[uClibc] GPL compliance

[Karl Bongers]

Let me apologize ahead of time for this long winded post
that is only somewhat related to uclibc.

I am interested in the specifics of the GPL license and
how it applies to embedded systems.

It seems popular these days to bash hardware vendors that
are building embedded systems from GNU/Linux/Open Source, for example:

http://busybox.net/shame.html

I want to use Linux and some GPL apps in a commercial product.
I also want to be a good citizen and do what is required to
satisfy the GPL for the GPL'ed components in this system.

Some time ago I was under the impression that I could compile
or build GPL components and use them without offering
source code for these components if I had not modified
or changed the source code.

After reading some discussions on slashdot about embedded routers
and such I've determined that this previous assumption is not
correct.  According to the fine print of the GPL, if I sell
an embedded toaster that has busybox in it and other GPL
components, then I need to provide/offer source code for these
components.  Even if the source code is not modified.

In a feeble effort to get this post on topic(uclibc),
I have to ask about uclibc's pre-built toolchain distributions.

http://www.uclibc.org/FAQ.html#dev_systems

Is this GPL compliant?

Doesn't Erik/uclibc/kernel.org have to offer/provide source for everything?

Sounds like a hassle, eh?  More work?
You now have to collect all these sources, make sure they
match the binaries, and have them available for delivery.

Well that was my thought when I realized that people might pick
on me someday about GPL compliance.  I certainly don't want to
end up in a hall of shame or be threatened with legal action.

Should Erik/uclibc/kernel.org be put in the hall of shame?
Threatened with legal action?

Is it not a double standard to complain about router manufacturers
that do not offer source for busybox(if the source is un-modified)
yet uclibc does this as well?

So let us assume Erik agrees that he should be offering the source for
every GPL component in the pre-built toolchain in order to be GPL
compliant.

Is this a big waste of Eriks time and resources to be collecting
and ensuring that he can deliver all of these non-uclibc GPL components?
Even if the source is unmodified?

I think it would be a waste of his precious time.
And I don't think he should have to do it.  It seems
to me that this effort is not the GPL's intent.  I consider the
GPL's intent that if you modify GPL source code and distribute,
then you should offer/distribute that source code.

For that same reason I don't think the people who sell routers
should have to distribute the source for busybox if they
have not modified this source.  It's not beneficial.
It does not seem within the intent of the GPL.

I'm looking at using stock Debian binaries in a commercial
embedded application.  This is so that I can easily obtain
the source packages to offer/provide as required by the GPL.
Also, I don't want to compile them if I don't have to.  I'd
prefer to just use the Debian binaries.

Let me end this long post by thanking Erik and others for their
hard work and dedication to uclibc, busybox.  Great stuff!
Hope I can contribute back someday.

Karl.