Re: [avr-chat] µC/avr crypto lib

[Bernard Fouché]

Bob Blick wrote:
> The fact that there are already crypto libraries with other licenses
> says to me it's about time we have one that's GPL. Because whether you
> like it or not, it's the preferred license for many people. Who write
> code. Code that you probably use every day. Maybe some written by
> Richard Stallman.
>
>   

(IIRC, 'xyssl' has both licensing: it is available as GPL or BSD. 
(however http://xyssl.org is down today so I can't confirm))

GPL was designed for software products only. Software is inexpensive to 
reproduce and to provide to customers.

In the embedded world, software is sold with hardware. Hardware costs 
are directly linked to the amount of products manufactured, hardware 
must be shipped to customers and customers want proximity for 
service/maintenance of hardware.

When a company sells an embedded product with GPL code in it, it counts 
on its Bill Of Material being so low, its market share being so big, 
and/or its hardware being so complex to reproduce that no one will be 
able to take the same GPL code, build hardware from scratch and make 
money from it. (for instance, I can read the GPL from a menu in my 
Panasonic plasma screen but even if I call Panasonic to query the source 
code, I will never be able to manufacture plasma screens and take any 
market shares from Panasonic. IIRC Netgear stuff also runs GPL code, but 
who here will compete with Netgear?)

However if you make yourself in your garage a product that runs code 
that got the GPL virus, then you will able bigger companies to query the 
whole source code and eventually make their own version of your product, 
probably at a lower cost or with a better commercial network to sell 
that product.

The GPL initial goal is then totally reversed: the author of the code is 
sure to be robbed of the code's benefits, as anyone that includes the 
author's code in a product, but the 'big cats'. The big cats make their 
living because they can manufacture zillions of products at a cost you 
will never be able to reach in your garage and they can reach customers 
that will never buy from you. If at the same time they can lower their 
software production costs and steal clever ideas from the source code 
thanks to the GPL, that's better for them, not for the individuals that 
initially wrote the code.

LGPL/BSD allow small companies manufacturing products to be at the same 
level than bigger companies, at least for intellectual property rights, 
and these small companies may hope to grab market shares because of 
creativity hidden in their product's source code. GPL forbids small 
manufacturers to have such hopes.

So until hardware production costs reach software reproduction costs 
whatever the amount for products considered, until 
distribution/transportation costs are also zero, until brand names are 
all equal, until creativity has no more value, until intellectual 
property rights are nil,  GPL is not "the preferred license" for people 
that wants to make hardware devices and make a living by selling them, 
no matter what is the current fashion trend about the GPL.