Re: GPLed firmware flasher ...

[Michael Below <mbelow@antithese.de>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

>> 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.
>
> Nope, since it clearly exludes it in the last paragraph of clause 2 :
>
>   In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
>   with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
>   a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
>   the scope of this License.
>
> So, there can be no doubt.

I doubt it :)

Honestly, law is not like that, there is (nearly) always another
possible opinion.

If the program is tailored for the data, them both together are more
than a "mere aggregation", they are a functional unity. I'd say that's
what is meant by "collective work" in the paragraph above that one you
are citing (already cited in one of my earlier mails). And according
to that paragraph, the GPL then has to be extended onto the whole of
the collective work.

Now Humberto says that this may be so, but that this demand is
countermanded in the next paragraph, the one you are citing, by
allowing a "mere aggregation". I don't think that the license has to
be read like this, equaling "mere aggregation" and "collective
work". The fact that different words have been used indicates that
different meanings are intended. Also, if there is one interpretation
that makes the license contradict itself, and another one that makes
it seem consistent, I would go for the consistent one, assuming the
authors knew what they were doing.

BTW, I wouldn't search for definitive legal statements in secondary
documents like the GPL FAQ etc. For Germany, I'd say that the terms of
the license are only what is labeled as such (from "TERMS..." to
"END"). The other stuff (there seems to be a lot of it) would be
seen as secondary, only to be used to clarify the terms of the
license.

I think the arguments on this issue are exchanged now. I still think
it is well possible that I am right, both with my first and my second
opinion ;)

Obviously others came to the same conclusions regarding derivative
works before, and they may come to these conclusions again. And if
not, there is still that passage about collective works. So I'd not go
for the doubtless, eternal truth one might feel deep in the heart...

A teacher of mine used to repeat that sentence all the time: "as a
lawyer, always choose the most secure way". So that's what I would
advise you, even if I'm not yet a lawyer.

Michael Below