[Arm-netbook] A13 schematic

[Henrik Nordström]

sön 2012-04-29 klockan 19:57 +0100 skrev lkcl luke:

>  that's absolutely correct.  the *only* obligation under the GPL is to
> provide source (on request) to the people that you have shipped
> binaries to, and ONLY to those people, and to absolutely no other
> person, persons or entities.

Err, there is two options to a manufacturer

a) Either you ship the sources as part of the distribution to your
customers. End of story. For a SoC manufacturer this path generally
makes most sense as most direct customers do need to rebuild kernel etc.
What your cusomers do with received binaries & source is not your
headache.

b) OR you include a written offer valid for ANY THIRD PARTY for three
years to receive a copy of the sources.

If you select 'b' then the offer is valid for anyone who have received a
copy of the written offer, which in effect also means anyone who have
received binaries compiled from the sources as further binary
redistribution requires sources or a copy of the written offer. The last
option is valid for non-commercial distribution only.

Further, if you select 'b' then you need to be prepared to provide the
exact sources for any version you have distributed under these terms
until the written offer expires (three years). Only being able to
provide the latest (or some version) of the sources is not sufficient.

GPLv3 clarifies and adjusts source distribution in an online environment
a lot compared to GPLv2. The rules in GPLv2 is a bit arcane in that area
basically requiring physical redistribution of source in most cases. I
have not heard of any GPLv2 author who gets upset if you follow the
GPLv3 source distribution terms for GPLv2 code.

In neither case may there be additional restrictions on redistribution
of either source or binary. An NDA which limits redistribution of GPL
components is not acceptable. Any non-GPL parts may be limited by NDA
however. I.e. userspace, and perhaps even kernel modules in some cases
even if that's a very murky area.

Some try to use another approach to limit GPL redistribution where you
loose other service rights if you do redistribute binaries of GPL
components. This have so far have not been challenged but is not
regarded as fair. For a SoC vendor this would be impossible as it means
your customers can not redistribute the software for the built product.

Regards
Henrik