From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Edwards Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:53:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Buildroot] Is GPLv2 the right license for Buildroot? References: <20130911091700.0b24df41@skate> <20130911172709.GB3410@free.fr> <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> <87vc20fp2g.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <20130917064405.6300d72b@skate> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 2013-09-17, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Yes, but I do believe that no company is actually complying to the > GPL requirements by providing the build system source code. We do. I wrote a shell-script that removes proprietary files/packages and bundles the resulting buildroot source tree which can then be used to build all of the open-source stuff. Nobody's ever _requested_ the sources, but they're available. I don't expect that anyone ever will request sources, since without the proprietary software, the hardware is pretty much useless. I doubt any of our customers would be capable of building it even if they did have the source tree in hand. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! If I had a Q-TIP, I at could prevent th' collapse gmail.com of NEGOTIATIONS!!