On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote:
> Howdie,
>
> First, I am not a lawyer, but I do have some experience with these
> things. I was also just present in a BOF session in OLS which discussed
> GPLed violations with specific regards to embedded systems and was
> hosted by Harald Welte, current IPTables maintainer that has just won
> several off courst and one on court law suites related to GPL violation
> in embedded devices. (see
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040725150736471 for example).
>
> Omer Zak wrote:
>
> > Where can I find information about the following issues:
> > 1. Using GPLed software on embedded hardware, where the software is on
> > ROM and cannot be modified by regular users.
>
> There is a legal view that the GPL actually mandates you to allow the
> end user to run modified software on the original device. Mind you -
> this not my view, it is the view of Harald Welte (see above) lawyers. In
The Harald Welte vs Sitecom Deutschland GmbH as reported in the above URL
does not say this. I believe that you might be misreading. If you think
otherwise, please quote the text in the translation of the decision that
you think supports this opinion.
IMHO, the GPL makes no reference to and no assumption about the ease of
modification of the software in a technical or financial sense. The GPL
does not require you to provide toolsets to build the code. For example,
if you can only build a piece of OS code using a compiler that costs
$100,000.00, the GPL does not require you to provide the compiler if you
modify the code. If you have to buy a US$10**6 wafer fab unit in order to
install the software, the GPL does not require you to provide a cheaper
alternative.
This problem also occurs where the knowledge required to make
modifications is beyond the grasp of most programmers. For example,
OpenOffice is truly Open Source code, but very few individual programmers
have the time or money required to acquire the ability to make changes. To
some degree, this "closes" the software.
I believe the decision against Sitecom was primarily because their
original act of non-disclosure of their modified sources invalidated their
license to use the code.
> the eyes of those that holds this view, you are mandated to provide a
> way to replace the GPLed software on the device with your own version
> and still have a working device. This includes the duty to supply any
> utility, encryption keys needed to sign new versions(!) and so on and so
> forth needed to do this.
>
> > 2. What happens if the system must not be modifiable by normal users
> due to regulatory issues (such as WiFi cards or medical equipment), but the
> > manufactures wishes to use GPLed software to implement parts of the
> system software.
I have gotten FDA 510(k) approval for a number of devices that use Open
Source software. In fact, this was TkOS's major line of business until
four years ago.
The requirement to not modify the device has nothing to do with the GPL.
It is an issue between the end user and the FDA. The GPL cannot be
interpreted to mean that any modification to a piece of software that
received FDA approval must also receive FDA approval. This would be
absurd.
- yba
>
> That's very simple: if you are not allowed to give users the ability to
> change the software, you are not allowed to distribute said GPLed
> software. Pure and simple.
>
> Once again, the views above are not my own, I am simply repeating views
> by the legal experts (mind you, in Germen law!) that managed to get the
> GPLed enforced in a Germen court in an embedded system case.
>
> Cheers,
> Gilad
>
> >
>
>
>
--
EE 77 7F 30 4A 64 2E C5 83 5F E7 49 A6 82 29 BA ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
