From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:15:12 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] Is GPLv2 the right license for Buildroot? In-Reply-To: <20130916195846.32e98c8a@skate> References: <20130912202157.536e5904@skate> <20130912203359.7e650ebe@skate> <52323A54.7020808@mind.be> <20130912221256.GE3362@free.fr> <523388B6.7090305@mind.be> <20130914221613.GA3444@free.fr> <20130916182101.3844a686@skate> <20130916170815.GB3293@free.fr> <20130916195846.32e98c8a@skate> Message-ID: <20130916181512.GD3293@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Thomas, All, On 2013-09-16 19:58 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni spake thusly: > On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 19:08:15 +0200, Yann E. MORIN wrote: > > Now, let's try to make things clear: > > > > - on an embedded system, the probability that there is a GPL program > > is rather high (eg. busybox, the Linux kernel); > > > > - lets assume Buildroot is used to build those programs; > > > > - the GPL (as applied to _those_ programs, not Buildroot) mandates > > that the script to control compilation and installation of those > > programs be made available (section of GPLv2); > > Whether Buildroot is part of such scripts or not remains a slightly > open question. That the kernel makefiles and scripts, the Busybox > makefiles and scripts should remain part of the kernel and Busybox > sources is clear. That the tool that is used to orchestrate the overall > building process is part of those "script to control compilation and > installation" is not so clear-cut from my point of view. > > At least so far, I don't think I've seen many companies using > Buildroot, on products that include GPL components, providing the > source code for Buildroot. I never said you *had* to provide the Buildroot tree. I said that providing it was *easier* than trying to separately provide build instructions for each GPL program on the device. > > - so the easiest way to comply with those programs' GPL is to > > distribute the Buildroot tree that was used to build the target > > filesystem, since it does contain all required recipes (aka the > > scripts of section 3 of the GPLv2) > > Right, but it is not necessarily easy to separate within Buildroot the > thing that you are ready to distribute (package recipes of open-source > programs) from the package recipes of proprietary programs, your root > filesystem overlay and so on. But your BR2_EXTERNAL will make this really trivial: - do all FLOSS stuff in Buildroot tree - do all proprietary stuff in BR2_EXTERNAL - provide the Buidlroot tree to be compliant - keep BR2_EXTERNAL private Et voil?! :-) > > What I'm questioning is really the case where a company makes an > embedded product, and has used Buildroot to generate a rootfs that > includes GPL programs, is this company required to distribute Buildroot. Short answer: no. Long answer: no, but it is an easy path. > > I lean toward an explanation in the manual (with proper disclaimer > > that entice the user to seek legal counsel). > > Fair enough. Care to submit a patch? :-) I sure can help write and review such a change. We just have to settle on what we want to put in there: BR2_EXTERNAL: derived work or not? ;-) But not before next week, I have to finish my presentations for KR`13 first! ;-) Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'