I think this is huge misunderstanding.They just don’t want users to
brick devices:After agent reply, no
complaintshttps://forum.gl-inet.com/t/uboot-for-gl-mt3000-beryl-ax/41760/13Nice
company, sorry for fuss> HiI am copying this message to you and GL
team.Regarding license violation:U-boot’s license requires Gl.iNet to provide
the source-code for U-boot (including any modifications they made) to anybody
that asks for it. So…GL team refused to send source code nor .bin file. I
wanted to inspect it for possible backdoors but still they are refusing.“ If
you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests
the source from you is entitled to receive it.If you commercially distribute
binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a
written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially
redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy
of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries
directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the
written offer.The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party
is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the
source code from
you.”https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htmlhttps://github.com/u-boot/u-bootSo
I am sending this message to you to check this situation. They probably will
not send it to you.Also please use web mail (not business domain) as they can
sent it to you through it to hide the fact of licensing violation. For example
send request from Gmail. Please take measures. It is certainly very
disappointing to hear GL.iNET is not following the clear license terms of
software they are using. -- Tom
