Re: non-free firmware in kernel modules, aggregation and unclear copyright notice.
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
>Humberto Massa wrote:
>>First, there is *NOT* any requirement in the GPL at all that requires
>>making compilers available. Otherwise it would not be possible, for
>>instance, have a Visual Basic GPL'd application. And yes, it is
>From section 3 of the GNU GPL, version 2:
> 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.
Let's put this in a line-by-line way:
For an executable work, complete source code means:
1. all the source code for all modules it contains, plus
2. any associated interface definition files, plus
3. the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the
This means, in a normal c/c++ project, respectively:
1. *.c files;
2. *.h files;
3. autotools/Make files.
>I take that to mean the compiler's exempted if it's the normal one
>available on the platform, but if the software distributor had to
>modify gcc to produce the binaries it's distributing then you're
>entitled to the compiler too.
No, the compiler is always exempted.
>So a Visual BASIC application uses a standard VB compiler, but that's
>not necessarily the case for a Linux kernel running on an embedded box.
There is no "standard" VB compiler, because VB does not come with
Windows. You are being spoiled by your beautiful linux distro having
100+ development toolchains *included*.