
B&N refuses to release source code of Nook Tablet, censors user requests - recoiledsnake
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1432003
======
mjg59
I added this as a comment in a related thread on XDA, but it seems relevant
here:

Brief background - my name is Matthew Garrett. I'm a Linux kernel developer
working for Red Hat. I bought an original Nook back in 2009 and was
responsible for getting Barnes and Noble to release the full kernel source
code. When the Nook Color was released I did the same. I've been active in
enforcement of the GPL and have a keen interest in helping (or making)
companies comply with their obigaitons.

Having said that.

One of the significant differences between GPLv2 and GPLv3 is that GPLv3 makes
explicit the requirement that signing keys be shipped. It has been argued that
the GPLv2 implicitly requires the same, in the form of the requirement for the
scripts required for installation. I'm sympathetic to that claim, and I will
not personally distribute any code that requires a private signing key. But
I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not a judge. Many people who are active in
GPL enforcement will agree that vendors should provide the signing keys - but
I don't think you'll find any who will actually make that the basis of a case.

B&N are not the only company to require signed kernel images. Many Android
devices have locked bootloaders. I think this is a despicable anti-consumer
design choice, but nobody's taking action against it. B&N have provided you
with the kernel source code. They've done better than many by also providing
you with the configuration file. They have a strong argument that by doing so
they've complied with the requirements of GPLv2, and while you (and I) may
disagree, that's almost certainly going to be as much as they'll be required
to do. Consensus at the moment is that they don't need to do any more.

If it went to court then you may end up finding a judge who would rule that
they're in violation, but I wouldn't put money on it. I think it's far too
extreme to claim that they're actively violating.

~~~
mjg59
As a bit of further clarification, I've downloaded the source tarball and
checked it out. The kernel source appears as complete as I'd expect it to be.
I don't have a Nook Tablet to check the filesystem, but the userspace code at
least roughly matches what ought to be there. The bootloader source seems to
match the hardware. As far as I can tell the only argument is that the NT will
only boot with a signed bootloader and kernel, and the signing keys aren't
included. There's no broad consensus that GPLv2 requires those keys.

~~~
mjg59
Actually, it seems that there's one missing file that prevents u-boot from
building:

include $(TOPDIR)/../../../device/ti/blaze/BoardConfig.mk

Given the relative path, I'm betting that this is an error rather than
malicious - they simply didn't tar it up with the other files. It should be
fixed, but the fact that it isn't is not a showstopper.

------
tzs
B&N was right to delete his worthless request/complaint. It contained no
information that would actually help them resolve the problem. All it said in
his post on their forums was that:

1\. He could not get the source they released to compile.

2\. Quoted a GPL violations FAQ.

3\. Told them they are doing a bad thing.

4\. Told them to fix the problem.

How about actually giving them DETAILS about what failed to compile. From his
complaint they have no idea if the problem is because they made a mistake in
the source release, or if there is something wrong with his environment, or
whatever.

~~~
JohnTHaller
He's an experienced Android kernel hacker, so he's no amateur. He's saying it
won't compile using what they've given. He's also stated it fails under the
common Android build setups he's used for other Android kernels. One of the
requirements of the GPL is to provide the build/make instructions to allow
other developers to build it themselves. It would appear B&N isn't quite doing
this.

~~~
burgerbrain
Exactly:

 _"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making
modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all
the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface
definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and
installation of the executable. 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."_

------
alain94040
Contrary to the title, it looks like Barnes & Nobles did release some sort of
source code. The fact that the author wasn't able to compile them into
something doesn't mean BN is violating the GPL. I'd cool down before making
such accusations.

~~~
duskwuff
Based on some of the screenshots, it might just be the case that the author
doesn't know how to upload the kernel to the Nook correctly.

Moreover -- correct me if I'm wrong -- GPLv2 doesn't require that the device
manufacturer support software upgrades anyway. It's only v3 that introduced
the "anti-TiVoization" clause, and the kernel isn't GPLv3.

