On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 12:49 -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > On 01/21/2011 09:39 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > The firmware mentioned is given in the form of hex code, which doesn't > > seem to be "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to > > it." I know the issue of GPL'd binary-only stuff must have come up > > before; is there a summary of the issue anywhere I can look at? [...] > To put it bluntly, you might have to sue them to get the raw firmware > source. AIUI, purporting to release a work under the GPL does not oblige the licensor to provide the source. If they don't, it just makes the license unusable because redistributors cannot meet their obligation to provide source, unless we assume the licensor meant to grant a license that is a modified version of the GPL. However, if the company incorporated someone else's GPL content, that party could sue the company for failing to provide source for the derivative work. Requiring a copyright transfer (or even just a non-copyleft license) on all contributions neatly avoids that possibility. (Caveat, I could be completely wrong...) -- Matt _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
