Originally posted by ChrisXY
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Debating Continues Over Possible Kernel GPL Violation
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostSome people believe that their code will become automatically GPL licensed if they touch GPL software. I don't know how Syke meant it, but Microsoft and others have been running a FUD campaign about "viral" GPL relicensing your code for many years now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostActually it's the GPL's hostility to DRM that prevents it being published. Other FLOSS licenses don't have a problem with it.
Still Microsoft solved this by simply stating that an OSI licence will take precedence over Microsofts own licence terms in their app store, so GPL is no problem there. Apple could do the same but they haven't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by deanjo View PostActually Apple forked khtml and created Webkit where the changes appear in a timely manner.
Comment
-
Originally posted by airlied View PostYeah I was only trying to show people why nvidia don't get sued (not distributing a linked object), they actually don't distribute any objects build with kernel headers, they have the user build the files that touch the kernel headers locally. When some distros tried to bypass this and ship a kernel and the final linked nvidia binary, they got told to stop. So yes distributing a linked thing is what triggers the GPL violation. Exactly what consitutes linking is also a bit of lawyer consulation. Currently accepted theory is that creating a kernel module you can load into a running kernel is linking it, again good lawyers might get judges to see things another way.
So the thing is yes there are lots of GPL violators out there, but not as bad as you imply. You'd be surprised how many of the android graphics stacks have fully open source kernel drivers, even if they aren't upstream, they are still released under the GPL, and there are a lot of people doing GPL violation works with those companies in secret.
The reason this one is bigger is (a) it was on lkml, (b) the company alleged to violate also happen to maintain a GPL fork of their code, (c) the company in question stonewalled any polite inquiries in private, (d) it was on lkml. (d) it got into phoronix.
Generally with GPL violations the organisation doing the investigation and the organisation doing the violatiing, talk in private a lot first, and some agreement is hammered out, occasionally it goes to court.
At a guess this one will probably go into the background, until
one of:
a) some rights holder decides to pursue it, whether that be SFLC, Red Hat, or anyone else who holds kernel copyrights
b) the company just releases the source to the bits they didn't before.
Dave.
I did look into the reported matter a little more. First off, when companies refuse to release source code, it is usually because they would lose customers if others could review the code. In this situation, the code involved has an open source version called LIO (as was reported) and unfortunately, LIO appears to lack barrier support. I examined the code earlier this year after a user in IRC reported data loss and I could not find any hint of barrier support. Maybe I did not look hard enough, but I read enough code to convince myself that it was not there. Unless I am wrong, anyone using LIO is putting their data at risk until barrier support is implemented. Anyway, Redhat feels that the proprietary version puts them at a disadvantage, which is the only reason anyone cares:
With that said, it would be nice if someone would get programming documentation for the networking hardware used by the Asus RT-N66U. I know for a fact that it uses a binary kernel module because I spent days tearing apart the published firmware in an attempt to port Gentoo to the router. I shelved the port because hacking around the 11MB binary blob took too much time. As I recall, the blob required special attention from userland in order for the networking stack to function properly. I doubt that I would have time to fix something that broken even if I had the code. Programming documentation would be nice because then multiple people could work together to make something that I could package in Gentoo without breaking virtually every QA rule that I know.Last edited by ryao; 15 November 2012, 02:37 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Syke View PostIf you create a GPL-derived work, you either GPL your modifications, or you are in violation of the GPL. They can keep their code non-GPL, but the consequence of them doing so puts them in violation of the GPL and the holders of the Linux copyrights will terminate their license to distribute Linux.
Comment
-
-
There are LGPL and eCos that are copyleft and compatible with GPL.
LE: about the "compiled binary", if you are refering to a distinct kernel module or so, then no, it's under the license you choose, if the code you wrote is linked togheter with the GPL code the resulting binary is under BOTH lincences.Last edited by Ansla; 15 November 2012, 10:13 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ansla View PostYou don't have to GPL your modifications, you can release them under any FSF aproved licence.
Comment
Comment