Active Topics
-
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (15)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 1 hr, 23 mins ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 1 day ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 1 day, 1 hr ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 4 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (8)
to Community by Maemish - 6 days, 22 hrs ago - more...
| The Following User Says Thank You to Master of Gizmo For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2010-05-04
, 10:42
|
|
Posts: 2,121 |
Thanked: 1,540 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ Oxford, UK
|
#3
|
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.
|
|
2010-05-04
, 10:59
|
|
Posts: 126 |
Thanked: 65 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Italy
|
#4
|
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?
 |
|
2010-05-04
, 11:10
|
|
Posts: 741 |
Thanked: 900 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
@ Auckland NZ
|
#5
|
Originally Posted by Master of Gizmo
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.
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?
You're just fishing for controversy where there is none.
|
|
2010-05-04
, 11:50
|
|
Posts: 31 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#6
|
Originally Posted by Rob1n
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).
The firmware image is not a derived work, it's an aggregate work (the same as it would be on a CD).
|
|
2010-05-04
, 12:05
|
|
Posts: 42 |
Thanked: 20 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ Perth, WA
|
#7
|
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.
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.
| The Following User Says Thank You to david.hicks For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2010-05-04
, 13:08
|
|
Posts: 33 |
Thanked: 11 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
@ UK
|
#8
|
Well I thought it was interesting question which i now hope clears up some peoples misunderstanding of how the GPL affects the FW.
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?