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

[skeevy420]

Hmm:



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.

It's only ambiguous if you don't know the definition of "GPL" and you just cited it from the kernel's documents. Practically every legal document has some boilerplate somewhere that says XYZ is short for XXXYYYZZZ Company Inc. The Linux kernel is no different.

I assume that Tuxedo assumed that the various GPL licenses are compatible with each other. It just appears that Tuxedo didn't RTFM of either the kernel or the licenses used.

[scottishduck]

GPLv3 is an absolute mess and should never be used

[Devorlon]

Uhm ... no, it was clear since the first draft appearing in January 2006.

I was 5 in 2006, and unfortunately missed that.

[skeevy420]

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.

''First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.'

[anda_skoa]

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

From the article (quoting a TUXEDO developer's email to the kermel list):

And tuxedo-drivers got code in the past from external contributors under GPL v3

[anda_skoa]

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.

That is a red herring.

Changing any components, whether hard- or software will obviously invalidate the certification.
And GPL in any version does not require certification to stay in tact.

For example the owner of the traffic cam could still use it on private property when they've modified the hardware and/or the software.
GPL v3 would just ensure they can do that with the software the same way they can with the hardware.

[anda_skoa]

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

Their configurability is why I've chosen them last time I bought a new laptop in 2018 (still works perfectly).
None of the larger vendors, not any of the Linux OEMS back then offered 4 core CPU and 32GB RAM, let alone other options (e.g. display).

If I were to buy a new laptop anytime soon I would be torn between another TUXEDO or a Framework.

[Danny3]

As much as I like Tuxedo for their hardware, software and sponsoring of open source projects, I agree with the kernel developers!
So, dear Tuxedo, please fix your licenses!

[TheMightyBuzzard]

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.

Probably, yeah. It's a whole lot easier to sort it out up front than having to go back and do it later though. Valuable lesson for anyone thinking of starting a project of their own, so at least their mistake wasn't a total waste.

[TheMightyBuzzard]

I was 5 in 2006, and unfortunately missed that.

That'll teach you to be deliberately young.