* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? @ 2011-09-05 10:27 brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 [not found] ` <901868733.695320.1315218442622.JavaMail.ngmail-n1zztEYQUKrHtOu4I4oYOX/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 @ 2011-09-05 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA > > Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even > > its own which he originally wanted to keep private? > > I would say yes, because the resulting firmware file is not a mere > aggregation but rather a derived work containing the GPL'd components. Does that apply to GPLv3 software as well as GPLv2 software within the firmware? > > If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files then > > the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. > > I would say so. The entire point of the GPL is that an end user who > receives GPL'd software should be able to take it apart, modify it, > put it back together, and run the result. If the firmware is the > product you are giving them, and it contains GPL software inside it, > then I think it does apply to the whole. Here again the question if this applies for v3 as well as v2 licenced software? I read about 'tivoization' and I guess that's the thing I'm actually referring to, isn't it? And as far as I read that's a point which was enforced especially with GPLv3. -Simon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <901868733.695320.1315218442622.JavaMail.ngmail-n1zztEYQUKrHtOu4I4oYOX/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <901868733.695320.1315218442622.JavaMail.ngmail-n1zztEYQUKrHtOu4I4oYOX/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-05 12:42 ` simo [not found] ` <1315226544.22877.174.camel-akOVU7JyYd8WIfilqQrPtNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: simo @ 2011-09-05 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0; +Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 12:27 +0200, brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org wrote: > > > Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even > > > its own which he originally wanted to keep private? > > > > I would say yes, because the resulting firmware file is not a mere > > aggregation but rather a derived work containing the GPL'd components. > > Does that apply to GPLv3 software as well as GPLv2 software within the firmware? If it were true yes, it would apply equally, GPLv3 is a copyleft license just like GPLv2 and the 2 are *obviously* very close. > > > If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files then > > > the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. > > > > I would say so. The entire point of the GPL is that an end user who > > receives GPL'd software should be able to take it apart, modify it, > > put it back together, and run the result. If the firmware is the > > product you are giving them, and it contains GPL software inside it, > > then I think it does apply to the whole. > > Here again the question if this applies for v3 as well as v2 licenced software? Of course. (But I think the whole premise is false, so consult a lawyer or an otherwise expert in licensing matters that understand the technicalities about how your firmware is built). > I read about 'tivoization' and I guess that's the thing I'm actually > referring to, isn't it? And as far as I read that's a point which was > enforced especially with GPLv3. Are you signing the firmware in a way that is checked at boot and won't allow the boot to proceed if the signatures do not check ? If so then there is a difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 but has nothing to do with aggregation, nor with release the source code of other unrelated components. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1315226544.22877.174.camel-akOVU7JyYd8WIfilqQrPtNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>]
[parent not found: <1315226341.22877.170.camel-akOVU7JyYd8WIfilqQrPtNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <1315226341.22877.170.camel-akOVU7JyYd8WIfilqQrPtNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-05 16:10 ` sean finney [not found] ` <20110905161012.GA30136-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: sean finney @ 2011-09-05 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: simo; +Cc: Simon Brenner, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA Hi, On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:39:01AM -0400, simo wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 11:26 +0200, sean finney wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 09:39:17AM +0200, Simon Brenner wrote: > > > So how is it when, say, a router manufacturer has its own > > > (proprietary + closed) file format for the firmware files. Within > > > the firmware he uses several GPL projects (v2 or v3) as well as some > > > own closed projects which he doesn't want to be seen by everyone. > > > > Again IANAL, this is my own interpretation (and apologies to the list > > regulars if my de-lurking is causing annoyance, if so just msg me > > privately and I'll shut up). > > > > > Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even > > > its own which he originally wanted to keep private? > > > > I would say yes, because the resulting firmware file is not a mere > > aggregation but rather a derived work containing the GPL'd components. I > > believe at least one major retail brand of consumer network products > > has been successfully taken to court along these lines. > > This is probably just BS. > > How is a firmware file different from a tar file or a .iso image ? > > Please let's stop making things up. With all due respect I am not. If the firmware