| |||||||||||||
Defence of the GPL realm (The H)Defence of the GPL realm (The H)Posted Dec 21, 2012 2:09 UTC (Fri) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)In reply to: Defence of the GPL realm (The H) by armijn Parent article: Defence of the GPL realm (The H)
Whether or not the firmware as a whole is derivative or aggregate is unrelated to the issues of The point is that for a given GPL'd program, GPL requires that, upon distribution of a binary of that program, the information on how to build and install a modified version of that particular binary must be provided. This requires knowing how to get a modified binary correctly into a firmware blob. The copyright status of the firmware as a whole is just moot with respect to this issue.
(Log in to post comments)
Defence of the GPL realm (The H) Posted Dec 21, 2012 2:36 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
If it was as simple as you are making it out to be, there would have been no need for the anti-Tivo clause in GPLv3
I know there are people who believe this, but nobody with standing has ever tried to enforce this, so it doesn't seem likely to prevail
|
|||||||||||||