4 ms·

Some context that isn't immediately clear: this company is selling a compiled version of the Linux kernel in some way. They are required to disclose their sourc

Some context that isn't immediately clear: this company is selling a compiled version of the Linux kernel in some way. They are required to disclose their source code if asked and make it clear their code is GPL'ed. They are in violation of the GPL, since they are not doing that.

rurban 7y ago
Only to their customers, not to the world. But most likely they are in violation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- imtringued 7y ago
  The GPL license allows the customers to hand it over to the rest of the world. I think this is overblown unless the code is containing secrets like API or private keys but then they only have themselves to blame for disregarding security.
illys 7y ago
Couldn't they write proprietary software with an API, then modify (under GPL) the Kernel to call that API? Their modified kernel with API calls is GPL while they keep their trade secrets... Am I correct?
- Miner49er 7y ago
  I think so, this is what Google does with Android, but IANAL. But it seems the company hasn't been doing that, so even if they make the change now, their old code is still in violation of the GPL, and anyone they distributed it to has the right to request it.
  - noir_lord 7y ago
    Nvidia with their binary driver as well, that's why the kernel marks it as 'tainted'.
    - cvs268 7y ago
      Isn't "tainted" in the Linux kernel used to flag the presence of binary blobs? (and nothing to do with licensing) All binary blobs in the Linux kernel aren't automatically illegal according to the GPL, right? Binary blob kernel modules, in fact, have restricted access to the kernel frameworks (cannot access/use GPL symbols).
  - slrz 7y ago
    > I think so, this is what Google does with Android, but IANAL. Google doesn't ship any proprietary kernel code as part of Android. It's all GPL and available to the public at large. Some Android kernel parts are maintained separately from the kernel.org mainline tree (i.e. they maintain a fork) but that's not a legal issue (and they're getting better at it anyway).
parliament32 7y ago
If they have a custom kernel that only runs internally to provide some sort of SaaS, they don't have to disclose anything.
- Miner49er 7y ago
  A moved comment by OP says this: "We are selling a product with a "custom linux kernel installed". Our engineers say that "most of the product is GPL code we've modified", and that since we are selling a product with this software in place, "we're shipping GPL'ed code""
dTal 7y ago
I am afraid the GPL simply isn't worth the paper it's not written on these days, due to the community's idealistic standpoint of "negotiate, not punish". Without the legal teeth of an actual threat of litigation, or the actions of a "rogue" employee like this one, there's no motivation whatsoever to comply. Violations are absolutely rampant.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

rurban 7y ago

Only to their customers, not to the world. But most likely they are in violation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 7y ago
The GPL license allows the customers to hand it over to the rest of the world. I think this is overblown unless the code is containing secrets like API or private keys but then they only have themselves to blame for disregarding security.

illys 7y ago

Couldn't they write proprietary software with an API, then modify (under GPL) the Kernel to call that API? Their modified kernel with API calls is GPL while they keep their trade secrets... Am I correct?

Miner49er 7y ago
I think so, this is what Google does with Android, but IANAL. But it seems the company hasn't been doing that, so even if they make the change now, their old code is still in violation of the GPL, and anyone they distributed it to has the right to request it.
- noir_lord 7y ago
  Nvidia with their binary driver as well, that's why the kernel marks it as 'tainted'.
  - cvs268 7y ago
    Isn't "tainted" in the Linux kernel used to flag the presence of binary blobs? (and nothing to do with licensing) All binary blobs in the Linux kernel aren't automatically illegal according to the GPL, right? Binary blob kernel modules, in fact, have restricted access to the kernel frameworks (cannot access/use GPL symbols).
- slrz 7y ago
  > I think so, this is what Google does with Android, but IANAL. Google doesn't ship any proprietary kernel code as part of Android. It's all GPL and available to the public at large. Some Android kernel parts are maintained separately from the kernel.org mainline tree (i.e. they maintain a fork) but that's not a legal issue (and they're getting better at it anyway).

parliament32 7y ago

If they have a custom kernel that only runs internally to provide some sort of SaaS, they don't have to disclose anything.

Miner49er 7y ago
A moved comment by OP says this: "We are selling a product with a "custom linux kernel installed". Our engineers say that "most of the product is GPL code we've modified", and that since we are selling a product with this software in place, "we're shipping GPL'ed code""

dTal 7y ago

I am afraid the GPL simply isn't worth the paper it's not written on these days, due to the community's idealistic standpoint of "negotiate, not punish". Without the legal teeth of an actual threat of litigation, or the actions of a "rogue" employee like this one, there's no motivation whatsoever to comply. Violations are absolutely rampant.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]