[famerr]

So it is strange for me even if I understand GPL. Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification? I assume if we want companies to make use of linux on a wide level, there should be the ways to overcome this problem(if exists).

[zmmmmm]

No. There is a boundary between the "kernel" which is strictly GPL and the "user" operating system which is (in its interaction with the kernel) based on LGPL and weaker libraries. So these routers have to distribute changes they make to the kernel, yes, but not any and everything that runs on the router.

[famerr]

Makes sense, thank you for explanation.

[charonn0]

> Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification?

That's pretty much what happened to Linksys.

[1]: http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/3562391/The...

[rbanffy]

> Does it means all the network routers running custom linux have to provide sources of entire modification?

Yes.

> I assume if we want companies to make use of linux on a wide level, there should be the ways to overcome this problem(if exists)

What problem? Making the source code of the programs you distribute to your clients available is not a problem - it's an obligation you agreed with when you used the GPL'ed program as a basis for your own.

You could do like Sony, who used *BSD on the PS4.

[famerr]

Good point, thank you.

[st3v3r]

What's the problem?

[famerr]

First is security, if current asset based on linux is vulnerable and you make it public consequences are obvious. Or even your system is vulnerable itself because of modifications. Or 0day that will reveal afterwards. And your product is based on embedded systems. I understand it's your choice, but it holds the development.

Second is competitive advantage. If you have to release modified system, that you use in your product on day 0, when you started, it interfere your business. Again it's your choice, but it could hold the development. So reasonable alternative would be good.

[cyphar]

If you choose to use code that is under the GPL or similar copyleft licenses, then you have to play by the rules and provide people you distribute your software to a way to get the source code.

[famerr]

Yes, I understand

[famerr]

But it's much better if comment by zmmmmm is correct and it only touches kernel modifications.