BT Home Hub: Continued violation

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Yes, indeed, the compilation script indeed doesn't generate the
> signature.  But that doesn't mean the key is not part of the
> corresponding source code for the resulting signed binary, does it?

Under GPLv2 rules, the key is not part of the source code. GPLv2 source means 
the preferred form for modifying the program. That doesn't cover a key that you 
need to generate a signature that some device is going to verify.

> Otherwise, one could argue that any "inconvenient" file is not part of
> the corresponding source code, no?

One has to argue from the definitions in the license to see what is or is not 
covered. For example, I don't see anything legally wrong with compiling GPLv2 
sources with a proprietary compiler and distributing the resulting binaries. My 
legal requirements are to provide the source code and the project files. I do 
not believe for one second GPLv2 would require me to also include the 
proprietary compiler, nor do I believe that I can't use a proprietary compiler 
to compile GPLv2 code.

Arnoud

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
               Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/