image could be construed as some form of media (filesystem image, file archive, etc), then yes, there is some room for argument -- I mentioned this point in my first response, even, but the response from the OP seemed to hint that this was not the case. If it is not some readily accessible form of media/fs, for which tools and/or documentation are not freely available to pack/unpack the image, I think your argument becomes much less tangible. > Not murky at all. > The distributor has to provide the tools necessary to build and change > the program. It does not need to provide source code form unrelated apps > ion the same firmware just their binaries at most. If the firmware can > be simply unpacked and repacked they probably do not need to provide > anything more than GPL components sources and build scripts and > instructions on how to unpack/replace/repack the firmware image. Your argument has merit iff the firmware can be considered a form of media to contain a "mere aggregation". Otherwise, I don't see how to consider the firmware as anything other than a single executable with a lot of embedded data. We may agree to disagree here, and it wouldn't be the first time this argument has been had... > > Generally it *doesn't* apply to any build tools and system libraries > > that you'd normally find on the OS used to build the work, or could > > find freely available. But it's a very blurry line, and one that > > I'd just as soon avoid... > > You certainly do not need to provide compiler and libraires used by the > compiler, but makefiles or similar scripts needed for build should be > provided. What I was getting at with the "Murky" comment above was that in some cases building firmware is more than just running source code through a standard compiler chain + archiving tools. Depending on the context/platform it might be necessary to use proprietary (licensed and expensive) tools to generate either intermediate and/or final output in the process, or even the entire compiler chain might be proprietary. Sometimes even the output format itself is proprietary and laden with IP/NDA's etc. And that's where stuff gets a bit sketchy with regards to the toolchain requirements, at least IMHO. > > > If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files then > > > the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. > > > > I would say so. > > And you'd be TOTALLY wrong, unless the firware is a single program where > everything is linked together. If, as it almost certainly is, it is just > some sort of squashfs or similar that is unpacked at boot by the kernel, > then you have mere aggregation. That's kind of what I was getting at above. Please reconsider the context of that answer, that as a given, the user needs to be able to disassemble/reassemble the firmware and it was in question whether that was even possible. if you can't reliably take the image apart and put it back together, what's the difference between that and an ELF file with a really large .rodata section? > > If the firmware is the > > product you are giving them, and it contains GPL software inside it, > > then I think it does apply to the whole. > > No, it depends on what the firwamre is. A distribution ISO file doesn't > cause all the software to become magically GPLed. Agreed there. But a distribution ISO file comes in a well recognized and standardized media format for which numerous tools and documentation exist. The above was said under a different premise -- if the user could creatively use dd/squashfs-tools and a cross-compiler to reproduce a firmware image, then obviously there's much more strength to the "mere aggregate" argument. On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 08:42:24AM -0400, simo wrote: > On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 12:27 +0200, brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org wrote: > > > > Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even > > > > its own which he originally wanted to keep private? > > > > > > I would say yes, because the resulting firmware file is not a mere > > > aggregation but rather a derived work containing the GPL'd components. > > > > Does that apply to GPLv3 software as well as GPLv2 software within the firmware? > > If it were true yes, it would apply equally, GPLv3 is a copyleft license > just like GPLv2 and the 2 are *obviously* very close. And JFTR I agree with just about everything in the subsequent mail (including that it's probably a good idea to chat with a GPL-savvy lawyer). sean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20110905161012.GA30136-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <20110905161012.GA30136-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-05 17:50 ` simo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: simo @ 2011-09-05 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sean finney; +Cc: Simon Brenner, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 18:10 +0200, sean finney wrote: > > > > If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files > then > > > > the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. > > > > > > I would say so. > > > > And you'd be TOTALLY wrong, unless the firware is a single program > where > > everything is linked together. If, as it almost certainly is, it is > just > > some sort of squashfs or similar that is unpacked at boot by the > kernel, > > then you have mere aggregation. > > That's kind of what I was getting at above. Please reconsider the > context of that answer, that as a given, the user needs to be able to > disassemble/reassemble the firmware and it was in question whether > that > was even possible. if you can't reliably take