Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?
>>>>> "AB" == Adrian Bunk <email@example.com> writes:
Me> ... Also, there doesn't seem to be any obligation* on the part
Me> of the licensor to provide source in any particularly readable
Me> or maintainable format. Creators of Modified Versions might be
Me> under some such obligation, but I'm not sure the original
Me> author is.
AB> WTF does the header state a file is under the GPL when all it
AB> contains is a binary blob without available source code?
Are you just going to keep repeating that question, or are you going
to read what anyone else writes?
1) If that's the source code the software creator is offering, how can
you say it's not GPL-able?
2) It's not a binary blob -- it's a C data structure with ASCII
representations of a big binary blob. Technically, it's the source
for the machine code, even if it's mostly unreadable source.
3) You're not sure that there's actually any non-machine code
source. It's entirely possible that they program the chip directly
in machine code -- no assembly, no high-level language.
I'd say: find out if there's some other "source" that should be used
here. If not, that's just going to have to do.