There is no preparing. They don't own the code. They need to release it in exactly the same state it was in when deployed as binary. Otherwise, they are violating copyright (often referred to as pirates).
That said, I'm almost certain that the linux kernel is released under a modified form of the GPL, or at least Linus refuses to enforce parts of the GPL. Binary modules and blobs are a clear violation of GPL, but they exist in the Linux kernel to a great extent. There has been some fighting over the issue in the past.
At any rate, I know that Linus is not as adamant about freedom as RMS. He's using the GPL as a tool and not a principal. There was the whole Tivo-ization argument, where Linus supported the hardware manufacturer and RMS released GPLv3 explicitly forbidding that type of stuff.
That said, I'm almost certain that the linux kernel is released under a modified form of the GPL...
Nope, it's standard stock GPLv2-only. There's a clarification included in the COPYING file that reminds people that userspace binaries that use the documented system call interface are not considered derived works, but that's not a modification of the license; it's just included for clarity reasons.
or at least Linus refuses to enforce parts of the GPL.
Not entirely. He's stated that he doesn't believe that a kernel module is automatically a derived work of the kernel. For example, he's of the opinion that the nvidia binary driver is not a derived work of Linux because the driver core was first designed and written for a completely different OS.
Regardless, Linus Torvalds is not the last word on this: just about any kernel contributor with copyright ownership could file suit.
There is no preparing. They don't own the code. They need to release it in exactly the same state it was in when deployed as binary. Otherwise, they are violating copyright (often referred to as pirates).
Apparently it is a plain GPL, but it is not enforced. I don't know if HTC has modules in the kernel that aren't specifically written for the Linux kernel, but I would find that hard to believe. I'd be very surprised if it was enforced in the circumstance.
That said, I'm almost certain that the linux kernel is released under a modified form of the GPL, or at least Linus refuses to enforce parts of the GPL. Binary modules and blobs are a clear violation of GPL, but they exist in the Linux kernel to a great extent. There has been some fighting over the issue in the past.
At any rate, I know that Linus is not as adamant about freedom as RMS. He's using the GPL as a tool and not a principal. There was the whole Tivo-ization argument, where Linus supported the hardware manufacturer and RMS released GPLv3 explicitly forbidding that type of stuff.