the image apart and put > it back together, what's the difference between that and an ELF file > with a really large .rodata section? Ok this would be a case of combining all the code in a single executable, which makes a big difference. Unfortunately you are still totally wrong wrt the question made. Nobody can force you to disclose code, if the firmware is not found compliant then the first option is to simply stop distributing the code completely. Of course if you want to keep distributing the code then you have to come in compliance, either by removing and replacing the GPLed portions (v2 or v3 makes no difference wrt linking executables) or by compatibly licensing your own code and distributing its source under the terms of the GPL. I find it hard to think that something including the linux kernel (which is the only reason to use cifs-utils) is transformed into a single executable all linked together. But I guess everything is possible. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? @ 2011-09-05 13:50 brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 [not found] ` <498443694.299882.1315230630011.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rQUOsVZMWqyoH/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 @ 2011-09-05 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA > > The entire point of the GPL is that an end user who > > receives GPL'd software should be able to take it apart, modify it, > > put it back together, and run the result. > > Yes, but only what is part of the GPLed program. Does that mean a separation of GPL programs and proprietary programs would provide a clean solution? Perhaps one GPL firmware image and one proprietary firmware image? > > I read about 'tivoization' and I guess that's the thing I'm actually > > referring to, isn't it? And as far as I read that's a point which was > > enforced especially with GPLv3. > > Are you signing the firmware in a way that is checked at boot and won't > allow the boot to proceed if the signatures do not check ? > > If so then there is a difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 but has nothing > to do with aggregation, nor with release the source code of other > unrelated components. Interesting part. Let's say yes, how differ v2 and v3 if I signed my firmware so that none other than my own firmware was bootable? -Simon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <498443694.299882.1315230630011.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rQUOsVZMWqyoH/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <498443694.299882.1315230630011.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rQUOsVZMWqyoH/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-05 16:20 ` sean finney 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: sean finney @ 2011-09-05 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0; +Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA Hi, On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 03:50:30PM +0200, brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org wrote: > > > The entire point of the GPL is that an end user who > > > receives GPL'd software should be able to take it apart, modify it, > > > put it back together, and run the result. > > > > Yes, but only what is part of the GPLed program. > > Does that mean a separation of GPL programs and proprietary programs would provide a clean solution? Perhaps one GPL firmware image and one proprietary firmware image? If you put the kernel, busybox, and other GPL'd stuff on one image, and had some kind of "add-on" image, I don't think there'd be much question about it, as long as you could still adhere to the GPL with the former. But as simo pointed out, depending on the technicalities of how you are generating/packing your firmware files it might not be necessary either. But once again IANAL, and if you're making an actual thing that you plan on selling to someone, it's probably prudent to talk to someone who is :) > > > I read about 'tivoization' and I guess that's the thing I'm actually > > > referring to, isn't it? And as far as I read that's a point which was > > > enforced especially with GPLv3. > > > > Are you signing the firmware in a way that is checked at boot and won't > > allow the boot to proceed if the signatures do not check ? > > > > If so then there is a difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3 but has nothing > > to do with aggregation, nor with release the source code of other > > unrelated components. > > Interesting part. Let's say yes, how differ v2 and v3 if I signed my firmware so that none other than my own firmware was bootable? In that case I think you'd be violating only the spirit of v2 (i.e. techincally in compliance, but not exactly making end-users who care about the GPL happy). But with v3 you would probably have GPL compliance issues since that was one of the express concerns it attempts to address -- unless you also provided a way for the end users to create their own signed firmwares, in which case it'd be a non-issue. sean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <240043230.241860.1314945935851.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net>]
