Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#2The gist of it seems to be that yes, once you violate GPLv2 you need explicit permission to get your license restored (which would be hard to do in the case of the Linux kernel), but hey, don't worry about it. The copyright owners are nice people who just want the source distributed, so go ahead and ignore the license as long as you intend to eventually comply--there won't be any serious consequences.
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#3What I did not understand in the original article: For what is the license void? For BusyBox or for BusyBox 1.0.3. Is it valid again - new distribution - with BusyBox 1.0.4? Or is it the "same" software?
[edit] Just saw this is also discussed in the linked article.
PS: In philosophy this problem is known as Ship of Theseus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#4This paragraph from the bottom of the article presents a vector of attack (albeit a small one) on the kernel that I hadn't considered before, but it seems like one we may quickly encounter in the future.
"One would guess that a copyright troll with a small ownership [of kernel code] would succeed mostly in getting his or her code removed from the kernel in record time. Big holders could pose a bigger threat. Imagine a company like IBM, for example; IBM owns the copyright on a great deal of kernel code. IBM also has the look of one of those short-lived companies that doesn't hang around for long. As this flash-in-the-pan fades, its copyright portfolio could be picked up by a troll which would then proceed to attack prior infringers. Writing IBM's code out of the kernel would not be an easy task, so some other sort of solution would have to be found. It is not a pretty scenario."
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#5This paragraph from the bottom of the article presents a vector of attack (albeit a small one) on the kernel that I hadn't considered before, but it seems like one we may quickly encounter in the future. "One would guess that a copyright troll with a small ownership [of kernel code] would succeed mostly in getting his or her code removed from the kernel in record time. Big holders could pose a bigger threat. Imagine…
"IBM also has the look of one of those short-lived companies that doesn't hang around for long."
this is probably the funniest sentence I have ever read.
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#6[deleted]
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#7I don't think LWN folks are very happy that the subscriber links are spread this way, they are supposed to be only for very small audience.
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#8This is a subscriber-only article. By linking to a subscriber link we are not helping LWN.
Quoting LWN: "Reader subscriptions are a necessary way to fund the continued existence of LWN and the quality of its content."
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#9This is a subscriber-only article. By linking to a subscriber link we are not helping LWN. Quoting LWN: "Reader subscriptions are a necessary way to fund the continued existence of LWN and the quality of its content."
I'm having no trouble reading it. I'm not a subscriber.
LWN subscribers can create sharable links to articles that are not yet generally available to non-subscribers. People coming in via those links are allowed to see the article. That's what is happening here.
Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
#10This paragraph from the bottom of the article presents a vector of attack (albeit a small one) on the kernel that I hadn't considered before, but it seems like one we may quickly encounter in the future. "One would guess that a copyright troll with a small ownership [of kernel code] would succeed mostly in getting his or her code removed from the kernel in record time. Big holders could pose a bigger threat. Imagine…
"IBM also has the look of one of those short-lived companies that doesn't hang around for long." this is probably the funniest sentence I have ever read.
It's conceivable that Motorola Mobile might have had GPL-licensed linux code. That story might be playing out differently had Microsoft bought them instead of Google.