4 ms·

The reason is that Angry Birds is written in C and certainly accesses the Linux kernel, almost certainly using the Bionic library. If that one is GPL'd, Angry B

The reason is that Angry Birds is written in C and certainly accesses the Linux kernel, almost certainly using the Bionic library. If that one is GPL'd, Angry Birds has to be GPL'd. GPL copyleft affects derivative works, and compiling a library into your program is a clear case of a derivative work.

anon1385 16y ago
I think people are objecting to this rather extreme worse case scenario because the C library can just use the LGPL, there is no situation where it has to be full GPL. (Or else how does glibc get away with being LGPL?)
- FlorianMueller 16y ago
  glibc is LGPL'd because the kernel maintainers create it under the LGPL and all Linux kernel contributors know and accept that. But third parties can't just take code and relicense it. Otherwise why not take all of Linux and relicense it under BSD or Apache? ;-)
  - pyre 16y ago
    I find it hard to believe that it's impossible to make a glibc competitor that is LGPL and uses kernel headers. Could you point me to some opinions that you're basing this on?
    - FlorianMueller 16y ago
      Edward Naughton, a prominent IP litigator, said in his Huffington Post article on this that he's skeptical of Google's approach because he believes the header material they copied is likely copyrightable. If it's copyrightable, it can't just be relicensed by third parties. During all those years that Linux has been around, no one other than Google has tried to take this kind of material from the original kernel headers and publish it under any license other than the GPL. And no one has tried to do an alternative glibc. I guess what someone would do is take glibc and fork it on LGPL terms.
      - calloc 16y ago
        Eh wha? No-one has tried to do an alternative glibc? Wrong: http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ http://www.uclibc.org/ http://www.uclibc.org/ http://sourceware.org/newlib/ http://sourceware.org/newlib/
        FlorianMueller 16y ago
        Does any of those libraries gut the original Linux kernel headers the way Bionic does? Not as far as I can see. You can build libraries if you like, but you can't just put header code under a different license unless you're the original right holder or have the original right holder's consent.
        calloc 16y ago
        You said that no-one has tried to do an alternative to glibc. I proved you wrong. I never made any statements on anything else you said, so really I am not sure what you are arguing for or against...
ajross 16y ago
No, no, no. That's wrong. It's the "viral" misinterpretation of the GPL at work. Angry Birds code belongs to Angry Birds' developers, period. They get to decide its license, period. There are no circumstances under which "Angry Birds has to be GPL'd". None. The issue at hand is whether or not the Angry Birds Android port constitutes a derived work of the kernel (a pretty strained case, IMHO, given that it's a straightforward port of a game from another non-linux platform). If it is, then it can only be distributed under the GPL -- that is, it'd have to be pulled from the market. At no point does it get removed from its owner's control.
- cube13 16y ago
  >The issue at hand is whether or not the Angry Birds Android port constitutes a derived work of the kernel (a pretty strained case, IMHO, given that it's a straightforward port of a game from another non-linux platform). If it is, then it can only be distributed under the GPL -- that is, it'd have to be pulled from the market. At no point does it get removed from its owner's control. The FSF states that if any program links against GPL licensed libraries, it is a derivative work, and therefore needs to be under GPL as well. The LGPL was created specifically to allow linking by code from other licenses. While the Angry Birds code still belongs to the Angry Birds developers. However, if Google is guilty of a GPL violation, and are unable to get a LGPL licensed wrapper around the code, Angry Birds for Android may need to be distributed under the GPL to avoid a violation. Most likely, Google will find a way to make an LGPL wrapper, and this entire issue won't matter.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - humbledrone 16y ago
    It is not true that if e.g. Angry Birds was found to violate the GPL that its developers would be forced to release it under the GPL. _Please_ read this article: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 .

anon1385 16y ago

I think people are objecting to this rather extreme worse case scenario because the C library can just use the LGPL, there is no situation where it has to be full GPL. (Or else how does glibc get away with being LGPL?)

FlorianMueller 16y ago
glibc is LGPL'd because the kernel maintainers create it under the LGPL and all Linux kernel contributors know and accept that. But third parties can't just take code and relicense it. Otherwise why not take all of Linux and relicense it under BSD or Apache? ;-)
- pyre 16y ago
  I find it hard to believe that it's impossible to make a glibc competitor that is LGPL and uses kernel headers. Could you point me to some opinions that you're basing this on?
  - FlorianMueller 16y ago
    Edward Naughton, a prominent IP litigator, said in his Huffington Post article on this that he's skeptical of Google's approach because he believes the header material they copied is likely copyrightable. If it's copyrightable, it can't just be relicensed by third parties. During all those years that Linux has been around, no one other than Google has tried to take this kind of material from the original kernel headers and publish it under any license other than the GPL. And no one has tried to do an alternative glibc. I guess what someone would do is take glibc and fork it on LGPL terms.
    - calloc 16y ago
      Eh wha? No-one has tried to do an alternative glibc? Wrong: http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ http://www.fefe.de/dietlibc/ http://www.uclibc.org/ http://www.uclibc.org/ http://sourceware.org/newlib/ http://sourceware.org/newlib/
      - FlorianMueller 16y ago
        Does any of those libraries gut the original Linux kernel headers the way Bionic does? Not as far as I can see. You can build libraries if you like, but you can't just put header code under a different license unless you're the original right holder or have the original right holder's consent.
        calloc 16y ago
        You said that no-one has tried to do an alternative to glibc. I proved you wrong. I never made any statements on anything else you said, so really I am not sure what you are arguing for or against...

ajross 16y ago

No, no, no. That's wrong. It's the "viral" misinterpretation of the GPL at work. Angry Birds code belongs to Angry Birds' developers, period. They get to decide its license, period. There are no circumstances under which "Angry Birds has to be GPL'd". None. The issue at hand is whether or not the Angry Birds Android port constitutes a derived work of the kernel (a pretty strained case, IMHO, given that it's a straightforward port of a game from another non-linux platform). If it is, then it can only be distributed under the GPL -- that is, it'd have to be pulled from the market. At no point does it get removed from its owner's control.

cube13 16y ago
>The issue at hand is whether or not the Angry Birds Android port constitutes a derived work of the kernel (a pretty strained case, IMHO, given that it's a straightforward port of a game from another non-linux platform). If it is, then it can only be distributed under the GPL -- that is, it'd have to be pulled from the market. At no point does it get removed from its owner's control. The FSF states that if any program links against GPL licensed libraries, it is a derivative work, and therefore needs to be under GPL as well. The LGPL was created specifically to allow linking by code from other licenses. While the Angry Birds code still belongs to the Angry Birds developers. However, if Google is guilty of a GPL violation, and are unable to get a LGPL licensed wrapper around the code, Angry Birds for Android may need to be distributed under the GPL to avoid a violation. Most likely, Google will find a way to make an LGPL wrapper, and this entire issue won't matter.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- humbledrone 16y ago
  It is not true that if e.g. Angry Birds was found to violate the GPL that its developers would be forced to release it under the GPL. _Please_ read this article: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214210634851 .