Busybox GPL violator: LaCie

[Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 05:49:13PM -0500, thinkliberty wrote:
> There IS a requirement to provide the tool chain in section 3 of the GPL
> 
> "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work formaking
> modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
> the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
> definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
> installation of the executable."
> 
> See  http://gpl-violators.org/faq/sourcecode-faq.html Under the section
> "What about the compiler, the toolchian?"
> 
> "The GPL explicitly states:
> " However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
> accompanies the executable. "
> 
> Clearly, this paragraph is written for userspace programs running on
> existing general purpose operating systems. So if you have only distributed
> such programs, then you do not need to include compiler, kernel, linker, and
> so on.
> 
> Particularly in the case of cross-compilation for embedded platforms, the
> cross compiler for your specific hardware is very likely not something that
> is "normally distributed with ... the operating system".
> 
> Therefore, in such cases, you have to provide the the exact version of your
> compiler toolchain that was used to create the executables that you have
> distributed. Please note that in most cases this will be GNU gcc, which is
> itself GPL licensed, so the GPL obligations will in turn apply to the
> toolchain, and you must release the complete corresponding source code to it
> as well."

I can't agree with that. If it was so, you wouldn't be able to
distribute GPL programs compiled with VC and other proprietary
compilers, if the program used extensions limited to that compiler or
no OSS compiler for that platform was available.

And that would go also for the image maker, signer and signing keys.
Otherwise, how would you install the modified version?

It even goes against
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat

Also, I think the exception is really only about "major components on
which the executable runs", not on where it was compiled.

Note that this is just my personal opinion, and I'm not a laywer (tm),
and I really don't want to start a lengthy discussion about (c). But I
think your conclusion goes against FSF's faq and the letter of the
license. I'll quickly change my mind if anyone presents me with a (c)
case that was only or partially about the compiler tool chain and it was
decided against the violator.

-- 
lfr
0/0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/attachments/20070309/141f19fe/attachment-0002.pgp