Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263975AbUCZJHT (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:07:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263977AbUCZJHO (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:07:14 -0500 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:2944 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263983AbUCZJHF (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:07:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 09:09:47 GMT From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200403260909.i2Q99lfP000507@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: "David Schwartz" , Cc: , In-Reply-To: References: Subject: RE: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL? Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2654 Lines: 56 > What does it matter what it compiles under? The GPL is not Linux-specific. Actually, it matters quite a lot. If the firmware was written in assembler, and assembled with a non-free, proprietary compiler, which doesn't use standard assembley syntax, then maybe for people who are familiar with the CPU, and refuse to use proprietrary software, the machine code is the preferred form. Note that the GPL refers to the preferred form for making _modifications_, not the preferred form for writing the code from scratch. For example, suppose I made a simple wristwatch based on a Z80. It's possible that I might write the original firmware in assembley, and assemble it on another machine, (although it's probably just as likely that I'd use a pen and paper, assemble it by hand). However, if I found a bug some time later, or wanted to make any simple changes, I'd probably just disassemble the machine code and patch it manually. For highly embedded devices, the preferred form for making modifications doesn't necessarily mean the form it was originally written in. > If you don't have the preferred form of something for the purpose of making > modifications to it, then you can't give that to people, so you *CAN'T* GPL > it. Err, surely that only applies if your rights to the thing were already _granted_ to you under the GPL, and the 'preferred form' has already been established. For example, if I write a C program, and gives you the source under the GPL, the source is obviously the preferred form for making modifications. If, however, I write a C program, compile it, and put the binary and source in to the public domain, and years later all copies of the source have been lost, I don't see why somebody obtaining the binary, which has been placed in the public domain, couldn't disassemble it, read and understand it, add comments to the assembler source explaining how it works, and place the resulting work under the GPL. Another example - if I code something, the chances are that it won't have any indenting, and the variable names will either be arbitrary letters, or one or two letter abbreviations of the things they stand for. That is my prefered form of making modifications to my own code. If I then placed the code under the GPL, there is no requirement for me to indent it, just because the majority of developers would prefer that form for making modifications. John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/