> > Would the manufacturer then have to provide all source code, even > > its own which he originally wanted to keep private? > > I would say yes, because the resulting firmware file is not a mere > aggregation but rather a derived work containing the GPL'd components. Does that apply to GPLv3 software as well as GPLv2 software within the firmware? > > If every user has to be able to rebuild his own firmware files then > > the manufacturer would be forced to open all code. > > I would say so. The entire point of the GPL is that an end user who > receives GPL'd software should be able to take it apart, modify it, > put it back together, and run the result. If the firmware is the > product you are giving them, and it contains GPL software inside it, > then I think it does apply to the whole. Here again the question if this applies for v3 as well as v2 licenced software? I read about 'tivoization' and I guess that's the thing I'm actually referring to, isn't it? And as far as I read that's a point which was enforced especially with GPLv3. -Simon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