[parent not found: <240043230.241860.1314945935851.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rQUOsVZMWqyoH/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <240043230.241860.1314945935851.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rQUOsVZMWqyoH/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-02 10:40 ` Jeff Layton [not found] ` <20110902064023.51a3c945-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jeff Layton @ 2011-09-02 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, jra-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 08:45:35 +0200 (CEST) brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org wrote: > > Can you clarify why you'd like to see it as GPLv2? > > At the moment, I'm just trying to learn and understand more about the GPLv3. So for several Linux programs I've been seeing what licence they've got. I've heard that GPLv3 is quite virulent. That could prevent a manufacturer (say of routers, receivers or similar things) from using cifs-utils if he didn't want to be all of his code opened. Is that right? (re-cc'ing linux-cifs and Jeremy who is better versed in this sort of thing than I am) That's nonsense. It's certainly fine to ship GPLv3 software alongside closed source code. You'll need to provide source for the GPL'ed parts of course, but providing a set of self-contained GPLv3 programs shouldn't force a vendor to open anything else. The problems that you describe typically come in with linking GPL libraries against closed source code, which is a bit more murky. That shouldn't be a problem with cifs-utils as it doesn't ship any libraries. That said, I'm not a lawyer and you may want to consult yours before doing anything. -- Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20110902064023.51a3c945-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <20110902064023.51a3c945-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-02 12:47 ` sean finney [not found] ` <20110902124740.GB15846-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-02 13:10 ` simo 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: sean finney @ 2011-09-02 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Layton Cc: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, jra-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 06:40:23AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > That's nonsense. It's certainly fine to ship GPLv3 software alongside > closed source code. You'll need to provide source for the GPL'ed parts > of course, but providing a set of self-contained GPLv3 programs > shouldn't force a vendor to open anything else. I will echo Jeff's "you should talk to a lawyer about this", and IANAL, but to share some of my own experiences on the matter from having to deal with this myself: A lot of how the GPL applies to your own software depends on how you distribute the binary form, and whether this combined non-GPL+GPL product would be viewed as a "derivative work" or a "mere aggregation". That's to say that if you are distributing a single installable firmware file for your router, and it contains GPL'd software, you would arguably need to provide source for the entire work generating the firmware file. And this isn't specific to v3 of the GPL either, AFAIK, it's kind of the point of the license to begin with. Similarly, an application that links against a GPL'd work is generally considered to be a derived work (since the resulting application contains portions of the GPL'd work), and thus the GPL would apply to the whole. I'm not sure the linking issue has been tried in court but I do think that the previous issue has been successfully argued. If on the other hand you have something a bit more modular, where the GPL'd component (or conversely the proprietary component) was not included in the firmware binary but was added/removed through some additional medium (i.e. packages from a cd-rom or download site), then you'd have a pretty strong argument for the "mere aggregation" status. Possibly also if you could show that the resulting firmware image was more like a medium for distribution (i.e. tarball or disk image) rather than software, but that's a really slippery slope and I don't know how well received that would be. sean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20110902124740.GB15846-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <20110902124740.GB15846-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-03 7:39 ` Simon Brenner [not found] ` <4E61D9A5.6010303-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Simon Brenner @ 2011-09-03 7:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA Thanks for all your answers so far! > That's to say that if you are distributing a single installable > firmware file for your router, and it contains GPL'd software, you would > arguably need to provide source for the entire work generating the > firmware file. And this isn't specific to v3 of the GPL either, AFAIK, > it's kind of the point of the license to begin with. So how is it when, say, a router manufacturer has its own (proprietary + closed) file format for the firmware files. Within the firmware he uses several GPL projects (v2 or v3) as well as some own closed projects which he doesn't want to be seen by everyone. Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even its own which he originally wanted to keep private? How about the toolchain he used to compile all the stuff? If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files then the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. Can you clarify that for me? Thanks! -Simon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4E61D9A5.6010303-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <4E61D9A5.6010303-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-05 9:26 ` sean finney [not found] ` <20110905092634.GA28829-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: sean finney @ 2011-09-05 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Simon Brenner; +Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA Hi, On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 09:39:17AM +0200, Simon Brenner wrote: > So how is it when, say, a router manufacturer