Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?
From: Stefan Smietanowski
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 09:21:33 EST
Eduard Bloch wrote:
* 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
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
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/