Re: Results of "downloading compressed program images" request

[Joel Sherrill <joel@OARcorp.com>]

On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Stephen Williams wrote:

> rj@eli.elilabs.com said:
> > Why does an embedded system impose special considerations for
> > licensing?  If you are concerned about distribution in binary only
> > form, this is allowed, provided that you give a reference to where the
> >  source may be found.
> 
> This is pushing the envelope, because the customer that buys a toaster
> with a ROM filled with GPLed software has no means to modify that ROM.
> There is in practice no "preferred form of the work for making modifications
> to it" because the customer has not been given the means to load a
> modification, or even link it. Nor can he. Likely, special hardware is
> required, possibly not available to anyone other then the toaster maker.

I should have added that RMS needs to comment here.  A lot of people have
been working under the understanding that it does force you to do
soemthing.  And in my mind, even the smallest chance that someone can
modify the software in an embedded system is too large.  The liability is
too large for many systems as it is without having to worry about this.
Medical systems, avionics, traffic signals, engine and brake controllers,
etc.  These type of systems are IMO the types you have to worry about.

A definitive statement on the the FSF's legal department would expect you
to have to do to satisfy the GPL/LGPL for an embedded application would be
a big help.  A more technical "cookbook to be compliant" is what I have in
mind.  We have all discussed this before and it would be nice to have a
definitive answer from the source. ;)

--joel