Hi Daniel, My post actually makes more sense if you read this part of Oliver's original post, that I wrong-headedly snipped from my reply. Sorry about that:
> Also, wasn't the whole idea that you could audit a kernel, from its > source, before installing it? Wasn't that part of the five freedoms? > So thinking about it, I can imagine this actually as being a > violation. On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 09:04:55PM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > > IANAL Google's legal minds seem to think this is OK, and in my > > personal opinion it's also compliant with the spirit of the GPL. > > I lost track of the the question, but I believe it is "does the offer > for source have to be embedded in the kernel", I can state I have > never heard of anyone taking the opinion that it must be directly > embedded in the kernel, or the kernel rom, or anything of the sort. > Only that it must be accompanying it in a way that the user always > gets it, and the user can find it. > Even a strict reading of the GPL makes this clear: " Accompany it with > a written offer" > Not "embed in it a written offer", but "accompany with". > I agree with you. I was more pointing out ways in which "accompany with" can include "accompanied in a way that may require you to use the software in order to read it", for example the case of buying an Android phone where the notices are stored on the same internal flash memory as the kernel. To read the GPL notice for the kernel you have to run it (or dissect the phone and dump the flash memory somehow, I guess.) > > At any rate AFAIK if a third party doesn't like the notice > > distribution method they can always repost the kernel with the > > information from the original offer notice reformatted in a more > > accessible way, under the terms of GPLv2 3(c). > > False. This is a compliance mechanism is that is an alternative to > the other two, and only available to noncommercial redistributions, if > they came with a written offer. That is, if you are a *noncommercial* > redistribution, rather than make your own written offer, or accompany > it with source, simply reproducing an existing written offer by > another party would be sufficient to comply. Sorry, I obviously wrote this email while half-awake. In this example I meant to move from Android back to the example of Chad Goodman and his "/sbin/readme" offer for source. My point being that if some third party wants to then they can avail themselves of 3(c) and redistribute a kernel compiled by Chad Goodman, along with the information[1] from "/sbin/readme" put into some other form they think is more reader-friendly (provided they aren't modifying or selling the kernel he provided them, as you point out.) - Angus [1] The specific wording of 3(c) is "information you received" so presumably you're allowed to reformat it if you don't change the information content.
