Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?

[Stefan Smietanowski]

Eduard Bloch wrote:

> #include <hallo.h>
> * David Schwartz [Thu, Mar 25 2004, 04:41:23PM]:
>
>
> > > IMHO code that can be compiled would probably be the preferred form
> > > of the work.
> >
> > 	You are seriously arguing that the obfuscated binary of the firmware is the
> > preferred form of the firmware for the purpose of making modifications to
> > it?!
>
>
> Yes, the driver authors PREFERS to make the changes on the C source
> code, he never has to modify the firmware. Exactly what the GPL
> requests, where is your problem?

But the firmware didn't appear out of thin air - someone wrote it
somehow. If that's using a hex editor or inside the C code doesn't
matter, but most likely they used some other language like either
C or assembly (no, not all firmware is written using assembly), and
there are cases where some are in fact written using a hex editor but
I can't remember any that has been for the last 30 or so years but
I'm sure there has been cases where there hasn't been a working
assembler.

// Stefan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/