| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issueThis is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issuePosted Dec 11, 2008 23:38 UTC (Thu) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841)In reply to: This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue by faramir Parent article: Free Software Foundation files suit against Cisco for GPL violations Plaintiff holds copyright in several computer programs, including the GNU C Library, GNU Coreutils, GNU Readline, GNU Parted, GNU Wget, GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Binutils, and GNU Debugger (“the Programs”). The usual sore point is that a vendor has modified the code and not provided the source for the modified versions. In this case it seems unlikely that Linksys has modified any of the programs listed above, although I may be missing something. The complaint would make more sense if it were directed at a modified driver or boot-related kernel mod that Linksys made to support their hardware. But then the FSF wouldn't be the copyright holder. Yeah, I know that there can be a violation of the GPL even for distributed copies of executables built from the baseline unmodified code. But I find it hard to work up much indignation over that, as compared to the case where a vendor is sitting on modifications to the original source.
(Log in to post comments)
This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue Posted Dec 12, 2008 1:01 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
We don't know what changes they've made until they release the sources.
This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue Posted Dec 12, 2008 1:07 UTC (Fri) by laf0rge (subscriber, #6469) [Link]
you would be surprised how many things are typically modified in those embedded systems. custom modified toolchains (esp. in the gcc mips backend) are among the things that I've seen for years.
This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue Posted Dec 12, 2008 2:06 UTC (Fri) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]
> Yeah, I know that there can be a violation of the GPL even for
> distributed copies of executables built from the baseline unmodified > code. But I find it hard to work up much indignation over that, as > compared to the case where a vendor is sitting on modifications to the > original source.
I don't find it hard at all. If they didn't agree to the license, then they shouldn't use the code. If they used the code and distributed executable, they need to abide by the license.
This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue Posted Dec 12, 2008 19:06 UTC (Fri) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]
I agree that you should abide by the license.
However, I also think the license is wrong to require that every redistributor of *unmodified* programs must redistribute the source. A link to a well-known, persistent source, identifying a specific version, should be sufficient.
This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue Posted Dec 13, 2008 13:54 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] But it is sufficient. According to GPLv2, 3.b:3. You may copy and distribute the Program [...] provided that you also [...]: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchangeA link qualifies as "written offer", the internet is a customary medium, and any reasonable person would be satisfied with that.
This is NOT a Linux vs. BSD (distribution) issue Posted Dec 13, 2008 7:50 UTC (Sat) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Of the things you mentioned, the only ones included in BSD are GCC, Binutils and GDB. Nothing that one would install on a wireless router. Rest of the stuff - coreutils, glibc etc - have no use in BSD system.
|
|
||||||||||||