~~~
ktsmith
AdamOutler is not one that would have trouble uploading source code to the
device. He's saying that it's not compilable. There are other threads and
statements saying there are missing components from the source release.

~~~
nknight
You should read past the first post in the thread. It apparently compiled just
fine. They just can't get it to boot.

[http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showpost.php?p=21113848&...](http://forum.xda-
developers.com/showpost.php?p=21113848&postcount=6)

------
ChuckMcM
I suspect that the author of this piece is taking a very optimistic
interpretation of the GPL and Barnes and Noble a very conservative
interpretation.

They only GPL'd code on the Nook as far as I can tell is the Android kernel.
So if they distribute the patches they made to the kernel to support their
tablet then they are done. They have no obligation whatsoever to distribute
source to their book display application, their UI, or their other 'user land'
applications.

Its the same with Google, the 'Google Experience' applications (mail, maps,
Etc) are neither GPL'd nor 'free' for manufacturers to put on their boxes.

~~~
JohnTHaller
He's not asking for that. He's an experienced Android kernel hacker. He knows
the difference between kernel and userland. He's informing B&N that their
kernel source is incomplete. B&N is required by the GPL to release the full
source of the kernel, build instructions and everything they compile directly
into it (read: not 'apps') in order for another developer to be able to
compile the full kernel. All of that is required by the GPL. If you don't
follow it, you're not permitted to redistribute works under the license.

------
res0nat0r
Not to be a jerk here, but has the bug submitter ever worked for a large
company before? From the screenshots and the timestamp of the xda post, it
looks like this issue he's submitted is roughly only two days old.

Forum posts such as these have to get triaged by their forum managers, TT's
cut to the appropriate groups responsible for the issue mentioned, accepted by
the proper group, placed in a priority queue based on severity of end-user
impact, and assessed along with all of the other work they are doing. At least
this is how it is at the large company I work for.

Sure he has a lot of 'laurels' for his post, but a two day old post of one
person not being able to compile their Nook sourcecode is probably not high on
the list of things which must be addressed immediately. Chill out and give it
some time to be addressed.

~~~
drewcrawford
This isn't a support request. Large companies don't get a special pass for
license compliance because they move slowly.

The solution is simple--don't release binaries without source. That's what the
GPL requires, and what they signed up for when they used GPLed code.

~~~
res0nat0r
I'm not saying at all that they should get a pass. I'm saying this is a
complaint via a single user from their forums which will be triaged and
addressed, just not this immediate second.

------
projectileboy
What options does the community have to compel Barnes and Noble to satisfy
their obligations?

~~~
rbanffy
First of all, make sure B&N is violating the GPL. GPLv2 does not require them
to make it possible to flash a new OS into the device and boot off it. As long
as you can compile the sources into an executable that can possibly run, they
are compliant.

I too would like Linux to be licensed under GPLv3, but a lot of companies
wouldn't. I seriously doubt my TV manufacturer would be OK with me running my
own code on it. Or my cable box.

~~~
burgerbrain
I suppose I can see cable box manufacturer, but why would the maker of your TV
care in the slightest?

~~~
robin_reala
Warranty claims, and upselling.

Samsung use (used?) Linux as the base OS for a large number of their TVs so of
course replacement firmware projects sprang up (e.g. SamyGo [1]). The project
added additional functionality to their TVs like playing movies from a USB
stick - features that Samsung had restricted to their higher-end TVs.

Within a few months Samsung had released an ‘official’ firmware upgrade that
removed the ability to load unofficial (unsigned I guess?) updates.

[1] <http://forum.samygo.tv/>

------
jwildeboer
So B&N publishes the source code as mentioned by the original poster. How can
that lead to this headline that claims refusal to do that? Fail.

The original poster has not figured out how to build and run the source he got
from B&N and asks for a solution without giving any information? Fail.

So net result: (at least) a misleading headline and PEBCAK all over the place.
Nuff said.

------
drinian
I applaud his efforts, but he's aggressively misspelling Barnes and Noble's
name in that post, and that lack of attention to detail makes him much harder
to take seriously.

~~~
Joakal
Please do not attack based on what could be company name typos. The content is
presently clearly enough to discuss.

~~~
drinian
It's not an attack, I'm just pointing out that it's unprofessional and makes
the author look like he pays no attention to detail.

When dealing with legal issues, detail is of course paramount.

~~~
Joakal
The legal discussion is about the content, not the author.

------
paulhauggis
This is exactly why I steer clear of GNU software in any of my commercial
apps.

