Remix clone Hacker News

Most of the time the GPL request is a waste of time with no purpose other than annoy a company. You can download linux source code from many places, why do you want to get it from us?

There is a slight possibility we have a driver that you could get access to, but without the hardware it won't do you any good. Once in a while we have hacked the source to fix a bug, but if it isn't upstream it is because the fix would be accepted (often it causes other bugs that don't matter to use), and in any case if it isn't upstream, the kernel moves so fast you wouldn't be able to use it anyway.

▲

ndiddy a day ago | parent | next [-]

Again I see no purpose in doing things this way besides trying to minimize the amount of people who look at your GPL code for some reason. Isn't it more annoying for the company to make someone in customer support read paper letters, burn the GPL package onto a CD-R, and mail it than it is to simply host the GPL package for each product on a support site or Github or something and include a link in the product documentation?

	▲	ack_complete 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There's definitely a purpose, it's to obfuscate usage of GPL software and dodgy linkage. There's no other reason for situations like hosting a binary download as a plain download on a website while getting the source requires mailing a check or money order to a UK address.

▲

regentbowerbird a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You only have to serve those requests if you distribute your changes yourself.

So presumably as a hardware company you'd be offering your hardware with your custom linux installed, and then people wanting to audit or hack the product they bought would request the code from you.

▲

bluGill 21 hours ago | parent [-]

This is GPL2 - there is no requirement that you be able to install/use/hack the software, only that you get the same source.

▲

pabs3 14 hours ago | parent [-]

That is incorrect, the GPLv2 requires that you be able to modify the code, build it, reinstall the binary and run the modified binary.

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t... https://events19.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017...

▲

immibis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This relies on a court's interpretation. GPLv3 made it explicit that the user has to be provided with everything they need to install modified software. GPLv2 just says "scripts used to control installation" which can be easily interpreted to exclude private signing keys. And the LGPLv2 says when an executable statically links to the library the user must be able to produce a modified executable - nothing at all about being able to install that executable.

	▲	adastra22 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That is an overly obtuse interpretation. Real law doesn’t work that way. Get in front of a court and the bench judge will shut down that kind of analysis real fast. The intended interpretation is quite clear in context.

▲

immibis a day ago | parent | prev [-]

There's actually a near-100% chance that the kernel on my device is not the upstream kernel. There's a near-100% chance that you have added some custom drivers or got them from your upstream. There's also a near-100% chance that you have written some scripts to install the kernel on the device, which you are required (at least one German judge thinks so) to share with me so that I can install a modified kernel on my device.