has its own > (proprietary + closed) file format for the firmware files. Within > the firmware he uses several GPL projects (v2 or v3) as well as some > own closed projects which he doesn't want to be seen by everyone. Again IANAL, this is my own interpretation (and apologies to the list regulars if my de-lurking is causing annoyance, if so just msg me privately and I'll shut up). > Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even > its own which he originally wanted to keep private? I would say yes, because the resulting firmware file is not a mere aggregation but rather a derived work containing the GPL'd components. I believe at least one major retail brand of consumer network products has been successfully taken to court along these lines. > How about the toolchain he used to compile all the stuff? This gets into really murky waters... see the definition of "Corresponding Source" and what it entails. If you have custom proprietary build tools used to generate the image, there's a pretty strong argument that they are included in the derived work and thus subject to its terms. Generally it *doesn't* apply to any build tools and system libraries that you'd normally find on the OS used to build the work, or could find freely available. But it's a very blurry line, and one that I'd just as soon avoid... > If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files then > the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. I would say so. The entire point of the GPL is that an end user who receives GPL'd software should be able to take it apart, modify it, put it back together, and run the result. If the firmware is the product you are giving them, and it contains GPL software inside it, then I think it does apply to the whole. sean ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20110905092634.GA28829-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <20110905092634.GA28829-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-05 12:39 ` simo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: simo @ 2011-09-05 12:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: sean finney; +Cc: Simon Brenner, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 11:26 +0200, sean finney wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 09:39:17AM +0200, Simon Brenner wrote: > > So how is it when, say, a router manufacturer has its own > > (proprietary + closed) file format for the firmware files. Within > > the firmware he uses several GPL projects (v2 or v3) as well as some > > own closed projects which he doesn't want to be seen by everyone. > > Again IANAL, this is my own interpretation (and apologies to the list > regulars if my de-lurking is causing annoyance, if so just msg me > privately and I'll shut up). > > > Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even > > its own which he originally wanted to keep private? > > I would say yes, because the resulting firmware file is not a mere > aggregation but rather a derived work containing the GPL'd components. I > believe at least one major retail brand of consumer network products > has been successfully taken to court along these lines. This is probably just BS. How is a firmware file different from a tar file or a .iso image ? Please let's stop making things up. > > How about the toolchain he used to compile all the stuff? > > This gets into really murky waters... see the definition of > "Corresponding Source" and what it entails. If you have custom > proprietary build tools used to generate the image, there's a pretty > strong argument that they are included in the derived work and thus > subject to its terms. Not murky at all. The distributor has to provide the tools necessary to build and change the program. It does not need to provide source code form unrelated apps ion the same firmware just their binaries at most. If the firmware can be simply unpacked and repacked they probably do not need to provide anything more than GPL components sources and build scripts and instructions on how to unpack/replace/repack the firmware image. > Generally it *doesn't* apply to any build tools and system libraries > that you'd normally find on the OS used to build the work, or could > find freely available. But it's a very blurry line, and one that > I'd just as soon avoid... You certainly do not need to provide compiler and libraires used by the compiler, but makefiles or similar scripts needed for build should be provided. > > If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files then > > the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. > > I would say so. And you'd be TOTALLY wrong, unless the firware is a single program where everything is linked together. If, as it almost certainly is, it is just some sort of squashfs or similar that is unpacked at boot by the kernel, then you have mere aggregation. > The entire point of the GPL is that an end user who > receives GPL'd software should be able to take it apart, modify it, > put it back together, and run the result. Yes, but only what is part of the GPLed program. > If the firmware is the > product you are giving them, and it contains GPL software inside it, > then I think it does apply to the whole. No, it depends on what the firwamre is. A distribution ISO file doesn't cause all the software to become magically GPLed. