BT Home Hub: Continued violation

[Arnoud Engelfriet]

Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr  9, 2008, Arnoud Engelfriet <arnoud at engelfriet.net> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Wait a minute, isn't the signature an integral (and functional) part
> of the distributed program?  Under what grounds do you exclude it from
> the corresponding source code?

No it's not. The program at no point during its execution touches or reads its 
own signature. Or are you saying that the mode 755 of /bin/ls is an integral and 
functional part of /bin/ls? Without that particular bit pattern I can't execute 
that program.

What I'm talking about is a simple check, say in the Linux kernel, that upon 
execution compares an MD5 of the binary you want to execute against the MD5 it 
obtains after verifying a digital signature. Execution is only permitted if the 
two are identical and the signature is valid. Just like execution is only 
permitted if my UID or GID has execute permission for the file.

>   However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need
>                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>   or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so
>                                              ^^^^^^^^
>   on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless
>   that component itself accompanies the executable.

That talks about things that *are distributed WITH the major components*. In 
other words I don't have to include libgcc with my program because that library 
is part of the gcc compiler. I also don't have to give you <stdio.h> because 
that's already on your system (in /usr/include). But if I give you a compiled 
libgcc or a changed "stdio.h" I have to give you the source.

The way you read it suggests that normally I'd have to give you a Linux kernel 
if I give you a program designed to execute on that kernel.

>> My legal requirements are to provide the source code and the project
>> files.
> 
> By project files I assume you mean scripts used to control compilation
> and installation of the executable, right?

For this particular proprietary compiler, yes. In a classic GNU/Linux system I'd 
probably have to give you the Makefile or perhaps the configure.in file.

> Even then, your definition is still a bit too narrow.  You're missing
> interface definition files, for one.

An interface file (you mean like <stdio.h>?) is an item "that is normally 
distributed with the major components of the operating system on which the 
executable runs." My own interface definition files I have to give you, of course.

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/