Since this appears to be blowing up (because we didn't have enough crap this week already, right?), let me respond a bit longer to the list for completeness sake:
12. November 2021 11:05, "Keith Emery" <k.emery....@internode.on.net> schrieb: > But would anyone else like to explain why this isn't a GPL violation? Because > it really seems like > it is. The GPL is no magic fairy that does whatever you feel it should do. It has sufficiently precise meaning to _not_ require a few things, too. The only "you _must_ distribute source code" requirement in the GPL is for the GPL'd source code that made up a binary you shipped (https://review.coreboot.org/plugins/gitiles/coreboot.git/+/refs/heads/master/COPYING#134 [1]) and even that isn't unlimited: - You ship the sources with the binary -> no further responsibility (and especially not towards third parties outside that transaction) - You offer some means to obtain the sources -> must be valid for 3 years after shipping the binary. coreboot.org doesn't ship binaries of GPL code, so whenever we decide to distribute source code it's because we want to, not because we're obliged to do it. And when we decide not to distribute source code anymore, that's our right. Patrick [1] As you see, there wasn't a need to send a copy of the GPLv2 to everybody on the list, we had it already _______________________________________________ coreboot mailing list -- coreboot@coreboot.org To unsubscribe send an email to coreboot-le...@coreboot.org
