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

[oiaohm]

Yes, that's what I said, however that discussion does not contain a reference to this: https://docs.kernel.org/process/license-rules.html#id1

And has that in fact fixed the problem the answer is no.

https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers/-/blob/main/debian/copyright

The debian copyright says they still have one problem file.

Possible no. GPLv2 only and GPLv3 or later don't mix. GPLv2 or latter can mix with GPLv2 only.

https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/packages/tuxedo-drivers/-/commit/a8c09b6c2ce6393fe39d8652d133af9f06cfb427

Note this reverted commit. So the merge they used to close the issue they have removed. Guess why they reported to the Linux kernel that they were GPLv3 and opps no access to functions they need for the src/clevo_acpi.c need to function because it uses GPLv2 only functions by reporting correctly you get cut off.

This is 273 lines of code in src/clevo_acpi.c that possible need to be replaced or author contacted to re-license.

Yes there module is now blacklisted and Tuxedo Computers fault. Yes licensing issue a problem that can be handled Valve no problems. Valve does not Valve time license issues. Instead a legal department person at value is put straight on license issue and fixing license is put front and center before everything. Valve has been really good on licensing issues Average of 4 days to either resolved or have plan in place to resolve and plan completed in 14 days no teeth pulling or blacklisting here.

Matombo basically the so called fix in merge you pointed to to so called fix the problem did not fix the problem.

Copyright licensing you cannot to attempt to cheat and expect not to be blacklisted or not be surprised when you products fail to pass though customs and get destroyed..

Linux kernel developers are known to use customs to block products without correctly licensed Linux kernel code inside. Tuxedo Computers is playing with fire here. Yes being blacklist is minor response by the Linux kernel developers. Linux kernel developers contacting customs around the world and having your brand put on the do not allow import lists is there next response(ever wonder why Nvidia started opening sourcing the kernel for their newer cards). Linux kernel developer on a copyright issue are not playing by valve time.

[Matombo]

You are still missing my point, but whatever.

[lowflyer]

So teach the module loader that these modules are proprietary despite their declaration to be GPLv2 compatible

I think the kernel devs (Uwe Kleine-König) went a bit too far by declaring everything not GPLv2 as "proprietary". You cannot correct one error with another error.

[oiaohm]

I think the kernel devs (Uwe Kleine-König) went a bit too far by declaring everything not GPLv2 as "proprietary". You cannot correct one error with another error.

Kind right and wrong. The reality illegal mixing of GPLv2 and GPlv3 the result is it technically not usable so might as well be proprietary.

The exception in GPLv2 and GPLv3 that allows them to mix means the only party would could technically use them legally is tuxedo computing on their own hardware. Not even legal for their customers to use.

Licensing screw up are a big problem.

lowflyer we do really need common word to mean party has screwed licensing up so bad that the code cannot be legally used even by the intended users because this is what TUXEDO Computers has done.

Remember neither GPLv3 or GPLv2 allows code to be distributed while the code is in fact infected by a license violation. Having a license violation means you cannot meet the terms of GPLv2 or GPLv3. So TUXEDO has been illegally distributing source code.. Copyleft contracts/licenses most say you must be able to agree to all terms to distribute. Yes it not possible to meet all GPLv2 only terms and GPLv3 terms at the same time.

A license issue is a major issue with more risk to company than even releasing something to end users with known security flaws..

[lowflyer]

Kind right and wrong. The reality illegal mixing of GPLv2 and GPlv3 the result is it technically not usable so might as well be proprietary.

That shortcut (coming from the pull request author Uwe Kleine-König): "might as well be proprietary" is where I take most offense from. I'll explain below.

Licensing screw up are a big problem.

Largely only true for USA where there are scores of lawyers that run around in search of opportunities to extort money from others. Note that TUXEDO Computers is a German company. They can look at licensing issues much more relaxed.

lowflyer we do really need common word to mean party has screwed licensing up so bad that the code cannot be legally used even by the intended users because this is what TUXEDO Computers has done.

I have issues understanding "we need common word". You mean a "label"? So we can label and blame them?

What we really need is clear language. If you cannot handle a clash between GPLv2 and GPLv3 call it "GPL-incompatibility" or something similar. But, for heavens sake, DON`T CALL IT "PROPRIETARY", because that's not what it is. Even if, in the end, it is treated the same way as "proprietary". It doesn't matter, but name it correctly. Clear language is known to reduce high blood pressure in discussions. And it does more to solve problems than anything else.

An analogy:
Calling somebody a "communist" just because he likes China will not make for a smooth conversation. But phrasing it like "China is indeed a very beautiful country but I don't like that it is ruled by communists" makes almost the same point but expresses a clear opinion instead of labeling the other. And, in a way, even both parties may agree on it.

Remember neither GPLv3 or GPLv2 allows code to be distributed while the code is in fact infected by a license violation. Having a license violation means you cannot meet the terms of GPLv2 or GPLv3. So TUXEDO has been illegally distributing source code.. Copyleft contracts/licenses most say you must be able to agree to all terms to distribute. Yes it not possible to meet all GPLv2 only terms and GPLv3 terms at the same time.

This is the exact hair-splitting that only US lawyers can ever come up with. We talk about two GPL licenses here. It's open source code in both cases. It's *not* about patents or really proprietary code.

