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

Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

devever.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 202 posts

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#91

Post by marcan_42 »

johnny22 wrote: post #56
ladyanita22 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How feasible is it to avoid using GPL_ONLY symbols? Because if you for sure need GPL modules for some use cases[1], then I believe the point still stands. [1] This is, being unable to even reimplement the functions yourself in a self-contained module.

both zfs and nvidia do it, don't they? Or at least they haven't been in trouble over it :)

Korg ships a module with their Kronos workstation that re-exports some GPL symbols as non-GPL.

They also ship the source for the kernel itself, but "conveniently" forgot to include a patch they added for DRM that makes their synthesizer module (yes the synth runs in kernel space) fail to work properly if missing. Some obfuscated change to the CD-ROM subsystem (yes really, they stuck some unrelated protection in there as obfuscation)

Blatant GPL violations are rampant.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#92

Post by AshamedCaptain »

fsckboy wrote: post #23

> It is rather ironic that in some ways, one has more freedom in how one licences a kernel driver for Windows than the freedom one supposedly has in writing a kernel module for Linux. it is not ironic at all: freedom in Free Software is the freedom of USERS of the software to be able to see and modify the source. This is a freedom granted by the writers of the software, and copyleft means that this right is ensured t…

There is no irony, I think there is just confusion. The Windows license is much more restricting, you are never going to be able to ship Windows for your customers alongside your Windows kernel module unless you/they pay for Windows. GPL allows you to distribute Linux for your customers at your behest as long as you satisfy certain requirements, namely, source. The way I view it, it is not adding restrictions whatsoever, it is actually adding allowances. More permissive licenses add even more allowances.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#93

Post by Brian_K_White »

aluminum96 wrote: post #61
fsckboy wrote: post #23

> It is rather ironic that in some ways, one has more freedom in how one licences a kernel driver for Windows than the freedom one supposedly has in writing a kernel module for Linux. it is not ironic at all: freedom in Free Software is the freedom of USERS of the software to be able to see and modify the source. This is a freedom granted by the writers of the software, and copyleft means that this right is ensured t…

> the GPL and like licenses are the most permissive licenses This is a deliberately confusing statement. It's fine to prefer the GPL over MIT/BSD-style licenses, but the term "permissive" is well-understood in reference to non-copyleft licenses. Misapplying that term just muddles the issue unnecessarily. See also: [the wikipedia page on permissive licenses]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permissive_software_license )…

It's the most permissive, in that it yields the most permission.

The permission denied to your company to take without giving, is outweighed by the permission granted to everyone else.

Everyone who ever complains about the gpl is just a slaver complaining about their freedom to deny another their freedom.

If that awful gpl software is so stinky, great news, you don't have to use it! How awesome is that?

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#94

Post by jarpadat »

Borealid wrote: post #73
jarpadat wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem with the interpretation that the GPL sets conditions for use of software is that it specifically claims it does not: > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, Now there are some ways to try to do an end-run around this clause, it does raise some questions about how you g…

I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which you could use the library without copying the library. How would you obtain the code to execute it? Someone must distribute it to you, and/or you must copy it. Those are the governed actions. EDIT: note that the GPL broadly doesn't impose restrictions on interacting with a program over a network ("using" a server), which is why the AGPL exists.

So, one answer (not necessarily the right one!) to how you can use software without copying it is that "the license says you can". In other words the license definitely views "running" and "copying" as distinct, regardless of you, me, or federal law.

The other, maybe more familiar idea to lawyers, and maybe more plausible to you, is the one in MAI v. Peak, that running is copying by definition. (The argument is based on the idea that running a program copies it into RAM, so we don't even need to talk about how you obtained the software.)

The way this shakes out is as follows:

a. If running the program is "not covered by this License", then we can stop reading the license and return to copyright law. But copyright law says we need a license to run (that is, to copy, MAI v. Peak) the program, so where do we get it, if not from "this license"? Bit of a puzzler.

b. If "running the Program is not restricted", maybe that sentence is by itself some kind of license to "run" the program, even though that contradicts the "not covered" part? If so, we need to understand what the license means by "run" which is evidently something different than "copy".

Very probably, what this clause originally meant was that people who think like MAI v. Peak are wrong and nobody should need a license to run software. If so, it's pretty challenging to turn around and argue "just kidding, they do"

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#95

Post by bumblebritches5 »

jcelerier wrote: post #53
convolvatron wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, you have to admit its a little confusing. its so free, that by accepting it, I can constraint your future behavior (making it less free really), so that other people have the same freedom with respect to your contributions (being constrained) as you did

The philosophical stance of GPL is freedom at the individual human level - the only thing that actually matters if you are part of mankind. Yes, a society where you cannot "choose" to be enslaved is semantically less free than one where you can, but hopefully everyone agrees that for definitions of "freedom" which matter for human beings, the first society is a better choice.

No post body was provided.

