8 ms·

So it is strange for me even if I understand GPL. Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? I a

by famerr 11y ago

So it is strange for me even if I understand GPL. Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? I assume if we want companies to make use of linux on a wide level, there should be the ways to overcome this problem(if exists).

zmmmmm 11y ago
No. There is a boundary between the "kernel" which is strictly GPL and the "user" operating system which is (in its interaction with the kernel) based on LGPL and weaker libraries. So these routers have to distribute changes they make to the kernel, yes, but not any and everything that runs on the router.
- famerr 11y ago
  Makes sense, thank you for explanation.
rbanffy 11y ago
> Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? Yes. > I assume if we want companies to make use of linux on a wide level, there should be the ways to overcome this problem(if exists) What problem? Making the source code of the programs you distribute to your clients available is not a problem - it's an obligation you agreed with when you used the GPL'ed program as a basis for your own. You could do like Sony, who used *BSD on the PS4.
- famerr 11y ago
  Good point, thank you.
st3v3r 11y ago
What's the problem?
- famerr 11y ago
  First is security, if current asset based on linux is vulnerable and you make it public consequences are obvious. Or even your system is vulnerable itself because of modifications. Or 0day that will reveal afterwards. And your product is based on embedded systems. I understand it's your choice, but it holds the development. Second is competitive advantage. If you have to release modified system, that you use in your product on day 0, when you started, it interfere your business. Again it's your choice, but it could hold the development. So reasonable alternative would be good.
  - cyphar 11y ago
    If you choose to use code that is under the GPL or similar copyleft licenses, then you have to play by the rules and provide people you distribute your software to a way to get the source code.
    - famerr 11y ago
      Yes, I understand
- famerr 11y ago
  But it's much better if comment by zmmmmm is correct and it only touches kernel modifications.
charonn0 11y ago
> Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? That's pretty much what happened to Linksys. [1]: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391/The-Open-Source-WRT54G-Story.htm http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391/The...

by famerr 11y ago

zmmmmm 11y ago

No. There is a boundary between the "kernel" which is strictly GPL and the "user" operating system which is (in its interaction with the kernel) based on LGPL and weaker libraries. So these routers have to distribute changes they make to the kernel, yes, but not any and everything that runs on the router.

famerr 11y ago
Makes sense, thank you for explanation.

rbanffy 11y ago

> Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? Yes. > I assume if we want companies to make use of linux on a wide level, there should be the ways to overcome this problem(if exists) What problem? Making the source code of the programs you distribute to your clients available is not a problem - it's an obligation you agreed with when you used the GPL'ed program as a basis for your own. You could do like Sony, who used *BSD on the PS4.

famerr 11y ago
Good point, thank you.

st3v3r 11y ago

What's the problem?

famerr 11y ago
First is security, if current asset based on linux is vulnerable and you make it public consequences are obvious. Or even your system is vulnerable itself because of modifications. Or 0day that will reveal afterwards. And your product is based on embedded systems. I understand it's your choice, but it holds the development. Second is competitive advantage. If you have to release modified system, that you use in your product on day 0, when you started, it interfere your business. Again it's your choice, but it could hold the development. So reasonable alternative would be good.
- cyphar 11y ago
  If you choose to use code that is under the GPL or similar copyleft licenses, then you have to play by the rules and provide people you distribute your software to a way to get the source code.
  - famerr 11y ago
    Yes, I understand
famerr 11y ago
But it's much better if comment by zmmmmm is correct and it only touches kernel modifications.

charonn0 11y ago

> Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? That's pretty much what happened to Linksys. [1]: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391/The-Open-Source-WRT54G-Story.htm http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391/The...