Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el 5 de abril a las 17:42 me escribiste: > On 05/04/12 13:16, Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >Joseph Rushton Wakeling, el 4 de abril a las 15:43 me escribiste: > >>To see why it matters, imagine a corporate entity releasing a large, > >>complex piece of software where the code was under a free licence > >>but the build system was proprietary and internal to the company. > >>It'd be a major block to practically enjoying the licence freedoms. > > > >This is new to GPLv3 right? Because several companies are already doing > >this, specially companies selling small devices with Linux, usually they > > No, it's also in GPLv2, but in Section 3, with slightly different language: > > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making > modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all > the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface > definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and > installation of the executable. > > [... see https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html ...]
Mmm, I wonder if Edimax and WesternDigital are violating the GPL then... Maybe they provide some convoluted script or way to build it but as far as I recall it wasn't easy at all to use the source code they provide. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Spooker3 always wanted to learn russian...but learned C++ instead :)
