Hacker News Reader

Comment by rich_sasha | Hacker News Reader

Good point that Linux kernel is GPL - how can companies sell products with an embedded Linux then? They don't seem to be publishing sources.

Basically anything IoT more advanced than a thermometer seems to be running Linux.

View on HN

They only need to provide the sources for the kernel, not the software running on top of the kernel. Usually they do publish the source for their kernel somewhere on their website in my experience (although they don't always provide a direct link to it on the product).

The Software Freedom Conservancy has a page on exactly this:

https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/firmware-liber...

Technically the GPLv2 only requires you to provide source on request from someone who received the binaries, it doesn't require companies to proactively publish it. I think the GPLv3 changes this slightly

GPLv2 requires you to either proactively provide the source or proactively provide a written offer to provide source on request to any third party (section 3 of the GPLv2) - simply distributing binaries without including either source or an offer is technically a breach of license.

Reacting to requests is not sufficient, you have to inform the recipient that they actually are entitled to make those requests and provide a promise that those requests will be honored.

Back around 2012 my company was preparing an embedded system. The day the license was added one of our tester found the section about sending $5 to whatever address to get that source code. He sent the letter with his $5 and it came back return to sender. Even though this was an internal only release (most of the functions weren't even written yet) our lawyers made us go through the entire recall process to replace all the code the testers were working with - to show good faith just in case something more happened.

It’s because they know Linus doesn’t care about software freedom[1] and it’s difficult to find kernel devs willing to sue when they know the boss doesn’t want them to.

[1] e.g. when TiVo violated the GPL he let them, because apparently they found a loophole. When FSF closed the loophole definitively in GPLv3 he refused to adopt it. Also he grumbles about Nvidia but he was the one who created the weird loophole that “some parts of the kernel aren’t gpl” specifically to allow them to violate GPL so Linux could have their drivers.

The Software Freedom Conservancy represents a coalition of Linux kernel developers who are willing to sue despite Linus' opinions.

[1] is incorrect, what TiVo did (disabling the proprietary software on your device when you modify the GPL software) is allowed even by GPLv3, even though RMS did want to prevent the possibility of that. Also, the requirement to allow software reinstall is there even in GPLv2.

https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017... https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...

> Also, the requirement to allow software reinstall is there even in GPLv2.

>> a key reason that the GPLv2 was created, is the software freedom to reinstall a modified version.

Would that mean e.g. Apple is breaking the GPL by including GPLv2 components in iOS and not letting me reinstall modified versions of those components on my iPhone?

Which GPL components are there in iOS?

I don’t know, but System Presences > General > About > Legal contains copies of GPLv2.

Edit: Ohhh, I think they might all be lgpl. Or, one is for libstdc++ but it mentions some special exemption?

> Would that mean e.g. Apple is breaking the GPL by including GPLv2 components in iOS and not letting me reinstall modified versions of those components on my iPhone?

If Apple were including GPLv2 components in iOS, yes. Why do you think all the Apple userland is based on BSD?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com