On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 8:15 PM, Ralph Corderoy <[email protected]>wrote:
> Is there a common reference for why Linux doesn't have to comply with > GPLv2's "installation of the executable". > > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for > making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source > code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any > associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to > control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as > a special exception, the source code distributed need not include > anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary > form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the > operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component > itself accompanies the executable. > The scripts to do it, and the ability to actually get it stored into a hardware devices flash are two different beasts. > > I'd take that to mean the scripts must include any code-signing stage, > etc. > > Cheers, Ralph. > And you'd be wrong. I don't believe this has ever been challenged, but it is accepted that it was a limitation to the GPL v2. -- -- Thomas
