[uClibc] GPL compliance

Karl Bongers karl at turbobit.com
Fri Jan 2 18:22:54 UTC 2004


Steve Dover wrote: 
> IMHO, the true spirit of GPL is that an 'end-user' can
> verify, bugfix, and enhance a given piece of software.
> So, in that spirit, you should not only provide the
> source code (even if un-modified) to meet the requirements
> of the GPL, you should also provide build documentation.
> The build documentation could consist of Makefiles.
> But the 'end-user'[1] should be able to rebuild the 'target'[2].
> Just my opinion.  IANAL.

Well said, I would agree with you.

A point I was trying to make was that I didn't see much
value in hundreds of entities distributing stock 2.4.X
kernels or stock busybox source.  The .config files
would be useful and I agree with Erik that they
are part of the GPL source.

The kernel source is rather large, and I don't relish the
idea of distributing it.  I suppose it's not bad because I can
just offer it and provide it on request.

Erik, on the busybox site, http://www.busybox.net/license.html,
you state that if you distribute GPL'ed
binaries online, then you must also distribute source online.
That's not how I interpret it.  I assume you refer to this portion:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

I don't see a "must" in there, and I don't think it is intended to
negate the "; or," at the end of Section 3.a stating that you can
include a written offer(Section 3.b).

I read it as an acceptable way to satisfy Section 3.a.

Sorry this is not uclibc related, as uclibc uses the LGPL license,
not the GPL license.  We can move it over to the busybox list if you
like.

Karl.


 




More information about the uClibc mailing list