Upstream Linux Developers Take Aim At TUXEDO's Out-Of-Tree GPLv3 Drivers

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Upstream Linux Developers Take Aim At TUXEDO's Out-Of-Tree GPLv3 Drivers

A new patch series posted today to the Linux kernel mailing list would block kernel modules/drivers from TUXEDO Computers from accessing GPL-only symbols in the kernel...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/TUXEDO-Drivers-Taint-Patches

[Setif]

Couldn't tuxedo developers revert those patches and build their own kernels?, or do they offer them separately the same as Nvidia?

[NateHubbard]

This all just seems like an excellent way to waste development time. Thanks everyone.

[varikonniemi]

So why are they not able to immediately relicense it as GPL2 when they are the authors?

[V1tol]

Today we learned that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2. I wonder why people pay money to Microsoft and Apple then...

[skeevy420]

Couldn't tuxedo developers revert those patches and build their own kernels?, or do they offer them separately the same as Nvidia?

Apparently they based their work on GPLv3 code that's not under their control. This situation right here is exactly why "$_Some_Open_License + CLA" is so common these days.

This has been pretty well known for a good while so I find it funny that they seem to be playing dumb. That could just be an anecdote of being an OpenZFS user that dealt with this 5 or 6 years ago.

[skeevy420]

Today we learned that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2.

I always thought that was common knowledge. I've known that for a good long while.

[spicfoo]

Today we learned that GPLv3 is not compatible with GPLv2. I wonder why people pay money to Microsoft and Apple then...

The latter has nothing to do with the former. Licensing incompatibilities are far more nuanced than just GPLv2 and GPLv3. Licenses are only compatible when there are no conflicting requirements. So you can combine for instance Mozilla Public License (MPL) and MIT license because MIT is very permissive but you cannot combine MPLv1 with CDDL even though CDDL is based on MPL because CDDL added additional requirements that are in conflict with MPLv1. So you cannot have code licensed under these two different licenses unless there is clear separation between them. This is all well known and why many free software organizations have been advocating for reducing the proliferation of licenses and it has largely worked. Most corporations and open source projects now use standard open source licenses which are broadly compatible with each other. MPLv2 for instance made changes to be compatible with GPLv3 and GPLv3 unlike GPLv2 is compatible with Apache license.

[skeevy420]

The latter has nothing to do with the former. Licensing incompatibilities are far more nuanced than just GPLv2 and GPLv3. Licenses are only compatible when there are no conflicting requirements. So you can combine for instance Mozilla Public License (MPL) and MIT license because MIT is very permissive but you cannot combine MPLv1 with CDDL even though CDDL is based on MPL because CDDL added additional requirements that are in conflict with MPLv1. So you cannot have code licensed under these two different licenses unless there is clear separation between them. This is all well known and why many free software organizations have been advocating for reducing the proliferation of licenses and it has largely worked. Most corporations and open source projects now use standard open source licenses which are broadly compatible with each other. MPLv2 for instance made changes to be compatible with GPLv3 and GPLv3 unlike GPLv2 is compatible with Apache license.

That's why I can't have the "GPL when compiled" string added for low-key CDDL and GPLv2 compatibility

[TheMightyBuzzard]

And this is why you do not immediately jump on the Shiny New Good Idea (*waves at GPL3*). You find out if it's going to cause you or others endless headaches and cost someone lots of money first. Then, if it's not, you decide if it's even worth doing in the first place.