Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
h-online.com
Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
1–10 of 20 posts
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#2Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary:
http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING
So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated, Linus' exception for GPL works and viral nature of GPL does not extend to userspace subsystem, which can be kept close-sourced.
Do I understand it right? Any opposing opinions?
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#3Yeah, the four freedoms. Viva la revolution.
That four freedom shit is just like Animal Farm. It's hilarious.
LoseThos is public domain.
God says... don't_mention_it sad cowardice manufacturing you're_in_big_trouble are_you_sure employer geek One_finger_salute vice freak can_you_hear_me_now birds lighten_up hey_thats_right pride quite endure silly_human Knock_you_upside_the_head handyman WooHoo
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#4Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is prov…
it's not linux's exception. It's just clarifying what the GPL already says. Yes, you can bundle the gpl kernel with all sorts of non-free userspace applications.
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#5Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is prov…
First, using the term "viral" is flame bait. You're just going to start arguments that way.
And yes: you're correct that the official interpretation of the kernel license does not treat userspace programs as derived works. So merely running something in userspace does not require releasing that the code be licensed under GPL-compatible terms.
Note that there's a lot more GPL software than the kernel that you will need to package, however. The kernel is merely the biggest single piece.
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#6Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is prov…
The bigger issue in embedded deployments of Linux is that it's often not just a vanilla kernel with some userspace apps tacked on: there are typically at least some custom device drivers in the picture, and these aren't userspace.
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#7Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is prov…
The Linux COPYING file merely repeats what the GPL already says. The GPL is not viral, and cannot be viral because it is a copyright license.
The Linux kernel is not LGPL, because you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result.
There is no requirement for a work that merely links to a GPL'd work to itself be open-source, except under very particular conditions where the linking is obviously being used to try to evade the law.
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#8Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is prov…
"include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated" is not actually compliant with the GPL. If you'd like to learn why and -- more importantly -- how to be compliant, read this article from the Software Freedom Law Center: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.h...
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#9Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is prov…
"include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated" is not actually compliant with the GPL. If you'd like to learn why and -- more importantly -- how to be compliant, read this article from the Software Freedom Law Center: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/…
So, running proprietary software under Linux kernel is OK from legal point of view, but combining GPL kernel + proprietary initramfs to single BLOB and flashing it into hardware (distributing for end users for update) isn't safe?
Re: Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved
#10Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is prov…
The Linux COPYING file merely repeats what the GPL already says. The GPL is not viral, and cannot be viral because it is a copyright license. The Linux kernel is not LGPL, because you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result. There is no requirement for a work that merely links to a GPL'd work to itself be open-source, except under very particular conditions where the linking is o…
For LGPL code, you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result too. Only dynamic linking is OK (DLL, libFOO.so, some other form of combining which permits enduser to upgrade/modify free part).
And GPL adds more to this basic "do not close the source" LGPL level.