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

[BwackNinja]

The kernel is GPLv2 only (with code that's also more permissive and thus compatible with GPLv2).

These drivers are GPLv3+. Basic math says that 2 is less than 3, so "3 and above" is not compatible with 2.

There have been enough discussions over the years about the nuances of Linux kernel licensing that it's surprising that folks wouldn't be aware when writing new kernel modules that they'd hope would be accepted upstream.

[ahrs]

We ended up in this situation as MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") on its own does not hint at GPL v2, if one is not aware of the license definition table in the documentation.

That does seem like a bit of an oversight. If I use ripgrep to search for MODULE_LICENSE I do see some uses of 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");', maybe they should mass change every usage of "GPL" to "GPL v2" for clarity so nobody makes the same mistake in the future.

[skeevy420]

That does seem like a bit of an oversight. If I use ripgrep to search for MODULE_LICENSE I do see some uses of 'MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");', maybe they should mass change every usage of "GPL" to "GPL v2" for clarity so nobody makes the same mistake in the future.

It was a two year oversight that was solved five years ago. They did the opposite of what you suggested

[ahrs]

It was a two year oversight that was solved five years ago. They did the opposite of what you suggested

Hmm:

- "GPL" and "GPL v2" both express that the module is licensed under GPLv2
(without a distinction of 'only' and 'or later') and is therefore kernel
license compliant.

So why are they still using the ambiguous GPL string? Wouldn't it make more sense to only say "GPL v2" so that everyone knows what you're on about without having to read that commit and the licensing documentation, etc.

[Akiko]

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

Uhm ... no, it was clear since the first draft appearing in January 2006. It was so damn clear, that they even had do make more drafts and had endless discussions. The reason GPLv3 was made is actually a good one. The reason was "tivoization", TiVo released their boxes completely with open source software, but locked the system down. So having access to the sources of the software was worth nothing, because you were not able to change it on the devices. GPLv3 aims at keeping the systems open where the software is used, or in short: that you actually can practice your rights you got by using GPL software. And yes, this also means, that if you have certified devices using GPL software, GPLv3 is a nightmare and just a no-no. A good example for this are actually speeding traps or traffic cams. Because of being beefy embedded hardware (mostly x86 - Atoms), they basically all run Linux and in no way you want anyone (except for the manufacturer) to be able to manipulate the software. And that conflicts with GPLv3. And here it becomes really funny, because coreutils, bash, findutils, gettext and readline - basically the basis of the Linux userspace - are GPLv3. Lovely, though, busybox is not.

[Chugworth]

I always thought it was amusing when they try to restrict code based on its license. I guess now they've got to use new module names.

[ahrs]

I always thought it was amusing when they try to restrict code based on its license. I guess now they've got to use new module names.

Presumably they will "sort the legal out". If they wrote all of the code themselves then it shouldn't be too difficult for them to re-license them to use the correct licenses.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

Presumably they will "sort the legal out". If they wrote all of the code themselves then it shouldn't be too difficult for them to re-license them to use the correct licenses.

I'm assuming they didn't since it hasn't been done already. It wouldn't be unusual for a company in the line of work they're in to have received code from a consultant or a random FOSS contributor that they can't just relicense arbitrarily. They should have paid better attention and made sure they had the rights to do so. It's not a unique mistake by any means but it's definitely a noob mistake.

[ahrs]

I'm assuming they didn't since it hasn't been done already. It wouldn't be unusual for a company in the line of work they're in to have received code from a consultant or a random FOSS contributor that they can't just relicense arbitrarily. They should have paid better attention and made sure they had the rights to do so. It's not a unique mistake by any means but it's definitely a noob mistake.

They still might be able to contact these people and also I believe they won't need permission to relicense "trivial changes", I am not a lawyer but I don't think things like correcting a spelling mistake can be copyrighted, etc. Obviously, it slows down progress for them though. They just want to get on with the coding.

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

Ruh roh. I've just been waiting for this...

InfinityBook Pro 14 - Gen9 - AMD - TUXEDO InfinityBook Pro 14 - Gen9 - AMD - TUXEDO Computers

or this...

InfinityBook Pro 15 - Gen9 - AMD - TUXEDO InfinityBook Pro 15 - Gen9 - AMD - TUXEDO Computers

to get updated with Zen 5 Ryzen AI 9 HX370 parts to pull the trigger. There doesn't seem to be another Linux laptop OEM that's anywhere close to competing on price, especially for RAM / storage upgrades which are basically at cost. I hope they can sort this out.