GPL Question

Synlor · Post by **Synlor** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:37 pm

Hey everyone, some of you may know I've been working on some programs for a PIC microcontroller that decodes controllers into TTL outputs. I was wondering if I could use the GPL for this code. Does it apply to embedded devices like this? And if I can, what must I do to make my code licensed under the GPL? From what I can gather is put a little preamble in my source, and then just include the license file with it. Thanks guys

OneThirty8 · Post by **OneThirty8** » Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:31 pm

If you use GPL-licensed code in your program, then you've also got to provide a written offer with your program to make the source code available to anyone who asks.

ATani · Post by **ATani** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:40 am

Synlor wrote:Hey everyone, some of you may know I've been working on some programs for a PIC microcontroller that decodes controllers into TTL outputs. I was wondering if I could use the GPL for this code. Does it apply to embedded devices like this? And if I can, what must I do to make my code licensed under the GPL? From what I can gather is put a little preamble in my source, and then just include the license file with it. Thanks guys

I would recommend using the LGPL vs the GPL since this does not sound like a complete program, one which does not require any outside code to function fully. This sounds like a nice bit of library code which could be of use for others..

If you want to get it included into KOS it would be best to go with a BSD style license which gives the programmer using the code the most flexibility in how they utilize your code.

Given the current state of affairs on the DreamCast I would go with a BSD style license and just put the code out there. Alternatively I would send the code over to Dan as an "addon" to be included in the KOS source tree.

Mike

Alexvrb · Post by **Alexvrb** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:42 am

ATani wrote:I would recommend using the LGPL vs the GPL since this does not sound like a complete program, one which does not require any outside code to function fully. This sounds like a nice bit of library code which could be of use for others..

If you want to get it included into KOS it would be best to go with a BSD style license which gives the programmer using the code the most flexibility in how they utilize your code.

Given the current state of affairs on the DreamCast I would go with a BSD style license and just put the code out there. Alternatively I would send the code over to Dan as an "addon" to be included in the KOS source tree.

Mike

Huh? I was pretty sure he wouldn't be running code on the Dreamcast, but rather a microcontroller he is using for adapting controllers eg. Genesis -> DC in a little box with a plug on the front for Genesis and a cord going to the DC. Only he's doing a lot more than just Genesis...

He just wants a license of some sort because he wants to release his work, but doesn't want it to be ganked and have someone else slap their name on it, without at least something there to make others frown on it.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:59 pm

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html

Synlor · Post by **Synlor** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:59 pm

That is exactly it Alexvrb, thanks for explaining that better. I sometimes have a hard time expressing what I want to say with something even remotely technical

.

And thanks Ex-Cyber, that is exactly what I was looking for. The only question remains is if it is appropriate to use the GPL for code that runs on a microcontroller. As of now I can't see any reason why not. Thanks for the help

greay · Post by **greay** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:13 pm

The GPL is entirely appropriate for code that runs on a microcontroller.

On a side note, in all actuality, you can release pretty much anything under the GPL. I've seen artwork released under the GPL. And in case there's any doubt, a couple years ago I exchanged a couple emails w/someone in the EFF about the apropriateness of releasing artwork under the GPL, and he assured me it was okay. (Source code in such a case could be the image file itself, or a PSD or whatever document with all the layers & so on, any fonts that might be used...)

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:52 pm

Personally, I'd go for a Creative Commons license for artistic works. (L)GPL for artwork has some issues with the fact that it contains certain terms that are already ambiguous enough when applied to computer programs, and have virtually no discernible meaning with regard to artwork (the best example would be the terms "link"/"linking" and the distinction, if any, between "source code","object code", and "executable").

GPL Question

GPL Question

Re: GPL Question

Re: GPL Question