What GPL requirements are implied by publishing an ISO with GRUB binaries ?

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

i read on
  http://wiki.osdev.org/Bare_Bones#Building_a_bootable_cdrom_image
a cumbersome interpretation of GRUB's GPL for the case of publishing an ISO
with GRUB boot equipment. (See quote below.)

Is it really necessary to keep and publish the source package of the
binary distro package if the ISO contains such distro binaries ?
Is it really necessary to make and publish a GRUB release if binaries
stem from source versions from git repo ?

Is there no easier way to comply to GPL by giving a sufficient id string
of the used GRUB version ?
(Can GRUB binaries inside the ISO tell their exact git version ?
 Would the GRUB project consider GPLv3 fulfilled for an unmodified version
 from git by just pointing to the newest (thus better) git version ?)

If a publisher of grub-mkrescue made ISOs needs to actively fulfill GPL
demands, then this should be mentioned well visibly in
  
https://www.gnu.org/software/grub/manual/grub/html_node/Making-a-GRUB-bootable-CD_002dROM.html#Making-a-GRUB-bootable-CD_002dROM


Quote from wiki.osdev.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning:
[...]
The GPL requires you publish the source code corresponding to the bootloader.

You need to get the exact source package corresponding to the GRUB package
you have installed from your distribution, at the time grub-mkrescue is
invoked (as distro packages are occasionally updated). You then need to
publish that source code along with your ISO to satisfy the GPL.

Alternative, you can build GRUB from source code yourself. Clone the latest
GRUB git from savannah (do not use their last release from 2012, it's
severely out of date). Run autogen.sh, ./configure and make dist. [...]
ensure its grub-mkrescue program is used to produce your iso. Then publish
the GRUB tarball of your own making [...].
------------------------------------------------------------------
End of quote.

In general i'd be interested in correction proposals. Some statements
are obviously outdated or wrong, like the one about the youngest release.
Something more future-proof should be stated instead.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas