Gpl Question

[MWeston]

I'm just wondering what my rights are when asking for source code for Linux kernels made for development kits I don't own. I recently asked a company for their kernel source and they told me I can't have it unless I buy a board. Is that how it works? Does the GPL license state that I have to own the hardware or can anyone ask at any time? I looked through the FAQ at gnu.org and I didn't find anything about this.

Thanks!

 

[Exophase]

My understanding has always been that you only need to provide source at the same level that you provide binaries. So if a person has access to the binary they have to be provided access to the source.

For instance, if I make a private beta version of my software and it uses GPL stuff I don't have to give everyone the source since I'm only giving a few people the binary. Or I don't have to provide you the source of modifications to a GPL program I'm experimenting with on my desktop.

 

[MWeston]

Okay, thanks.

So, since they only provide binaries to people who buy the board, then I don't have the right to the source code. Boooooooo!

 

[Exophase]

I could be wrong though, that's kind of my "makes sense" answer.. hopefully someone who really knows what the licensing says will comment ^^

 

[Squidge]

That was my understanding also, Exophase. When you are given access to the binaries, you must be able to download the appropriate source codes so you can make modifications, recompile, etc. However, if you don't have access to the binaries, they don't have to hand over the source code either, although many companies do, and some don't regardless.

After all, isn't that the whole point of the license? To enable you to make modifications?

 

[WizardStan]

If you know someone else with the board, they could request the source, modify it in some way, build it, give you the binary totally free, then you could ask this person for their source. It's probably easier just to ask someone with the board to pass the source directly onto you, but I'm not sure of the legalities of that; it's probably alright, but I'm no lawyer and can't say for certain. The intermediary binary definitely makes it a derivative work, though, and therefore totally on the level

 

[surt]

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?

No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

Source.

It seems they are within rights to refuse you, but if you know someone with the board they can demand the source then give it to you.

 

[Gnorf]

I am not a lawyer yet, so doubt me. In this instance, you can think of the source as a receipt. If you buy an orange, you get the receipt, if you don't buy an orange you probably won't. The GPL deals with availability, since the thing isn't available to you; tough luck. Also, GPL doesn't really mean that everything has to be open. It means that code released under GPL has to be open. You can ship the linux kernel with a closed binary blob saying it's non-derivative and just provide sources for the kernel. Also, law and physics agree one one thing: momentum. Usually, what matters is if you can get the ball rolling. If a kid in school insisted on your mother being a whore, you'd know he was wrong since you know your mother spends all her time in the kitchen. But you can't just tell him his wrong and thus make him stop insisting. You can either punch him or tell a teacher. Results may vary. None of them may get the desired results even if you're within your rights. GPL is a license, which means it's placed under several local laws and doesn't really have much actual merit until tried in specific courts in specific regions. In the future, we'll see more such cases.