It's bad enough that Americans let their lawyers pin two similarly minded licenses against each other. The same lawyers hold the Americans in such a firm grip by the balls that nobody wants to touch the issue with a three meter long stick (sorry Americans: ten feet long stick). The only thing worse than that is the arrogance with which they impose that on other countries.

A license issue is a major issue with more risk to company than even releasing something to end users with known security flaws..

As I tried to point out: mainly a US problem.

[oiaohm]

Largely only true for USA where there are scores of lawyers that run around in search of opportunities to extort money from others. Note that TUXEDO Computers is a German company. They can look at licensing issues much more relaxed.

https://opensource.com/law/15/12/gplv3-section-8-termination-provisions

This is not the case. I cannot find the exact case moment but a German court has ruled that GPLv2 only and GPLv3 or latter legally cannot be mixed. Yes if TUXEDO code was hosted in Germany a injection could have been taken against it.

I have issues understanding "we need common word". You mean a "label"? So we can label and blame them?

I should have been more correct we don't have nice common word.

What we really need is clear language. If you cannot handle a clash between GPLv2 and GPLv3 call it "GPL-incompatibility" or something similar. But, for heavens sake, DON`T CALL IT "PROPRIETARY", because that's not what it is. Even if, in the end, it is treated the same way as "proprietary". It doesn't matter, but name it correctly. Clear language is known to reduce high blood pressure in discussions. And it does more to solve problems than anything else.

So you pushed. So I will now use the common words that should have been used instead of "PROPRIETARY" . Using software incorrectly licensed/contracted is "Software Piracy". Yes software piracy has many nasty meanings. Calling it proprietary is nicer than calling TUXEDO computers a software pirate that performing software piracy due to miss understanding GPLv2/GPLv3 terms.

We need a better term because that kind worse than your example of calling ""somebody "communist" just because he likes China"" sometimes using the wrong term is better than using the exactly right term for the blood pressure.

Calling this correctly was most likely going to cause higher blood pressure than calling it incorrectly. The current label for this kind of offense being "Software Piracy" way too broad mixing all types of software license violations under one name.

GPL incompatibility is used when defining licenses we do not really want to mix this up with breaking licenses.

GPLv2/v3 license violation that another term set that could have been used again this is going to push up blood pressure.

We talk about two GPL licenses here. It's open source code in both cases. It's *not* about patents or really proprietary code..

No it is about patents because the Linux kernel does have a patent pool and to be in that pool the patent only has to be licensed for GPLv2 compatible licenses.

As I tried to point out: mainly a US problem.

Get rid of this idea. German courts are even more strict on software licenses than USA courts on what ones you can and cannot mix.

https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/german-court-allows-patents-ai-generated-inventions

The German patent system is more insane than the USA one.

TUXEDO Computers being a German company should have been taking this stuff serous-ally because of the rulings the German courts have done. They need to get themselves a better legal department or better legal counsel on these things.

[lowflyer]

./.

Dear @oiaohm,

I remember that you do not accept any other opinion than yours from previous discussions.

Did you read the "German court addresses ..." link you provided? It's not about GPL incompatibility, it's about non-adherence. The court points out that because of the "GPLv2 or later" term, both, v2 and v3, were violated. So they not see them as non-compatible. As I said before: mainly a US issue.

You also did not read the second link you provided. It's about Germany accepting patent contributions that were crafted using AI tools. To conclude that German courts are more strict on software licenses because of that is ludicrous.

Stop bullshitting please!

• Your provided court case is about a completely different issue
• you choose "piracy" because it's easier to label someone with that than "GPL incompatibility"
• The TUXEDO issue has nothing to do with patents of the Linux kernel
• Germany accepting patent contributions that contain AI does not make Germany "more strict" on software licenses

[oiaohm]

you choose "piracy" because it's easier to label someone with that than "GPL incompatibility"

Stop bullshitting you self we cannot this and you wrote why. What as you correctly stated this is German company this is not a USA one.

https://archive.fosdem.org/2024/events/attachments/fosdem-2024-2229-gpl-s-termination-under-german-law/slides/22379/GPL-termination_F2ITk76.pdf

German courts have ruled how GPLv2 termination works. GPLv3 allows termination to be reversed after 30 days. The two contracts are incompatible.

German law you have to be able to carry out all the terms of the license. Failure todo so you trigger both termination clauses.,

non-adherence is the German problem. Read GPLv2 and GPLv3 and how in heck do you obey both licenses terms at exactly the same time. The reality you end up with a non-adherence problem this starts with how termination is define in GPLv2 vs GPLv3 and just gets worse.

GPL incompatibility is an assessment of the licenses not something that happens with license violations. Even in the USA when you get into court is non-adherence with licenses when you have two conflicting licenses. Like or not non-adherence with software license is software piracy that is the USA and German court legal dictionary name for it.

The case I found was or latter. Yes the German courts ruled that or latter you could be held in violation for both GPLv2 and all latter licenses. This is a good reason why the core Linux kernel might want to avoid or latter.

The TUXEDO issue has nothing to do with patents of the Linux kernel

Yes it does because the functions TUXEDO was using from there code linked to patents the Linux kernel has been licensed to use under GPLv2 only. There is no patent license to use this from non GPlv2.