I've been looking at using some GPL'ed firmware code on a USB board
that I've designed. The board is part of design project for one of my
clients.
After some reading my interpretation of the GPL is that if I compile
that code into my firmware which will be conveyed to the client,
then the entire
Duncan Drennan wrote:
I've been looking at using some GPL'ed firmware code on a USB board
that I've designed.
2) What practical licenses are out there for this type of situation?
I think of how to partition things so a GPL chunk
is on one processor, and talks to a non-GPL code processor or
The GPL is based on the legal concept of a derived work. If you
partition the code, it only isolates the GPL'd code if the two parts
are not considered one work. Note that this is a legal
interpretation, not a technical one, and depends on your intentions as
well as your design. So, if you
On Thursday 15 November 2007, John Griessen wrote:
I think of how to partition things so a GPL chunk
is on one processor, and talks to a non-GPL code processor or
FPGA over a bus such as I2C bus or SPI bus.
No compiling together then. Analogous to reading an A2D
converter... no viral
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:10:11AM -0500, al davis wrote:
[...]
RMS has claimed that GPL is not appropriate for hardware.
[...]
I think he said this in reference to the actual hardware design, not
so much the firmware that runs on it. But the statement is really
just as true of the firmware.
al davis wrote:
If they are packaged separately, so a user can choose either
part, without the other.
Suppose I want to distribute a system composed of
two modules .. A and B.A is GPL. B is
proprietary. It doesn't work. However, I can sell you A
and B separately and let you
Randall Nortman wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:10:11AM -0500, al davis wrote:
[...]
RMS has claimed that GPL is not appropriate for hardware.
[...]
I think he said this in reference to the actual hardware design, not
so much the firmware that runs on it. But the statement is really
Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
BTW, did you know that RMS *does* consider the Verilog/VHDL that is
used to program an FPGA software? Hence, GPL *does* apply to
programmable hardware.
Perhaps it is time for a new license in the spirit of GPL,
See http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html
Hear hear! I
After some reading my interpretation of the GPL is that if I compile
that code into my firmware which will be conveyed to the client,
then the entire firmware code now has to fall under the GPL. This
effectively means that my client would have to open source their
firmware if I make use of
On Nov 15, 2007 8:34 AM, Randall Nortman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
available to the user in this case? Even in the case of BSD-type
licenses that require credit to be given in the documentation
accompanying the software, what documentation? Sure, you could stick
1) BSD license does not any
On Nov 15, 2007 8:10 AM, al davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RMS has claimed that GPL is not appropriate for hardware.
For hardware. Hardware isn't what is in question. Software running
on said hardware is what is in question.
BTW, did you know that RMS *does* consider the Verilog/VHDL that is
BTW, did you know that RMS *does* consider the Verilog/VHDL that is
used to program an FPGA software? Hence, GPL *does* apply to
programmable hardware.
Perhaps it is time for a new license in the spirit of GPL,
See http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html
From the TAPR ohl,
1.6 This Agreement does
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:34:38 -0500
Randall Nortman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The users will never take them up on it. Instead of using
uClibc, they will just write their own code from scratch or purchase
proprietary libraries.
It's not the users that have to have access to the code. After
On Nov 15, 2007 11:21 AM, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, to go on a tangent here, what about 'code' in the form of Gerbers
and etc produced by PCB? Would you consider the resultant board
produced by PCB to fall under a GPL license? Would I have to offer
'source' if I sold boards
On Nov 15, 2007 11:12 AM, Steven Ball [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...what about 'code' in the form of Gerbers
and etc produced by PCB? Would you consider the resultant board
produced by PCB to fall under a GPL license?
Absolutely and very clearly no. This is exactly the same as using the gcc
On Nov 15, 2007 5:00 AM, Duncan Drennan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking at using some GPL'ed firmware code on a USB board
that I've designed. The board is part of design project for one of my
clients.
After some reading my interpretation of the GPL is that if I compile
that code
Guys,
Using the instructions in the
wiki:(http://www.geda.seul.org/wiki/geda:pcb_tips)
How do I update a footprint in my layout?
I wonder if this is a new bug. Running Ubuntu Feisty, pcb20070912
There is no such InfoLibrary menu. So, I load element to paste buffer.
Then it says to
I've been doing some reading on GPL and BSD which has been quite
interesting.
IMHO, in summary, there are three interested parties:
1. The developer
2. The consumer
3. The software
Proprietary licenses protect the developer's rights and abilities.
BSD licenses protect the consumer's rights
So, to go on a tangent here, what about 'code' in the form of Gerbers
and etc produced by PCB? Would you consider the resultant board
produced by PCB to fall under a GPL license? Would I have to offer
'source' if I sold boards produced with the software?
