Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    How does this apply to development? If I am developing a fork of the kernel at what point do I need to release the source? I know some android manufacturers have released phone first then weeks or months later the source for the kernel modifications. If he's giving the kernel to people part of a private group, isn't he still just testing? Is he making lots of money from this? If he's mucking with the kernel and giving it to a few thousand people, why do we or the FSF care? Is he holding on to the kernel code equivalent to the cure for cancer?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by a user View Post
      this is a grey zone at best.
      I don't think so - it is pretty clear. If you are supplying binaries to someone you also need to supply source code to them even within a private organisation, and you can't prevent redistribution of that source code *for copyright reasons*. Normally within a company you'll not redistribute the source code because you'll get fired, and that outcome isn't in violation of the GPL.

      If the developers say that they have not supplied the binaries to you, then by definition they cannot be breaking copyright (and hence the GPL). The question is where people are getting these copyright binaries from and whether these places are complying with the GPL. If they aren't then this is no different to pirating Windows or the latest Hobbit movie...


      In any case, this project is going to die because surely no-one is stupid enough to install random binaries that aren't even acknowledged by the people who may or may not have written them?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by brosis View Post
        Well, Linus should have chosen "any later", thus its not patchable. Chad has no right to distribute his work as closed source within binary, because GPL forbids it and GPL applies to kernel space.


        But the original problem was with Chad, because he
        did not maintain the public timeline of his improvements. Thus other people could assign his work and accuse him of doing what they did. Given that CM also require CLA/copyright assign, its a terminal mistake.
        did not accept donations. Thus other people had motivation to assign his work and gather donations.
        did not ask for money for his development. By means of which he could get money or enrollment into organsation that is interested in him, as in developer.
        and finally, he resorted to closed source to instead of combating the offenders with their own methods. So he can be pushed into copyright dispute (which wasn't his goal anyway) and FSF will have the choices of "be Samaritan, but allow license exploitation", or "disallow license exploitation, but look inhuman". Either way, both FSF and Chad will loose, while trolls with gain.

        Doing it the right way, he would have had authorship, money and GPL code.

        Maybe Chad should contact FSF and sort out everything with them?..
        Why? FSF doesn't own rights to the Linux kernel. They can't do anything about Linux kernel GPL violations.

        Comment


        • #24
          This is indeed all about what constitutes a "private organization". The FSF's view is that it means a legal entity.

          My opinion is that informal organizations are still organizations. If I hold a private gaming club, that's not a legal entity, but it is still an organization in my eyes.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by nll_a
            If you fork my GPL'd game and distribute it among your club buddies, in my eyes you're violating my copyright and you need to make your source code public. If it's all just a matter of personal view, we won't go very far.

            There's no reason not to distribute GPL code. If you wanna keep your code closed and sell it to others then don't use GPL code as your basis.
            Sorry - you've picked the wrong license then. The GPL only covers the people who *receive* the binaries, if you're not one of them, you are a bystander.

            Comment


            • #26
              LOL, I remember reading about a comparable case, where some HP devices have been delivered with a modified Android kernel (which has been used at HP internally). HP claimed the distribution being unauthorized. And guess what? The devs asking for the source received it from HP. They had to resort to involving lawyers though.

              Details: http://code.google.com/p/cmtouchpad/issues/detail?id=16
              Released source code: https://github.com/dalingrin/hp-kern...-topaz-android

              So yeah, LEAKED or UNAUTHORIZED is something they AnthraX guys should really talk about with their lawyers.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by nll_a
                If you fork my GPL'd game and distribute it among your club buddies, in my eyes you're violating my copyright and you need to make your source code public. If it's all just a matter of personal view, we won't go very far.

                There's no reason not to distribute GPL code. If you wanna keep your code closed and sell it to others then don't use GPL code as your basis.
                I agree with OneTimeShot,
                GPL allows to charge for copies of software (binary or source),
                it obligates the distributor of the binaries to also provide source code,
                the source code purchase/transfer price may not be higher than that of binary form,
                the receiver of binary copy(client 1st rank), and then source, receives the right to distribute the binaries,
                but he(client 1st rank) is not obligated to do so (for clients of nrank),

                but if he(client 1st rank) distributes the binaries (for clients of nrank), targeted or public manner, he is also obligated to supply source,
                the original distributor may not use any NDAs, restrictions etc on price and will of the binary/code receiver (client 1st rank).

                Pay attention, GPL3 disallows copyright holder (distributors) to withdraw the license to use his work.
                GPL2 does not disallow it. Linux is stupidly not GPL3, so the developers may withdraw license everywhere.

                Also, because of the protection, there is no need for any CLA/Copyright assignments for GPL3 projects. As submitter may not revoke the license, but at same time, the client nrank may not remove copyright of submitter.

                GPL3 also provides patent trolling protection (GPL2 not) and tiviozation protection(GPL2 not).

                Overall, this case shows how stupid the decision was to limit Linux with GPL2.

                Comment


                • #28
                  My 2 pennies:

                  Yes, it is a GPL violation, and their reasoning that you have to sign up to receive it makes that not "distributing" is laughable at best. However, I don't think anyone should legally pursue this, as AnthraX only did this to protect against their own rights being violated (and not just in theory), and there are far better uses of funds/time/energy than going after a project like AnthraX.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by DanL View Post
                    My 2 pennies:

                    Yes, it is a GPL violation, and their reasoning that you have to sign up to receive it makes that not "distributing" is laughable at best. However, I don't think anyone should legally pursue this, as AnthraX only did this to protect against their own rights being violated (and not just in theory), and there are far better uses of funds/time/energy than going after a project like AnthraX.
                    Up to copyright holder of Linux... Heh, they can go as high as terminate GPL license for Anthrax.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by nll_a
                      If I'm the copyright holder and someone is distributing binary forks of my code, of course I can enforce my copyright and demand GPL-compliance.
                      With GPL2 you may withdraw license from fork.
                      With GPL3 you may not, but they have also no right to remove copyright from your code.
                      But in both cases, they may refuse to provide you the binaries (and hence source). But if you find anyone distributing binaries and get it from him, then you can enforce him to give you source. This is how I understand it from GPL faq.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X