On LTO builds with 32bit compilers.

Posted Aug 24, 2012 23:01 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313)
In reply to: On LTO builds with 32bit compilers. by mjg59
Parent article: Link-time optimization for the kernel

that depends on the firmware on on your interpretation of the requirements for source for that firmware.

I haven't seen anyone sued for the source of a firmware blob if the firmware blob itself didn't included GPL code in it. (as opposed to the firmware blob being used as data by GPL code and uploaded to a device)

A lot of the linux kernel developers consider the splitting of the firmware out of the source tree to be a waste of time from a technical and legal point of view, but they don't fight it because it shuts up the people who think that it does matter from a legal point of view.

besides, the GPL only comes in to play when you distribute the resulting binary. There's a huge amount of stuff that you can do (especially in a large company) without triggering this.

to post comments

On LTO builds with 32bit compilers.

Posted Aug 25, 2012 4:44 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

"Which may make the result undistributable" - you appear to have just spent several paragraphs agreeing with me. What was your point?

On LTO builds with 32bit compilers.

Posted Aug 25, 2012 5:06 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

Ok, "MAY" make the result undistributable, heavy emphasis and lots of doubt on the word MAY

There are a LOT of people who don't think it would.

Also, even if it did, it wouldn't matter for lots of people, because they don't distribute the resulting binaries.