From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Frysinger Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 02:10:03 -0500 Subject: [Buildroot] Buildroot and GPL compliance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201201060210.03701.vapier@gentoo.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Wednesday 14 December 2011 02:40:54 Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > * What about the tarballs? Should the tarballs themselves be included > in the distribution, or would they be downloaded from the web by the > user running buildroot? I think it is safer to include the tarballs, > since you never know whether the official location will continue to > exist in the future (or be temporarily out-of-order, as with > kernel.org) it would be simplest for people distributing binaries upon request, but if they provide URLs and they're available, that should be satisfactory. > * How to handle proprietary applications? Even though during > development these applications may be build from within buildroot > (when sources are available), one would typically not want to > distribute the sources to the end-user. Still, in order to be able to > regenerate the system, I think the user should have access to the > binary versions of these applications. How do we handle this, what isorg > the best practice? there's no legal requirement that people distributing binaries make this easy. > Other discussion points are welcome. what might be cool is adding a target that produces a tarball of everything that we expect would be required for license compliance. should be somewhat easy to automate. -mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: