Changeset - 4a4f8a81ff62
[Not reviewed]
0 1 0
Bradley Kuhn (bkuhn) - 10 years ago 2014-03-21 01:33:08
bkuhn@ebb.org
Wordsmith.
1 file changed with 1 insertions and 1 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
compliance-guide.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -242,97 +242,97 @@ compliance is the one most often ignored: proper inclusion of CCS in all
 
distributions  of GPL'd
 
software.  To comply with GPL's CCS requirements, the distributor
 
\textit{must} always know precisely what sources generated a given binary
 
distribution.
 

	
 
In an unfortunately large number of our enforcement cases, the violating
 
company's engineering team had difficulty reconstructing the CCS
 
for binaries distributed by the company.  Here are three simple rules to
 
follow to decrease the likelihood of this occurance:
 

	
 
\begin{itemize}
 

	
 
\item Ensure that your
 
developers are using revision control systems properly.
 

	
 
\item Have developers mark or ``tag'' the full source tree corresponding to
 
  builds distributed to customers
 

	
 
\item Check that your developers store all parts of the software
 
development in the revision control system, including {\sc readme}s, build
 
scripts, engineers' notes, and documentation.
 
\end{itemize}
 

	
 
Your developers will benefit anyway from these rules.  Developers will be
 
happier in their jobs if their tools already track the precise version of
 
source that corresponds to any deployed binary.
 

	
 
\section{Avoid the ``Build Guru''}
 

	
 
Too many software projects rely on only one or a very few team members who
 
know how to build and assemble the final released product.  Such knowledge
 
centralization not only creates engineering redundancy issues, but also
 
thwarts GPL compliance.  Specifically, CCS does not just require source code,
 
but scripts and other material that explain how to control compilation and
 
installation of the executable and object code.
 

	
 
Thus, avoid relying on a ``build guru'', a single developer who is the only one
 
who knows how to produce your final product. Make sure the build process
 
is well defined.  Train every developer on the build process for the final
 
binary distribution, including (in the case of embedded software)
 
generating a final firmware image suitable for distribution to the
 
customer.  Require developers to use revision control for build processes.
 
Make a rule that adding new components to the system without adequate
 
build instructions (or better yet, scripts) is unacceptable engineering
 
practice.
 

	
 
\chapter{Details of Compliant Distribution}
 

	
 
In this section, we explain the specific requirements placed upon
 
This section explains the specific requirements placed upon
 
distributors of GPL'd software.  Note that this section refers heavily to
 
specific provisions and language in
 
\href{http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#section3}{GPLv2}
 
and \href{http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl.html#section6}{GPLv3}.
 
It may be helpful to have a copy of each license open while reading this
 
section.
 

	
 
\section{Binary Distribution Permission}
 
\label{binary-distribution-permission}
 

	
 
% be careful below, you cannot refill the \if section, so don't refill
 
% this paragraph without care.
 

	
 
The various versions of the GPL are copyright licenses that grant
 
permission to make certain uses of software that are otherwise restricted
 
by copyright law.  This permission is conditioned upon compliance with the
 
GPL's requirements.\footnote{For a full discussion of this concept, please see
 
\ifpdf
 
\href{http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html\#x1-40002}{the
 
  chapter entitled ``Common Copyright Questions''} in SFLC's publication,
 
\href{http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.pdf}{\textit{A
 
    Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects}}.
 
\else
 
\ifx \generateHTML \isGeneratingHTML
 
\href{http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html\#x1-40002}{the
 
  chapter entitled ``Common Copyright Questions''} in SFLC's publication
 
\href{http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html}{\textit{A
 
    Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software Projects}}.
 
\else
 
the chapter entitled ``Common Copyright Questions'' in SFLC's publication,
 
\textit{A Legal Issues Primer for Open Source and Free Software
 
  Projects}.
 
\fi
 
\fi
 
}
 
This section walks through the requirements (of both GPLv2 and GPLv3) that
 
apply when you distribute GPL'd programs in binary (i.e., executable or
 
object code) form, which is typical for embedded applications.  Because a
 
binary application derives from a program's original sources, you need
 
permission from the copyright holder to distribute it.  \S~3 of GPLv2 and
 
\S~6 of GPLv3 contain the permissions and conditions related to binary
 
distributions of GPL'd programs.\footnote{These sections cannot be fully
 
  understood in isolation; read the entire license thoroughly before
 
  focusing on any particular provision.  However, once you have read and
 
  understood the entire license, look to these sections to guide
 
  compliance for binary distributions.}
 

	
 
GPL's binary distribution sections offer a choice of compliance methods,
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)