Firmware of TP-link routers is licensed under GPL. But would anyone of you get the source code? They say they provide machine-readable source code. I don't quite understand what it means.
Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
101–110 of 202 posts
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
To those clicking on link [1] and finding it broken: you need to add a full stop at the end, as Hacker News's software has seen fit to exclude it from the link.
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#103Firmware of TP-link routers is licensed under GPL. But would anyone of you get the source code? They say they provide machine-readable source code. I don't quite understand what it means.
I read that as minified/obfuscated. Which is not gpl compliant (not going to quote directly but there's language in there about having to provide the source in is preferred form for editing).
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If true then this means before you even download the program you must agree to its license. only then are you allowed to download which in turn copies the program to ram and then to a FS.
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
>GPL is a nice idea...but you need lawyers lots of money and time. This applies to any license. BSD/MIT/ISC rules can be broken as well and the only means to rectify it in the case that the other party refuses to cooperate is to resort to litigation.
>BSD/MIT/ISC rules can be broken as well No one cares and no one has interests to break them for financial gain...not even lawyers (that's the good part)
My router violates the BSD license and they got financial gain from that.
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
>BSD/MIT/ISC rules can be broken as well No one cares and no one has interests to break them for financial gain...not even lawyers (that's the good part)
My router violates the BSD license and they got financial gain from that.
That was probably done because of laziness or incompetence and not for financial gain. The financial loss of attributing someone is very tiny compared to having to release all of your source.
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#107I'm hoping Software Freedom Conservancy's Vizio lawsuit will enable Linux users to sue over Linux GPL violations and get compliance. Currently only Linux copyright holders can sue, but Conservancy believes that users are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL and thus should have standing to sue for GPL compliance.
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#108I'm hoping Software Freedom Conservancy's Vizio lawsuit will enable Linux users to sue over Linux GPL violations and get compliance. Currently only Linux copyright holders can sue, but Conservancy believes that users are third-party beneficiaries of the GPL and thus should have standing to sue for GPL compliance. https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
Did you even read the article?
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#109I rather use Mozilla Public License 2.0, Eclipse Public License 2.0, or EUPL 1.2 for copyleft purposes. Strong copyleft as a concept has no legal reality. Linking a program to another don't produce a derivative work. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/news/why-viral-l... FSF is full of baloney about how static or dynamic linking is different than communicating for example through sockets. To be able to use t…
What? The FSF and copyright in general does not worry about static vs dynamic linking. They focus on "derivative works.". The only question that matters is "does this piece of software derive from this other piece.". How they are linked together has no meaning. Hackers like to misunderstand that and think they can work around the GPL by how they bundle the two pieces together. The CLISP case is a classic example. It…
LGPL absolutely does care about linking. Section 4d specifically talks about shared libraries and requires you to be able to "re-link" the application with a modified version of the library, if dynamic linking is not used.
When people talk about how the LGPL isn't a good license, it's largely because A) C and C++ are really the only two systems languages for which dynamic linking is even an option and B) header-only libraries, templates/generics, and heavy use of inlining can make "re-linking" a statically linked executable basically impossible.
Re: Linux's GPLv2 licence is routinely violated (2015)
#110> You have use cases for binary kernel modules which need to be accommodated I can't think of a single reason that binary-only kernel modules would ever need to be distributed. There are some cases when out-of-tree modules make sense, but in all of these cases, they could be distributed with source code, in compliance with the GPL.
Ok then we just won't use Nvidia cards with Linux.