GPL?

[bubbaQ]

That has always been a sticking point for a lot of GPL projects, particularly compact/trimmed down Linux distros.  If you are distributing a kernel, you need to either include kernel source and license file or have it available.  You have to do the same for each piece of software too such as ls, fdisk, top, etc.

 

The unRAID distro has a LOT of stuff stripped out to save weight, both features (man pages) and dead weight (readme and license files, and source).  A LOT of projects do this and I've never heard of anyone making a complaint over source availability of things that were not modified from the standard full distro, nor have I really heard of anyone in the GPL community making a beef about it.

 

For example, I and others made complaints over the Popcorn Hour code -  and they responded with links to other sides, not directly hosted files (http://www.networkedmediatank.com/download/firmware/nmt/gpl/gpl.htm).  They are technically not compliant, but anyone who really wants to build or make mods can now do it.

 

The concentration of GPL compliance is on mods to GPL code, and all mods must be freely available, and everything else necessary to build the system with the mod and to make further mods to the modded source.  If that is satisfied, no one complains about a technicality.

[NAS]

I have absolutely no doubt that morally, ethically and reality wise what you are saying is correct.

 

However there is absolutely no doubt that legally you are required to distribute the full source. L-LLC could decide to pick and choose which parts of GPL they follow compliance to the letter and which parts they do not but I would not recommend it. The GPL license protects both ways and if you are going to build a profit making business on the back of GPL code the least you should do is comply completely.

 

YMMV and this likely will never be a problem but that is risk for risks sake regardless how small.