the firmware industry to
ship them together, so the mere medium of distribution would do it.

Friendly,

Sven Luther