Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–28 of 28 posts

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#21

Post by jrockway »

sixtofour wrote: post #16
jrockway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the end, the code gets removed and rewritten. Most of Linux is drivers for hardware that you don't have anyway, so the chances of this affecting the average person are minimal. Honestly, nothing but good could come from being forced to remove key parts of Linux. A lot of it needs a good rethinking, but breaking compat would not be tolerated. If it's legally required, then people don't have a choice.

"In the end, the code gets removed and rewritten." Undoubtedly true, but what about deployed/sold devices? I wasn't real impressed at the pace of the update getting to my Epic, which I believe was caused in part by different motivations between Samsung and Sprint. What about devices that are no longer supported by updates? They're "out there."

I guess they get an emergency patch or Samsung pays damages. Just like they already do for the eight billion patents various trolls claim their phones infringe on.

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#22

Post by Uchikoma »

jandevos wrote: post #19
lurker19 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software doesn't violate licenses, people do. Anyone who violates the license of a work loses their license to the work. A more pointed question then is about who violates/loses the license: an individual coder? A corporation/foundation?

I think the gist was: if you lose your license to distribute Busybox X, does that impact your rights with respect to Busybox Y? My take on this (but IANAL) is that you do not really lose the rights to distribute a specific version, but the rights to distribute specific code (or compiled versions of it), and that would carry through to all code in version Y that was already in version X, but not any newer code that is…

I think the position that it's about specific code is not defendable. What if I delete the file and retype it as a coder (see Theseus)? Is this the same file that was in a former release? If I automatically code format it, so no character is at the same position as it was before? Is it the same file? The only thing that makes sense is considering releases as the particular thing that is licensed (with each source file being a considered a part of the release, not a part in the history of the file).

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#23

Post by krakensden »

joshuacc wrote: post #17
aninteger wrote: post #8

This 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."

Full text of the notice at the top of the article: "The following subscription-only content has been made available to you by an LWN subscriber. Thousands of subscribers depend on LWN for the best news from the Linux and free software communities. If you enjoy this article, please consider subscribing to LWN. Thank you for visiting LWN.net!" At first glance it seems that they don't actually object to the article bein…

Indeed- Jonathan Corbet, the editor in chief, has shared subscriber only links here before.

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#24

Post by sciurus »

aninteger wrote: post #8

This 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 normally don't submit content from LWN until it's a week old and available by default to non-subscribers. However, if they've written the best article on a topic that's gaining traction on HN I'll consider it. In this case I'd noticed two stories about GPL license revocation and Android make the front page recently, but they each seemed to focus on only a portion of the topic and to put their own spin on the topic.

To quote from LWN's FAQ: "Where is it appropriate to post a subscriber link? Almost anywhere. Private mail, messages to project mailing lists, and blog entries are all appropriate. As long as people do not use subscriber links as a way to defeat our attempts to gain subscribers, we are happy to see them shared."

So if you like this article, subscribe to LWN. I did!

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#25

Post by ableal »

krakensden wrote: post #23
joshuacc wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Full text of the notice at the top of the article: "The following subscription-only content has been made available to you by an LWN subscriber. Thousands of subscribers depend on LWN for the best news from the Linux and free software communities. If you enjoy this article, please consider subscribing to LWN. Thank you for visiting LWN.net!" At first glance it seems that they don't actually object to the article bein…

Indeed- Jonathan Corbet, the editor in chief, has shared subscriber only links here before.

I feel that it would be more polite to let him, the owner, be the one to do the gracious sharing at this scale.

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#26

Post by nokcha »

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems that under Section 6 of GPL, a former violator could get a new license by simply receiving another copy of the software from anyone who still has a valid license:

> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#27

Post by comex »

aninteger wrote: post #8

This 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 paid for a subscription once after reading a subscriber link shared on Reddit, in other to read some of LWN's other content; if not for the link I probably wouldn't have bothered. I'd be surprised if I was alone.

Re: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty

#28

Post by lurker19 »

jandevos wrote: post #19
lurker19 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software doesn't violate licenses, people do. Anyone who violates the license of a work loses their license to the work. A more pointed question then is about who violates/loses the license: an individual coder? A corporation/foundation?

I think the gist was: if you lose your license to distribute Busybox X, does that impact your rights with respect to Busybox Y? My take on this (but IANAL) is that you do not really lose the rights to distribute a specific version, but the rights to distribute specific code (or compiled versions of it), and that would carry through to all code in version Y that was already in version X, but not any newer code that is…

Ah I thought you were naming BusyBox as an infringing work, not an infringed. Anyway, it does seem, as mentioned in the article, that if the copyright holder rereleases a similar work under a similar license, a past infringer gets a fresh shot, unless the author specifically publishes their revision history as a single work.

The point of the GPL really is about sharing, as the article suggests, not about punitive damages or post-violation injuctions. GPL-using authors do not want to prohibit infringers from future sharing, they want derived works published freely.

Much of the point of GPL and Free Software is about freedom for users, not making war against others. A past infringer gaining access to to code is not a loophole, it is part of the goal of the Free Software movement, which is unrestricted access for anyone to exploit software privately or to share it publicly (but not to allow public exploitation of non-shared code).

Post reply on HN