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <20110902064023.51a3c945-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-02 12:47 ` sean finney @ 2011-09-02 13:10 ` simo 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: simo @ 2011-09-02 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Layton Cc: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0, linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA, jra-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 06:40 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2011 08:45:35 +0200 (CEST) > brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org wrote: > > > > Can you clarify why you'd like to see it as GPLv2? > > > > At the moment, I'm just trying to learn and understand more about > the GPLv3. So for several Linux programs I've been seeing what licence > they've got. I've heard that GPLv3 is quite virulent. That could > prevent a manufacturer (say of routers, receivers or similar things) > from using cifs-utils if he didn't want to be all of his code opened. Almost everything you said up to here is a mixture of FUD, misconceptions and outright lies (you are no doubt a victim of such lies, not saying you lied). > Is that right? No First of all GPLv3 is no more "virulent" than GPLv2, that it is to say it is not at all. A license cannot spread to other code unless the copyright holder wants to apply it to his code. The license, like any other, states some requirements about source code and when and how and to whom it needs to be distributed, and when the code can be linked to other code. Esp. with cifs-util code, that is not a library and therefore arguably not linked together with other code there is really no more than mere aggregation going on. I strongly suggest you talk to a (knowledgeable) lawyer about what are your obligations applied to your specific case if you have this kind of doubts. If you do not know lawyers that well versed in free software licenses, write me in private and I'll give you names. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? @ 2011-09-01 13:08 brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 [not found] ` <1473841237.231172.1314882534664.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rTYJ3RwVI/HE3/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 @ 2011-09-01 13:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA Hello there, I'm wondering whether the cifs-utils are available licenced under the GPLv2? I only found it under GPLv3. Maybe there are specific circumstances under which the licence is changeable? Thanks, -Simon Brenner. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1473841237.231172.1314882534664.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rTYJ3RwVI/HE3/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org>]
* Re: GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? [not found] ` <1473841237.231172.1314882534664.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rTYJ3RwVI/HE3/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> @ 2011-09-01 15:05 ` Jeff Layton 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jeff Layton @ 2011-09-01 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0; +Cc: linux-cifs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA On Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:08:54 +0200 (CEST) brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org wrote: > Hello there, > > I'm wondering whether the cifs-utils are available licenced under the GPLv2? I only found it under GPLv3. Maybe there are specific circumstances under which the licence is changeable? > > Thanks, > > -Simon Brenner. No. It's GPLv3 and up. We do occasionally dual-license some of the patches to make it easier to backport to older versions of the same tools in samba. The cifs-utils package itself has always been GPLv3 however. Can you clarify why you'd like to see it as GPLv2? -- Jeff Layton <jlayton-eUNUBHrolfbYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-09-05 17:50 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-09-05 10:27 GPLv2 for cifs-utils existing? brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 [not found] ` <901868733.695320.1315218442622.JavaMail.ngmail-n1zztEYQUKrHtOu4I4oYOX/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-05 12:42 ` simo [not found] ` <1315226544.22877.174.camel-akOVU7JyYd8WIfilqQrPtNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> [not found] ` <1315226341.22877.170.camel-akOVU7JyYd8WIfilqQrPtNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-05 16:10 ` sean finney [not found] ` <20110905161012.GA30136-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-05 17:50 ` simo -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2011-09-05 13:50 brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 [not found] ` <498443694.299882.1315230630011.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rQUOsVZMWqyoH/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-05 16:20 ` sean finney [not found] <240043230.241860.1314945935851.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail12.arcor-online.net> [not found] ` <240043230.241860.1314945935851.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rQUOsVZMWqyoH/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-02 10:40 ` Jeff Layton [not found] ` <20110902064023.51a3c945-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-02 12:47 ` sean finney [not found] ` <20110902124740.GB15846-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-03 7:39 ` Simon Brenner [not found] ` <4E61D9A5.6010303-KvP5wT2u2U0@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-05 9:26 ` sean finney [not found] ` <20110905092634.GA28829-Znhnm/lQSyjxW5zecs3cv0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-05 12:39 ` simo 2011-09-02 13:10 ` simo 2011-09-01 13:08 brennersimon-KvP5wT2u2U0 [not found] ` <1473841237.231172.1314882534664.JavaMail.ngmail-hrWuGRo80rTYJ3RwVI/HE3/75uz/KqYjrE5yTffgRl4@public.gmane.org> 2011-09-01 15:05 ` Jeff Layton
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.