If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes. They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.
>If it's an application, no, but if it's a kernel module (e.g. drivers to talk to their devices), then yes.
There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.)
> They still have to offer a copy of the kernel source, even if they haven't modified it.
I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant.
There is debate about this, but there are certainly cases of compliant non-GPL modules. It doesn't strictly follow. (Consider Ndiswrapper, for example.)
Ndiswrapper is GPL-licensed. The resulting modules are probably not, but they are usually not distributed anyway.
I don't really think the license implies technical minutae like this. The source must simply be made available "on a medium customarily used for software interchange". Whether you point to a tag on kernel.org or host it own your own web servers (both cases including the Kconfig) is irrelevant.
