On Oct 6, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Geoff Swan wrote: > So just to clarify - if you distribute an embedded device that runs a > GPLv3 binary; to comply with the GPLv3 you must not only provide the > source, but also a hardware-programmer/uploader? > I suppose in most cases this isn't necessarily a huge issue - where > firmware upgrade capability is built into the device (such as most > routers, and development style boards). > > I play with the Atmel AVR range a fair bit and typically only create > boards that require a separate hardware programmer to upload firmware. > In this case to distribute such a board with GPLv3 firmware I would > technically need to provide the in-circuit-programmer with the board > and source.
IANAL, but that is not my interpretation. Certainly, GPLv3 precludes you from making it impossible to update the software by requiring secret keys and such. But I always thought you were in compliance as long as you provided all source, and that someone with the skills and easily available tools could reprogram the device. I don't even see the necessity of providing the standard ISP or JTAG connector.... as long as the nets are exposed and you can clip into them with an octopus pod on a JTAG ICE, you are in compliance, although it won't win you many friends. After all, if you write an open source pcb design package, you don't have to ship a color monitor with it to be in compliance with the GPL, the user can provide his own. The user can provide his own AVRISP clone just as well. -dave > > I could imagine in some cases the uC may be programmed *before* it is > soldered in place and no mechanism provided by the circuit for > firmware modification. In this case I presume you would not be able to > make use of GPLv3 firmware - as no mechinism is readily available to > modify the firmware... > > I know these are perhaps somewhat unrealistic scenarios - but if I > have understood them correctly it certainly seems that GPLv3 could > have been a little more embedded platform friendly. > > > cheers, > > Geoff > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 7:01 AM, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote: >> >>> You don't need to deliver *any* source code unless it is requested >>> by the user. >> >> In the case of an embedded product, with GPLv3, the *only* way to not >> include the source is to include the written offer, which opens you up >> for a DDNS. You can only use the "web download" option if the binary >> is itself "web downloaded". >> >> Also - for embedded products, to comply with GPLv3 you must enable the >> user to change the code *in the device*. Just providing source code >> isn't enough unless they can use it too. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> geda-user mailing list >> geda-user@moria.seul.org >> http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user >> > > > _______________________________________________ > geda-user mailing list > geda-user@moria.seul.org > http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user > _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user