Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
It didn't help in the slightest.
Clarification on a few points
Posted Feb 1, 2012 4:40 UTC (Wed) by tytso (subscriber, #9993)
Posted Feb 10, 2012 12:45 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
Whether or not this is really required by the GPL is a question which (as far as I know) no court has ever ruled on point.
And I doubt it'll rule on it any time soon. SFC does not sue companies which tried to comply with GPL and just forgot to include couple of scripts in a tarball. It sues companies who blatantly violate it (that is: they neither give you source with binaries nor give you a written offer to provide such sources). When SFC is involved GPLv2 terms are no longer in play: offenders violated it, lost their rights and now must beg for forgiveness.
Of course it does not mean that the your question (is it fair to demand scripts used to build the image with GPLed component?) suddenly evaporates. But at this point it's morphed to the area of moral and conscience, not law.
How to avoid this problem? It's simple: publish the sources of the GPLed components. Toybox is not a solution. It may be first step on the path to the "true solution" (abandonment of all the GPLed components), sure. But if the plan is to remove all the GPLed components altogether, then I'd like to see the project with milestones and roadmaps.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds