Re: Binary-only firmware covered by the GPL?

From: Pavel Machek
Date: Tue Mar 30 2004 - 09:04:13 EST


> >#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.

If my code contains picture of human, do I have to provide his DNA, too?

(runs away)
64 bytes from icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at