4 ms·

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 d

by 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
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      As an observer of this conversation, I'd like you to know that you're arguing with a rhetorical device.
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by that. 'rhetorical device' is a very broad category. Can you explain if you think that's good or bad, and why? dsp1234 made an argument that X, though not true, would lead to Y bad thing. I agree that X is not true, but object strongly to the idea that it would lead to Y. Are you pointing out that the X->Y argument is only for effect, because X is false? I am aware of that, and I disagree with the effect, because I don't think X->Y is at all plausible. So I made a comment.
        dsp1234 11y ago
        I agree that X is not true, but object strongly to the idea that it would lead to Y. If the courts threw up their hands and said "It is literally impossible to adjudicate this issue of the binary kernel module", then who is left to enforce the copyright law? If a court said that, and an individual/company wanted to ignore the GPL, then they could put all of their code into binary modules. If a company's proprietary code is in a binary format, there is no one available to enforce licensing rules, and the company knows those two facts, then what reason does that company have to fear from the GPL? Please provide an answer to both questions independently, so they are both addressed and no assumptions are left invisible. My answers are 'no one' and 'none'. I'd like to hear what you think the answers to those questions are, then I'd also be curious to hear what you think the logical outcome of the binary kernal module license issue being unenforceable would be.

by dsp1234 11y ago

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
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    As an observer of this conversation, I'd like you to know that you're arguing with a rhetorical device.
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by that. 'rhetorical device' is a very broad category. Can you explain if you think that's good or bad, and why? dsp1234 made an argument that X, though not true, would lead to Y bad thing. I agree that X is not true, but object strongly to the idea that it would lead to Y. Are you pointing out that the X->Y argument is only for effect, because X is false? I am aware of that, and I disagree with the effect, because I don't think X->Y is at all plausible. So I made a comment.
      - dsp1234 11y ago
        I agree that X is not true, but object strongly to the idea that it would lead to Y. If the courts threw up their hands and said "It is literally impossible to adjudicate this issue of the binary kernel module", then who is left to enforce the copyright law? If a court said that, and an individual/company wanted to ignore the GPL, then they could put all of their code into binary modules. If a company's proprietary code is in a binary format, there is no one available to enforce licensing rules, and the company knows those two facts, then what reason does that company have to fear from the GPL? Please provide an answer to both questions independently, so they are both addressed and no assumptions are left invisible. My answers are 'no one' and 'none'. I'd like to hear what you think the answers to those questions are, then I'd also be curious to hear what you think the logical outcome of the binary kernal module license issue being unenforceable would be.