The gerbers are derived works
Surely a company cannot enforce footprint
protection, since they cannot tell the difference, from looking at a
board, between a hand-made footprint and a re-used footprint.
That's why data can not be covered by copyright. For example the
names and numbers in a phone book can be reproduced and
I wonder if this is a new bug. Running Ubuntu Feisty, pcb20070912
It might be a fixed bug. Try the CVS version of pcb.
There is no such InfoLibrary menu.
Should be Window Library
So, I load element to paste buffer. Then it says to put new
footprint over old and shift click left
So, to go on a tangent here, what about 'code' in the form of Gerbers
and etc produced by PCB?
Gerber files are a description -- a blueprint -- that just happens to
be in machine-readable form. They obviously don't need to be derived
from PCB -- you could use a normal text editor if
On Nov 15, 2007, at 1:01 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
That's why I license all my stuff so that you don't need to worry
about the license :-)
Much appreciated. I currently work for a small company doing
electronic repair and design, and the gEDA suite is just the ticket
for getting things
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 11:05 -0800, Chris Albertson wrote:
In your case where you are wrinting code and you make use of GPL'd
code then yes you should release your code under GPL. But there is
an exception. The exception is for a GPL'd component that provides
some well defined functon that
On Thursday 15 November 2007, DJ Delorie wrote:
IMHO, in summary, there are three interested parties:
1. The developer
2. The consumer
3. The software
Proprietary licenses protect the developer's rights and
abilities. BSD licenses protect the consumer's rights and
abilities. GPL licenses
I posted a question on the fedora forum asking how to install an app,
gwave, downloaded from SourceForge.
This is one of the responces:
-
seeing as this
On Thursday 15 November 2007, Robert Butts wrote:
Where can I get gwave and how do I install it?
Where can I get gnucap?
Have you tried:
$ yum install gwave gnucap
?
I thought Fedora had the latest stable gEDA related packages.
For source ...
gnucap Stable version:
So if I write a proprietary program the uses the Motif widget set
If your application was GPL...
If the Motif widget set comes with the operating system, the GPL has
an explicit exclusion for that. If, however, you ship the Motif
widgets with your application, because they are both needed to
If you link in GPL'd code, period. That includes dynamic linking, and
any attempts to wrap the proprietary code in a GPL'd wrapper.
It is easy to come up with counter examples...
So if I write a proprietary program the uses the Motif widget set
and I license it with very restrictive terms and
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 20:36 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
Gtk had this problem until it got popular enough to be included with
Linux by default.
GTK is LGPL too, what problem do you refer to?
--
Peter Clifton
Electrical Engineering Division,
Engineering Department,
University of Cambridge,
9,
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 17:07 -0800, Chris Albertson wrote:
If you link in GPL'd code, period. That includes dynamic linking, and
any attempts to wrap the proprietary code in a GPL'd wrapper.
It is easy to come up with counter examples...
So if I write a proprietary program the uses the
So if I write a proprietary program the uses the Motif widget set
and I license it with very restrictive terms and sell it to a user.
Now lets say that user one day decides to install a GPL'd
Motiff library (lesstiff) on his system and my code is dynamically linked
to it. I don't think
On Nov 15, 2007 5:36 PM, DJ Delorie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, if you shipped a proprietary application that used the Lesstif
widget set, and you shipped the Lesstif libraries too, you'd be in
trouble. (You'd have to imagine that Lesstif wasn't already included
in most Linux distros, but
As an LGPL'ed program, Lesstif is fully capable of linking against a
proprietary program, and even being shipped with it. The only thing
is that source for Lesstif must accompany the distribution (by
reference or by inclusion). That's how I understand LGPL.
Er, right. If Lesstif were GPL
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 20:44 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
The user can do whatever they want. The GPL places NO RESTRICTIONS on
use. However, such a linked program could not be legally shared with
anyone else.
Ah.. that'd be why I couldn't see any restrictions then ;)
Doesn't this allow a
On Nov 15, 2007 6:32 PM, Peter Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't this allow a loophole for people to ship code linked against
some non GPL proprietary stub which matches the interface of the GPL
library.. then tell the users to get / replace that stub with the GPL
Why bother
Doesn't this allow a loophole for people to ship code linked against
some non GPL proprietary stub which matches the interface of the GPL
library.. then tell the users to get / replace that stub with the
GPL lib? (Or provide them a shell script which did that?)
I think we're back to the
On Thursday 15 November 2007, DJ Delorie wrote:
GTK is LGPL too, what problem do you refer to?
Hmmm... perhaps I'm thinking of something else.
I think you might be thinking of QT.
In the early days, QT was licensed QPL, an interesting
GPL-incompatible license.
The problem is that KDE was
GTK is LGPL too, what problem do you refer to?
Hmmm... perhaps I'm thinking of something else.
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
39 matches
Mail list logo
