On 28-05-13 14:41, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
Hi Neil,
If someone were to sell a router, and were to include the offer as
part of the web GUI (e.g. in the equivalent of an "about" screen)
instead of as a piece of paper in the box, I would have thought this
would be more than acceptable: the aim of provision of the licence is
one of raising awareness.
I think I disagree. It's a long time ago now, but when I persuaded
Amstrad that they had to supply the Linux kernel's source used on their
E3 videophone they added the written offer into the GUI of the phone, as
you suggest. The problem was, IIRC, that this part of the GUI was only
accessible once the device had `phoned home' as part of its
registration. IOW, dialling a premium line and passing on my phone
number. That doesn't seem acceptable to me.
I think I agree with you here Ralph. Isn't it about 'freedom of the
user', that the user can edit/modify etc the source.
Also, as a programmer, what if I learn of a Linux kernel binary for
device A that's similar to device B that I have but not compatible
enough to run the binary? Perhaps I've less RAM but want to support
similar peripherals. I want to take up the written offer buried in it
in order to help with B's development. It may be that I can disassemble
the binary enough, e.g. the written offer is visible in the initial RAM
disk, but it could be more entwined somewhere in compressed form. I
shouldn't have to disassemble to get the offer of the source that means
I don't have to disassemble. :-)
Sorta exactly my point. What if the app crashes and I can't read it.
This brings up the point of the /proc/config.gz situation. However I
should note (while I have not confirmed) there appearantly ARE tools to
extract said config from a NON running kernel. So does not apply.
So ... how does this of course legally work, how inconvenient for the
users it is.
Cheers, Ralph.
Oliver
P.S. This sounds like a really nasty way to make it as hard as possible
for the user. And again, while it could possibly not be a violation (I
would think it is), it is definitely against the spirit of the GPL.
