3 ms·

This is a copyright issue just like any other. Thus the normal court system should be able to make a decision one way or the other. If the reality is that lit

by dsp1234 11y ago

This is a copyright issue just like any other. Thus the normal court system should be able to make a decision one way or the other. If the reality is that literally no one is capable of adjudicating this issue, then there is literally no teeth to the GPL since who could make a decision on it. I believe that's not really the case though. And of course lawyers are always going to argue, that's literally their job after all. However, having some actual solid ground here would be helpful since "exceptions" abound, and it's basically "if we like you or we're forced to do because you have market power (nvidia), then it's totally cool". Land on the wrong side of that and you're getting bashed (again note the difference between Canonical distributing zfs vs nvidia's graphics binary).

Dylan16807 11y ago
>If the reality is that literally no one is capable of adjudicating this issue, then there is literally no teeth to the GPL since who could make a decision on it. Not true at all. Most claims of GPL violation are very straightforward.
- dsp1234 11y ago
  True, but we were not discussing general GPL violations. But specifically the murkiness of the binary kernel module 'exceptions' (or if they are not actually derivative works in the first place, and thus not really 'exceptions', but rights). That's what 'this issue' refers to above.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    I'm aware of what you meant by 'this issue'. But you claim that if "no one is capable of adjudicating this issue" then there are "literally no teeth to the GPL". That is nonsense. Binary modules that may-or-may-not derive from open source programs are an edge case. The GPL can do many useful and powerful things without touching that edge case.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      I didn't claim that at all. The other poster stated a partial argument that "who the hell are we gonna find that A) is actually qualified to judge this sort of thing". I then stated that IF literally no one was able to adjudicate it, then there would no teeth to the GPL (since anyone who wanted non-compliance would just binary kernel module everything). In other words, for the sake of argument, I was granting the other poster their position, and stating the outcome of that line of logic. Then I immediately disagreed with the base assumption saying "I believe that's not really the case though.". Continuing the other poster's logical line (again, even though I disagree that a court could not settle the issue), if at some point a court came down and said, "Regardless of the text of the GPL itself, it is completely legal to link binary blobs against the linux kernel, and that linking does not create a derivative work", then the result of that line of reasoning would end in a weakening of the GPL because it would allow companies to 'lock away' the source code in direct opposition to the spirit of the GPL. Also note, that if the courts said something like "We cannot find any person in the entire world who is qualified to judge this issue", then it would have the same effect because abusers of the GPL would know that enforcement was not a possibility (thus the GPL losing it's teeth). I think it's hard to argue that if (in the counterfactual world where there was no one qualified to judge the violation) it would be possible to enforce copyright on the GPL. Happily, we don't live in that world.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        > I then stated that IF I kept that "if" in my wording. I disagree with the line of logic. No matter what you think of the premise. > (since anyone who wanted non-compliance would just binary kernel module everything) Even if binary modules made you immune to the GPL, there are a lot of things the GPL would still do. It would not be toothless. On top of that, the issue here is binary modules that questionably derive from open source code. If you make a binary module that unambiguously derives from open source code, that would still be an easy question for the courts. That's why this is an edge case that remains an edge case, even in an alternate reality where the courts literally cannot decide on zfs.ko or nvidia.ko
        11y ago

by dsp1234 11y ago

Dylan16807 11y ago

>If the reality is that literally no one is capable of adjudicating this issue, then there is literally no teeth to the GPL since who could make a decision on it. Not true at all. Most claims of GPL violation are very straightforward.

dsp1234 11y ago
True, but we were not discussing general GPL violations. But specifically the murkiness of the binary kernel module 'exceptions' (or if they are not actually derivative works in the first place, and thus not really 'exceptions', but rights). That's what 'this issue' refers to above.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  I'm aware of what you meant by 'this issue'. But you claim that if "no one is capable of adjudicating this issue" then there are "literally no teeth to the GPL". That is nonsense. Binary modules that may-or-may-not derive from open source programs are an edge case. The GPL can do many useful and powerful things without touching that edge case.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    I didn't claim that at all. The other poster stated a partial argument that "who the hell are we gonna find that A) is actually qualified to judge this sort of thing". I then stated that IF literally no one was able to adjudicate it, then there would no teeth to the GPL (since anyone who wanted non-compliance would just binary kernel module everything). In other words, for the sake of argument, I was granting the other poster their position, and stating the outcome of that line of logic. Then I immediately disagreed with the base assumption saying "I believe that's not really the case though.". Continuing the other poster's logical line (again, even though I disagree that a court could not settle the issue), if at some point a court came down and said, "Regardless of the text of the GPL itself, it is completely legal to link binary blobs against the linux kernel, and that linking does not create a derivative work", then the result of that line of reasoning would end in a weakening of the GPL because it would allow companies to 'lock away' the source code in direct opposition to the spirit of the GPL. Also note, that if the courts said something like "We cannot find any person in the entire world who is qualified to judge this issue", then it would have the same effect because abusers of the GPL would know that enforcement was not a possibility (thus the GPL losing it's teeth). I think it's hard to argue that if (in the counterfactual world where there was no one qualified to judge the violation) it would be possible to enforce copyright on the GPL. Happily, we don't live in that world.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      > I then stated that IF I kept that "if" in my wording. I disagree with the line of logic. No matter what you think of the premise. > (since anyone who wanted non-compliance would just binary kernel module everything) Even if binary modules made you immune to the GPL, there are a lot of things the GPL would still do. It would not be toothless. On top of that, the issue here is binary modules that questionably derive from open source code. If you make a binary module that unambiguously derives from open source code, that would still be an easy question for the courts. That's why this is an edge case that remains an edge case, even in an alternate reality where the courts literally cannot decide on zfs.ko or nvidia.ko
      - 11y ago