| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The kernel and binary firmwareThe kernel and binary firmwarePosted Apr 8, 2005 0:16 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: The kernel and binary firmware by bfields Parent article: The kernel and binary firmware it makes more sense to think of the kernel tarball, containing both firmware and linux source, as a "mere aggration" of the two constituents, more akin to a gnu/linux distribution than to the source for a single program I don't see how that could even be controversial or new. Many projects distribute tarballs that contain both GPL and non-GPL source files, and people agree that the tarball is not a derived work of the GPL files. I thought the issue was the kernel binary -- the bzImage file. Many people believe that whole file is a derived work of GPL source code and therefore I cannot distribute the file to someone without offering source code for every byte in it. If some of those bytes are binary-only firmware, I can't meet that condition. But I can easily see a novel controversy in the question over whether the binary-only firmware in the bzImage file is part of the derived work. Is that what's in question?
(Log in to post comments)
The kernel and binary firmware Posted Apr 11, 2005 21:17 UTC (Mon) by czr (guest, #13701) [Link] Given the recent 2.6 kernel ability to piggyback cpio-files in the bzImage(initramfs), I find this interesting. The piggybacking mechanism is a quick and dirty way of "append" in initrd-image into the bzImage so that one can get a working initrd without relying for the boot loader to know how to load initrd-files. If, indeed, the whole bzImage file to be thought as derivate work of the kernel, that would mean that also the contents of this piggybacked cpio file would fall under the GPL. Note that the initrd might easily contain software which is not "part of the kernel" or even know/care what kind of UNIX-like kernel it runs on (unless you distribute kernel modules with it, but even then you'd not be restricted by GPL per se). Does anyone have a clear picture on this issue and the rationale on why exactly the whole bzImage file should be considered under GPL, or just the kernel part (in this case)? If this is indeed the case, how would this be different from the bootloader loading the non-GPLed initrd-file and patching system memory with it before starting the kernel (which is what is normally done)?
The kernel and binary firmware Posted Apr 14, 2005 9:34 UTC (Thu) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] If you can include an archive into a kernel image and an archive consistsof 'mere aggregation', then the bzImage may as well be considered a self-extracting archive just like a shar or an executable installer for a Windows application. The line the GPL draws between 'linking' and 'aggregating' looks a bit like the 'strange' screensaver right now :-)
|
|
||||||||||||