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#96

Post by Shoue »

josephcsible wrote: post #82
fsckboy wrote: post #23

> It is rather ironic that in some ways, one has more freedom in how one licences a kernel driver for Windows than the freedom one supposedly has in writing a kernel module for Linux. it is not ironic at all: freedom in Free Software is the freedom of USERS of the software to be able to see and modify the source. This is a freedom granted by the writers of the software, and copyleft means that this right is ensured t…

In particular, that quote mixes up freedom and power: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.en.html Being allowed to choose a license that denies freedom to others isn't freedom, just like being allowed to own slaves wasn't freedom.

The term for this "communal freedom" rather than "pure individualist freedom" is Negative Liberty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

It's one of the core tenets of modern freedom, for example: you're free to say what you want (Positive Liberty) as long as it's not a threat of violence that would silence someone else, so that other person is free from your threat of violence (Negative Liberty).

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#97

Post by [deleted] »

fsckboy wrote: post #23

> It is rather ironic that in some ways, one has more freedom in how one licences a kernel driver for Windows than the freedom one supposedly has in writing a kernel module for Linux. it is not ironic at all: freedom in Free Software is the freedom of USERS of the software to be able to see and modify the source. This is a freedom granted by the writers of the software, and copyleft means that this right is ensured t…

[deleted]

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#98

Post by ISO-morphism »

Borealid wrote: post #39
tsimionescu wrote: post #25

> The userspace ABI is stable and intended not to cause anything targeting it to become a derived work. But once again, this seems to be a way in which the kernel project seems to think it has the power to interpret the GPL. In their minds, targeting the userspace ABI doesn't make a derived work, but writing a module does, unless it only targets GPL_ONLY symbols, in which case for some reason it isn't. I think this w…

I think there's some confusion in the above post. The relevant "derived work" definition for the purpose of linking isn't one stemming from copyright law, it's the one in the GPL itself. This is because the GPL defines what licensees are permitted to do with the licensed work, and it imposes restrictions on those rights. Copyright law by default lets you make very little use of the software - the GPL broadens that ou…

I think there's a misunderstanding here on what "use" means.

> You could ignore the GPL and static-link a piece of software to a GPLed library, but if you did so, you'd legally need a different right to use the GPLed library, because you hadn't complied with its license terms and so only have your minimal rights to use someone else's intellectual property.

Before we get into anything particular to the GPL, Galoob v. Nintendo established that modifying copyrighted programs for personal use is covered under fair use [1], so you could use, i.e. run, that newly linked program without any regard to license.

Even if the GPL could establish such restrictions, I don't think that it would. That seems to run entirely opposite to the spirit of the license. The point of the GPL is to preserve the freedoms of the end user, and freedom 0 is to freedom to run the program [2]. When you link that program and run it, you are the user. The author of the GPL work wants you to be able to run the GPL code "as you wish, for any purpose", and they also want the same freedom to be given to whomever you give that code to. If you give that linked program to someone else, they're the user, you're the distributor. Your freedoms as a user are the same as they've always been, and that user that you gave the code to needs those same freedoms.

> Said differently, the GPL doesn't try to apply itself to "derived works" because of some contralegal dictum they don't have a different creative origin. It merely says "you have two choices - license the things you link with OUR stuff under OUR terms, or you don't have the right to use our stuff".

You have the right to use the stuff by virtue of freedom 0, literally "the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose". You don't have the right to license "OUR" stuff to other people without also ensuring they have the same freedoms that "we" gave you.

See also another commenter discussing freedom vs. power [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nin....

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[3] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html

EDIT: formatting

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#99

Post by User23 »

Borealid wrote: post #39
tsimionescu wrote: post #25

> The userspace ABI is stable and intended not to cause anything targeting it to become a derived work. But once again, this seems to be a way in which the kernel project seems to think it has the power to interpret the GPL. In their minds, targeting the userspace ABI doesn't make a derived work, but writing a module does, unless it only targets GPL_ONLY symbols, in which case for some reason it isn't. I think this w…

I think there's some confusion in the above post. The relevant "derived work" definition for the purpose of linking isn't one stemming from copyright law, it's the one in the GPL itself. This is because the GPL defines what licensees are permitted to do with the licensed work, and it imposes restrictions on those rights. Copyright law by default lets you make very little use of the software - the GPL broadens that ou…

> Copyright law by default lets you make very little use of the software

That’s not what the statutory law says. Once you’ve legally obtained the software you’re free to use it, including specifically the right to make copies for backups and necessary purposes, like copying from disk to memory[1].

Note that the GPL doesn’t attempt to limit how you use the software. The copyleft only matters when you start distributing copies rather than using the one you already have, which is where copyright law matters.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117

Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)

#100

Post by shagie »

kmeisthax wrote: post #50

Several of the points in this article are either flat-out wrong, or are correct but being read in the wrong context. > The licence is specifically GPLv2 and not “GPLv2 or later”, which is the default when applying the GPLv2 to software. Because Linus didn't and doesn't want the FSF relicensing Linux with new restrictions to fit their specific political goals[0], on the basis that adding any further restrictions to GP…

Some more on Linus and his feelings on GPLv3 from 2014 - https://youtu.be/PaKIZ7gJlRU
Post reply on HN