4 ms·

If they remove it from their GPL code release but provide it in the GPL licensed binary then it's violating the GPL

• sigg3 5y ago
  Is 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 ago
    It'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 ago
    Lawyers 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.