AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

[OneTimeShot]

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.

Hmm... I may be able to change your mind...

I demand that you immediately send me the source code to the version of the copy of Linux you are now running, any GPL software you have ever installed, your game, any files you are currently working on that are under the GPL, and anything else that I (a random guy that you don't know on the Internet) may possibly have some copyright in. You are at least copying the software to your own machines, so it is covered by the GPL redistribution.

...or you may come to appreciate the "I'll only need to send you code for stuff that we have some kind of preexisting relationship" bit of the GPL. The clause is there to avoid random people bugging you for stuff - you didn't supply me with my copy of Fedora, so I dont have the right to ask you for the source code for it. Similarly you only need to keep source code for GPL files that you actually ship - not every version of everything that ever existed - just in case some troll like me comes along


Having said that legal stuff, all my GPL code is available for download on SourceForge, and that makes it all a lot easier for everyone.

[OneTimeShot]

I'm thinking you should ask Canonical instead of me.

If I was a reasonable person, I would. If I were a lawyer, technically you'd be on the hook as the person giving a copy to me, and Canonical would be entirely right to say "nothing to do me, mate"

Am I a particularly sick person for actually finding this legal stuff fun?

[monraaf]

It should be worth mentioning that a similar case occurred when the original Quake 1 source was released. A developer had rewritten the game's netcode in an attempt to stop cheaters among a few other changes. He had placed it on his site where users would need to agree to a set of terms to waive their rights to the GPL before they got the binary.

John Carmack, the game's primary developer, wasn't happy to hear this, claiming it was a GPL violation and he would have been willing to pay for a lawyer from the FSF if need be. After hearing this, the developer stopped this practice.

[AnonymousCoward]

Are they publicly distributing it? If not then there really isn't a violation.

If you are part of an organisation that internally uses GPL'd software and you are only using it internally in your organistation then you have no obligation to give anyone outside anything if it wasn't intended for distribution.

Imagine your organisation uses a modified database which is released under the GPL, your organisation does NOT have to make those changes public unless it is distributed publicly.

Similarly, if someone gets _unauthorised_ access to your servers and manages to get a copy of your binaries, then they are NOT entitled to the source code as it was never intended for distribution.

They are using _their_ modified kernel in _their_ organisation and have not obligation to make it public.

I have my _private_ GPL licensed software and my own modifications of GPL'd software and you aren't entiled to shit unless I actually "distribute" it to you.

Did you receive a binary copy legaly from them? If not you aren't entitled to anything.

https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

[AnonymousCoward]

Here's another example:

Say you are a company and have private modifications to GPL'd software and you need to test those but your company does not have a testing department. What to do? You hire a company as a sub-contractor to do the testing for you, and they are NOT entitled to the source code. Now similarly, if you did not pay the sub-contractors you also would not have to give them the source. It's the contract that matters. Who's to tell them that they did not have legal contracts once they are inside the organisation?

An organisation is a vague definition and you only have to give the source if you "distribute" it, the GPL writes nothing about private distribution in an organisation either. Besides, distribution in the legal sense is public distribution which is not happening here.

[a user]

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).

haven't you read: they ARE distributing the binaries via their OWN website!

The question is where people are getting these copyright binaries from

as i said, from their website. also see this inteview with mr goodman where he claims that this form of distribution is not violating the gpl.

http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CHIQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pocketables.com%2F2012%2F11%2Fdeveloper-spotlight-chad-goodman-aka-masterchefchad-of-anthrax-kernels.html&ei=rZbFUsesEsiBtAaX2YCYAg&usg=AFQjCNFoSERyJtZkwDeF50NO50x10eROZw&bvm=bv.58187178,d.Yms

[BreezeDM]

Are they publicly distributing it? If not then there really isn't a violation.

If you are part of an organisation that internally uses GPL'd software and you are only using it internally in your organistation then you have no obligation to give anyone outside anything if it wasn't intended for distribution.

Imagine your organisation uses a modified database which is released under the GPL, your organisation does NOT have to make those changes public unless it is distributed publicly.

Similarly, if someone gets _unauthorised_ access to your servers and manages to get a copy of your binaries, then they are NOT entitled to the source code as it was never intended for distribution.

They are using _their_ modified kernel in _their_ organisation and have not obligation to make it public.

I have my _private_ GPL licensed software and my own modifications of GPL'd software and you aren't entiled to shit unless I actually "distribute" it to you.

Did you receive a binary copy legaly from them? If not you aren't entitled to anything.
https://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

So you distribute it to a person part of your private organization and they are entitled to redistribute it based on GPL. "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License." So that guy propagates the work to someone who wants the source. The propagator requests to source from the private organization since they are entitled to it to comply with the propagatee who wants the source. The private organization would have to give the source to the propagator? Would me giving a binary to a Test Support guy count as a distribution? Could I work for Samsung and become a tester for Galaxy S 6 and then request the source?

[a user]

Are they publicly distributing it? If not then there really isn't a violation.

they are distributing it via a web site where you have to register adn then have to be granted the right to get the binary.
i very dobut that this is enough to consider all registered users part of a private organization especially considering the examples from the past that have been pointed out here.

but i'm not a lawyer.

p.s. as far as i know there were people granted access to the binaries and some that also wanted the source afterwards and didn't get it. but i only read about that.

[LLStarks]

Here's another example:

Say you are a company and have private modifications to GPL'd software and you need to test those but your company does not have a testing department. What to do? You hire a company as a sub-contractor to do the testing for you, and they are NOT entitled to the source code. Now similarly, if you did not pay the sub-contractors you also would not have to give them the source. It's the contract that matters. Who's to tell them that they did not have legal contracts once they are inside the organisation?

An organisation is a vague definition and you only have to give the source if you "distribute" it, the GPL writes nothing about private distribution in an organisation either. Besides, distribution in the legal sense is public distribution which is not happening here.

Chad is exploiting the lack of a standard for what defines an organization to treat his volunteer testers as employees, a conclusion that RMS and legal minds on the gpl-violations mailing list reached quite easily.

Anthrax Kernels may call itself an organization, but it certainly doesn't act like one.

For one, Chad doesn't own the IP a license to the hardware he uses. He also never meets his testers aside from Eric D or even necessarily know them by them name.

- Eric Appleman

[BreezeDM]

So you distribute it to a person part of your private organization and they are entitled to redistribute it based on GPL. "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License." So that guy propagates the work to someone who wants the source. The propagator requests to source from the private organization since they are entitled to it to comply with the propagatee who wants the source. The private organization would have to give the source to the propagator? Would me giving a binary to a Test Support guy count as a distribution? Could I work for Samsung and become a tester for Galaxy S 6 and then request the source?

Found the answer on the FAQ

If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered program to a coworker at my company, have I ?conveyed? the copy to him? (#v3CoworkerConveying)
As long as you're both using the software in your work at the company, rather than personally, then the answer is no. The copies belong to the company, not to you or the coworker. This copying is propagation, not conveying, because the company is not making copies available to others.