3 ms·

They also have to publish any modifications...everyone gets that port While the article doesn't quite make it explicit, it strongly implies that there are no m

They also have to publish any modifications...everyone gets that port While the article doesn't quite make it explicit, it strongly implies that there are no modifications. It seems to be purely a question of providing an additional archive of the source. You're also more likely to get a stable custom firmware for that device once it's known what is running on the original box No more so than simply documenting what packages at what revisions were used. How does the source itself help? (Yes, I can think of edge cases, like the project goes away, but in such a case there's no one left to defend the licensing terms anyway) companies used the software, so they should respect the license Yes. There's no question that they should. The license is the license, they chose to use it, and they are now obligated to live by its terms. If they're not doing so, the court must penalize them. That's life in the real world. My complaint is with the terms themselves, and the enforcement of them. First, I don't see how an additional archive somewhere out there, that no one is ever going to look at anyway. is of any benefit. Second, I don't see how a lawsuit to enforce this is of any benefit (yes, they have the right to do so, but that doesn't mean they're not jerks).

viraptor 17y ago
Well... there are two ways to ensure that there are no modifications to the original software. One is to ask politely. The other is to enforce the license. I get the impression that if it was never enforced, there would be some companies who simply say - "yeah, we're using the original source, go away" whether they modify it or not. Since publishing the unmodified source is neither hard, nor time consuming, I think it's perfectly reasonable to enforce it on everyone.
- weaksauce 17y ago
  What about the case where the company modifies the code and then publishes the original unmodified source as their work? How is "yeah, look at our unmodified source repo," any better than "yeah, we're using the original source, go away"
sophacles 17y ago
The license states that source must be provided "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Honestly I would think that in this day and age, a link to a git repo or whatnot would qualify. I wonder if such issues would arise if there was simply a set of links to the source for the unmodified versions. Of course, setting up a github fork for your company's branch of a project is relatively straightforward, and also solves such issues.

viraptor 17y ago

Well... there are two ways to ensure that there are no modifications to the original software. One is to ask politely. The other is to enforce the license. I get the impression that if it was never enforced, there would be some companies who simply say - "yeah, we're using the original source, go away" whether they modify it or not. Since publishing the unmodified source is neither hard, nor time consuming, I think it's perfectly reasonable to enforce it on everyone.

weaksauce 17y ago
What about the case where the company modifies the code and then publishes the original unmodified source as their work? How is "yeah, look at our unmodified source repo," any better than "yeah, we're using the original source, go away"

sophacles 17y ago

The license states that source must be provided "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Honestly I would think that in this day and age, a link to a git repo or whatnot would qualify. I wonder if such issues would arise if there was simply a set of links to the source for the unmodified versions. Of course, setting up a github fork for your company's branch of a project is relatively straightforward, and also solves such issues.