maemo.org - Talk

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)
-   Maemo 5 / Fremantle (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   License of flash/rom images (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=51826)

Master of Gizmo 2010-05-04 10:35
License of flash/rom images
 
All this discussion about the leaked image made me wondering about the licenses. Part of such an image is the kernel. The kernel comes under GPL. Any work derived from GPLd code has also to be put under GPL. The image is a derived work. So the entire image is under GPL. This in turn means that you can a) redistribute it as you want and b) request the source code of all components from the author.

Obviously this is not the way nokia sees this. They have closed source components in the image and they don't allow redistribution.

This is obviously a contradiction. So where in the above reasoning is the error?

Rob1n 2010-05-04 10:40
Re: License of flash/rom images
 
The firmware image is not a derived work, it's an aggregate work (the same as it would be on a CD).

pelago 2010-05-04 10:42
Re: License of flash/rom images
 
I'm not a GPL expert, but I don't think the entire image is under GPL just because the kernel that is contained within it is GPL. Think of the image as a zip file which contains the kernel plus other closed-source stuff if that helps.

Endri 2010-05-04 10:59
Re: License of flash/rom images
 
Maemo is Linux. Linux is Free... Or not... Otherwise iphone os is closed but works... much more better.. Isn't freedom why we are here?

maluka 2010-05-04 11:10
Re: License of flash/rom images
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master of Gizmo (Post 642191)
All this discussion about the leaked image made me wondering about the licenses. Part of such an image is the kernel. The kernel comes under GPL. Any work derived from GPLd code has also to be put under GPL. The image is a derived work. So the entire image is under GPL. This in turn means that you can a) redistribute it as you want and b) request the source code of all components from the author.

Obviously this is not the way nokia sees this. They have closed source components in the image and they don't allow redistribution.

This is obviously a contradiction. So where in the above reasoning is the error?
Maemo's Linux kernel source code is free and available to everyone. What's the issue here? Nokia has not threatened to sue anyone for distributing the leaked firmware. They have done what any company would do and that is to advise people against installing a piece of software that could potentially break their device.

You're just fishing for controversy where there is none.

jutl 2010-05-04 11:50
Re: License of flash/rom images
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob1n (Post 642204)
The firmware image is not a derived work, it's an aggregate work (the same as it would be on a CD).
Yes, this is correct. See GPL v2 section 2. If being part of a Linux distribution meant having to be GPLv2, then (for example) the Apache Web Server could never be distributed as part of a Linux distro (Apache License v2 is incompatible with GPL v2). It would also make it impossible for Google to release their Android code as Apache-licensed (which they do).

david.hicks 2010-05-04 12:05
Re: License of flash/rom images
 
I love FOSS and definitely support GPL compliance. I believe in the power and the philosophy of the GPL.

That said, packaging things up with the linux kernel, or runnin stuff on top of the linux kernel does not necessarily mean they must be GPL. If that was the case then no closed/commercial software for linux would be possible.

nexus_7 2010-05-04 13:08
Re: License of flash/rom images
 
Well I thought it was interesting question which i now hope clears up some peoples misunderstanding of how the GPL affects the FW.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:12.

vBulletin® Version 3.8.8