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

61–70 of 202 posts

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

#61

Post by aluminum96 »

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).

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

#62

Post by jarpadat »

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…

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 get the right to run the program without "this License". But if we take the text seriously, it disclaims any restrictions on use.

This is the part where the derivative work standard comes in. Because if the GPL doesn't set conditions on use, your use of the software doesn't require complying with that license. The GPL would only enter in if you are going beyond mere use, e.g. are you making a legal derivative work (not the GPL definition)

(Not legal advice.)

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

#63

Post by nix23 »

badsectoracula wrote: post #31
nix23 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPL is a nice idea...but you need lawyers lots of money and time. I hate lawyers and i don't have time for that bs nor do it have/want money to spend for lawyers, i was a diehard gpl evangelist in my 20`s, now it's BSD/MIT/ISC (and not diehard anymore...more like IDGAS)...and i really don't care for religion anymore...just quality and real freedom.

> and i really don't care for religion anymore...just quality and real freedom. The freedom that GPL is about isn't about the developer's freedom to do whatever they please but about the user's freedom from the developers' whims. This isn't some arbitrary nebulous religion-like dogma but comes from the very practical issue of developers inherently having power over the programs they write and, by extension, power ove…

>denied access to the source code that would help him fix his lab's printer.

Blablabla still the same nothing changed.....

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

#64

Post by Dylan16807 »

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 don't see anywhere in the GPL that defines deriving, except the part where it mentions "derivative work under copyright law".

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

#65

Post by phendrenad2 »

AshamedCaptain wrote: post #33

> Actually, it gets worse. Here's what the GPLv2 says about termination: > So if you violate the licence, it is terminated. That's it. Given that “you” may refer to a corporation, this creates the following disturbing possibility: This is called the GPL death penalty, has actually happen in the past even before the article was written. It is yet another thing fixed by the oft-maligned GPLv3. Samba switched to GPLv3 b…

Now I'm curious. Who or what company was hit by the GPL "death penalty"?

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

#66

Post by phendrenad2 »

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 :)

zfs and nvidia work around it by requiring user intervention to apply the patch. Once the kernel is tainted by zfs or nvidia code, the user can't share it without violating the GPL (IANAL but that's my understanding).

In the era of always-on internet connections, this is a feasible solution, except it's the kernel, so perhaps ethernet and wifi drivers might have a bit of a catch-22 using this method :)

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

#67

Post by rtpg »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #59
rtpg wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what the word "permissive" habitually means in the English language, especially if you consider a more broad view of users including those who are writing the software and integrating it into their products. Not to say GPL is bad, just that the VAT-style "only the last user counts" view of things is playing with semantics.

> writing the software and integrating it into their products That's distribution, not use. (Except for when they're testing it or running local instances, and GPL doesn't get in the way of those things.) > Not to say GPL is bad, just that the VAT-style "only the last user counts" view of things is playing with semantics. By my understanding VAT doesn't work that way. Once a user pays VAT and starts using something,…

the VAT reference is that businesses don't pay VAT, only end consumers do. If you buy something and then integrate it into another product, then re-sell it you are exempt from VAT (details are more complicated, but it's _not_ like sales tax)

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

#68

Post by phendrenad2 »

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…

> Linus is a copyright holder...So...the court will listen to Linus to determine where the boundary is

This seems completely insane. If I become a programmer on Monday, and download the Linux source on Tuesday, and read the license file on Wednesday, and publish code on Thursday, and Linus sues me on Friday, am I going to be penalized by the judge because I didn't read random LKML posts by Linus? Surely the license is self-contained and provides me with all of then information I am reasonably required to have.

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

#69

Post by charcircuit »

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 this same way, the GPL and like licenses are the most permissive licenses from the perspective of every eventual user

No, take for example the real world use case of distributing ZFS on Linux in binary form. Users are unable to distribute it due to conflicting copyleft licenses. Copyleft licenses limits people by creating their own exclusive ecosystems which can't be mixed.

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

#70

Post by meinersbur »

> The userspace ABI is stable and intended not to cause anything targeting it to become a derived work.

> the only thing forcing modules to be GPLv2-compatible is the rate of change of the kernel mode ABI making it impractical to target it via cleanroom methods.

What is licensed is a specific source code version, not the history of previous versions. For a specific revision, there is no meaning to "more stable".

What makes userspace programs non-derived work is the syscall exception: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/excep...

Post reply on HN