3 ms·

Is it a violation if they don't modify Linux itself? So if I make a device that runs Linux and my application binary, am I required to make my application code

by sudhirj 11y ago

Is it a violation if they don't modify Linux itself? So if I make a device that runs Linux and my application binary, am I required to make my application code public?

lucb1e 11y ago
In that case, it shouldn't be a problem to point to Linux' code repository right?
- ocschwar 11y ago
  And it won't be. But cut their public relations staff some slack. They can't tell Richard Stallman from Gregory Rasputin, and before saying or doing anything they're going to be bringing themselves up to speed on what the GPL is. No need to get rage-y just yet.
  - lucb1e 11y ago
    It's their obligation to forward what they don't understand. If I work for a mobile network carrier and say something that indicates we don't follow some privacy law, it's my fault for not asking my boss how we handle certain things. (And my boss might ask his/hers, etc.) Edit: I didn't downvote you, by the way.
  - ocschwar 11y ago
    All true. But until word comes down from legal about what to say, you can't blame the PR flacks for saying nothing.
pyb 11y ago
It would not be a violation in this case.
- iajrz 11y ago
  It is if they don't redist the kernel code they're using - if it's GPL'd, and you redistribute the binaries, you acquire the responsibility to redist the source.
cjbprime 11y ago
Yes, it actually is. People saying it isn't haven't read the license. :) 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
- throwaway125 11y ago
  I think you might have misread the gp. gp asked >am I required to make my application code public?
tw04 11y ago
You wouldn't need to release the source to the app, just the underlying linux bits that are covered by GPL.
throwaway125 11y ago
You are not required to make your application public as it is not considered a derivative of the linux kernel. If you distribute the device you are required to provide your customers with the source code to the running linux kernel. The exact details depend on multiple factors (are you linking to libraries? Are they considered system libraries?) and if you are actually thinking of doing this you should invest some time in investigating this, and probably in consulting a lawyer. Note that this is all based on my layman's understanding of the law and the license, and I'm definitely not a lawyer.
pjc50 11y ago
You're not required to make the application code public if it doesn't link against any GPL code. If it's just the equivalent of a Docker image containing a distro + your app, then all you have to do is distribute the source for the Linux parts of the image.

by sudhirj 11y ago

Is it a violation if they don't modify Linux itself? So if I make a device that runs Linux and my application binary, am I required to make my application code public?

lucb1e 11y ago

In that case, it shouldn't be a problem to point to Linux' code repository right?

ocschwar 11y ago
And it won't be. But cut their public relations staff some slack. They can't tell Richard Stallman from Gregory Rasputin, and before saying or doing anything they're going to be bringing themselves up to speed on what the GPL is. No need to get rage-y just yet.
- lucb1e 11y ago
  It's their obligation to forward what they don't understand. If I work for a mobile network carrier and say something that indicates we don't follow some privacy law, it's my fault for not asking my boss how we handle certain things. (And my boss might ask his/hers, etc.) Edit: I didn't downvote you, by the way.
- ocschwar 11y ago
  All true. But until word comes down from legal about what to say, you can't blame the PR flacks for saying nothing.

pyb 11y ago

It would not be a violation in this case.

iajrz 11y ago
It is if they don't redist the kernel code they're using - if it's GPL'd, and you redistribute the binaries, you acquire the responsibility to redist the source.

cjbprime 11y ago

Yes, it actually is. People saying it isn't haven't read the license. :) 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

throwaway125 11y ago
I think you might have misread the gp. gp asked >am I required to make my application code public?

tw04 11y ago

You wouldn't need to release the source to the app, just the underlying linux bits that are covered by GPL.

throwaway125 11y ago

You are not required to make your application public as it is not considered a derivative of the linux kernel. If you distribute the device you are required to provide your customers with the source code to the running linux kernel. The exact details depend on multiple factors (are you linking to libraries? Are they considered system libraries?) and if you are actually thinking of doing this you should invest some time in investigating this, and probably in consulting a lawyer. Note that this is all based on my layman's understanding of the law and the license, and I'm definitely not a lawyer.

pjc50 11y ago

You're not required to make the application code public if it doesn't link against any GPL code. If it's just the equivalent of a Docker image containing a distro + your app, then all you have to do is distribute the source for the Linux parts of the image.