[Arm-netbook] EOMA68-A20 now booting Linaro distro from uSD card

[luke.leighton]

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM, joem <joem at martindale-electric.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> The issue was that I was releasing binaries uSD cards
>>
>> > because my way of doing things is that I believe tools are more
>> > important than recipes. It takes all sorts to make the world go around,
>> > and that is where I stand on the importance of binaries.
>> >
>> >
>> > Then gpl gets in the way and says, though my intentions are good,
>> > in describing how the binary was built, its not good enough,
>> > I (not some 3rd party) must supply the exact sources for all items in
>> > the binary and working tools.
>> >
>> >
>> > When I release the 2GB uSD Card binary bootable distro for eoma,
>> > I am obliged to supply the exact sources for each item that has a gpl
>> > license.
>>
>> : ... or you are obliged to provide a pointer to where the sources can
>> :be obtained: that is sufficient.  you *don't* have to host them
>> :yourself... but you *do* have to ensure that you've provide the full
>> :set of links to sources, full set of links to all tools and scripts.
>> :a full set of instructions is also nice but not strictly necessary.
>> :however having those instructions is a good idea because it allows
>> :*you* to ensure that you have the full set of sources (or links to)
>> :right and the full set of tools (or links to tools) also correct.
>>
>>
>> Arokux, it seems we are being led in full 360 degree circles.

 joe: that was me, not arokux.  you've deleted too much context.

>>
>> What you say is the exact thing I was saying a little while ago!!

 not quite.  the issue is: you had put together an image using a
kernel that you hadn't yet managed to compile for yourself.  if you
hadn't managed to compile it yourself you can't *possibly* know
whether it's a) gpl-violating b) whether it's even possible to compile
at all, so how could you know if you could even comply with the
software license?

 and in each message you've posted, you've never actually told anyone
what the tools *are* that you're using - so we have no way to even
help you assess whether you're complying with the GPL!  i've asked you
to be more clear, but you've not yet responded to those messages
either.


 the packages however are a different matter.  1) you can refer to the
source tarballs 2) everyone *knows* that the packages are compiled by
*experienced* people who have rules about what they will and will not
let into a distribution, and anything that's not compliant with
relevant software licenses is *not permitted* into the distribution,
end of story.

 so regarding the packages: the distros have done their homework, and
so as they *have* complied with all relevant licenses, you can *also*
comply by merely referring people to the relevant archives, because of
clauses in the GPL which permit you to do that [this is a
simplification btw].

 the kernel, u-boot and the 1st/2nd stage bootloader (boot0/boot1) are
a COMPLETELY different matter however, because these are
highly-customised for the hardware, and so *cannot* be distributed by
distros (not at this early phase, anyway), because if they even tried
they'd be overwhelmed with the number of variants they'd have to
compile up and distribute [in the ARM embedded world - it's a bit of a
mess].

 so this is where *you* have to start to do what the distros already do.

 you ABSOLUTELY MUST pay attention and be EXTREMELY ATTENTATIVE to
those remaining pieces, to make sure that you are absolutely 100%
compliant with the software licenses.  you're in the UK: you _can_ be
sued.

l.