4 ms·
Synology is a bad example. Many of their custom syscalls are related to filesystem things like btrfs raid5 self repair and carefully removed from their gpl sour
by mike256 5y ago
Synology is a bad example. Many of their custom syscalls are related to filesystem things like btrfs raid5 self repair and carefully removed from their gpl source code. Ianal but imho this is a gpl violation.
- junon 5y agoHow would modifying code be a violation of the GPL?
- sjburt 5y agoIf the modified code is distributed in binary form but not in source form.
- junon 5y agoIIRC that's not a violation. The source form needs to be available upon request, though I could be wrong.
- hosteur 5y agoThe source to the derived work that you distribute must be available for the user.
- junon 5y agoAvailable, not necessarily proactively published.
- IntelMiner 5y agoIf they remove it from their GPL code release but provide it in the GPL licensed binary then it's violating the GPL
- sigg3 5y agoIs it though? It's misleading, I'll give you that, but let's be pedantic (lawyers are)! They can probably provide the missing bits in dead tree letter format upon written formal request received at their post address.
- R0b0t1 5y agoIt's definitely against the license terms. You're supposed to distribute the code that generated the distributed binaries.
- growse 5y ago> It's definitely against the license terms. You're supposed to distribute the code that generated the distributed binaries. It does look like Synology are not abiding by the GPL here, but a minor nitpick: GPL v2 has no such requirement to distribute the source with the binaries. But if you don't, you do have to tell people they can get it and provide it in "machine-readable" format on request. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html section 3b
- staticassertion 5y agoLawyers aren't that pedantic. That's why law isn't just some computer program. The point is that human interpretation is important ie: terms like "best efforts", "reasonable doubt", etc. What you're describing would likely not pass as being a reasonable interpretation of the license.
- wizzwizz4 5y agoTechnically, it's not a violation. They're releasing code; just not the code. So long as they (offer to, and then actually) provide the source code on request, licensed under GPLv2, they're allowed to do that. Though it probably is a violation, because they probably don't do that.