It almost seems like you’re deliberately overlooking what I’ve already told you.
So, how do you think that command makes it easily accessible to everyone, eh? And have you tried the command to see if it even lets you download gl-sdk4-ddns?
And let’s take another look at the license terms, shall we?
State any significant changes made to the original software (this requirement also applies to some permissive licenses)
I know that I’ve mainly focused on the scripts themselves, since they’re what break things. But the whole gl-sdk4-ddns package is a fork of ddns-scripts which has then been renamed and modified to include and work with their custom library. So where’s the changelog to go along with that code, since they’re significant changes?
Release any copies or modifications of the code under the same license (reciprocity)
You can’t download their modified code and compile it into a package, like this. Instead GL.iNets package is closed source.
Be honest, you don’t like to admit when you’re wrong, do you?
But in all seriousness I don’t want to argue with you over this since I have no affiliation with OpenWrt and didn’t contribute code to the DDNS package.
All I’m really saying here is that because GL.iNets DDNS package includes older modified scripts from ddns-scripts it’s breaking things. And I’ve suggested how that can be fixed, while also avoiding licensing issues.
Again, the .sh is the source. You can gloss over it as much as you like but it doesn’t change that fact. It is also inconsequential as to the packaging format, in this case, the ipkg, just as others use deb or rpm… what you naively, laughably call a “binary” “plugin.”
If you knew anything about the GPLv2, you’d know the only requirement for code distribution is when it’s ordered by the user via mail. I don’t refer to the electronic variant.[1] The FSF was around long before GitHub, son.
… so send 'em a letter. But don’t be suprised when they also know:
Sometimes control over modified versions is proposed as a means of preventing confusion between various versions made by users. In our experience, this confusion is not a major problem. Many versions of Emacs have been made outside the GNU Project, but users can tell them apart. The GPL requires the maker of a version to place his or her name on it, to distinguish it from other versions and to protect the reputations of other maintainers.[2]
This bores me. Put your money where your mouth is, boy-o.[3]
You conveniently missed out the part where I said that the whole gl-sdk4-ddns package is a fork of ddns-scripts. Meaning it’s not just the scripts, but the whole package that’s technically a problem. And the source code equivalent should look exactly like what I shown in the GitHub link.
You’re missing the point entirely though and your whole argument has basically gone from “GL.iNet ain’t done anything wrong, bro” to “Okay, so what if they copied the files? Send them an email”.
For starters this router is marketed as if it fully supports OpenWrt and the open source nature of it. So, as a developer myself I’d expect them to want to share their changes when they’ve forked an open source project, since they’re then proving that they really support open source software and will respect various licences. And in most cases they’ve done just that, but for some unknown reason the DDNS package has been overlooked.
I’m not the person who cares about GL.iNet breaking the GPL v2 license terms, since this isn’t my project. But forking an open source package, modifying it, making it closed source and then having it cause me issues? That I do care about and it’s why I investigated the issue, shared my findings and suggested a fix.
One of the GL.iNet staff members have already read and liked one of my other posts on this exact subject, so it’s not like this issue isn’t on their radar or they don’t agree and they’re unwilling to make changes.
Either way, like I said previously, I don’t want to argue with you over this. So if you still can’t see where I’m coming from then we’ll likely never agree on this subject and it’s best to just drop it.
The ddns is modification is just script level. All of the source code, modifications and license declarations are in the script that you can read directly in the router.
There is no violation of GPL.
However the version is old and may cause conflicts if you install newer version of ddns script. We will update the version of ddns scripts. Maybe just use our own script instead of modifying it.