5 ms·

>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 stra

by 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 .
- protomyth 16y ago
  but they couldn't keep distributing on Android without releasing as a GPL-compatible license (same article as ref).
  - humbledrone 16y ago
    Sure, that would be one of their options. I just wanted to make it clear that doing so would be an _option_ and not something like a court injunction. A lot of people seem to think that if you are found to be in violation of the GPL, that somehow you will be immediately forced to release your source code to the whole world.
nuclear_eclipse 16y ago
Rovio will still never be forced to distribute Angry Birds under the GPL, even if they are found to be a derived work by association. Being found of infringement just means they have to stop distributing Angry Birds, in it's infringing form. Once the infringement is fixed, Rovio can then distribute the non-infringing form of Angry Birds without having to license it as GPL. If however, Rovio wants to continue distributing the infringing form of Angry Birds, they only license they are legally allowed to use for that is the GPL. But at no point is Rovio ever forced to distribute a GPL licensed version of Angry Birds.
- cube13 16y ago
  It is true that Rovio isn't forced by anyone to create a GPL version or to release their code. I should have pointed this out. However, their options are pretty limited, considering they want to make money off of the software. They could simply stop distributing it from the platform. But they want to make money, which means that they(presumably) want to get as many sales of the game as possible on as many platforms as possible. However, if the main system interface is GPL(and not LGPL), the GPL does not allow anything to link against it that is not GPL code. So, given that, they are effectively forced to do it if they want to get any further sales and ad revenue on the Android platform, because they would not be able to distribute the game in it's current version.

by cube13 16y ago

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 .

protomyth 16y ago
but they couldn't keep distributing on Android without releasing as a GPL-compatible license (same article as ref).
- humbledrone 16y ago
  Sure, that would be one of their options. I just wanted to make it clear that doing so would be an _option_ and not something like a court injunction. A lot of people seem to think that if you are found to be in violation of the GPL, that somehow you will be immediately forced to release your source code to the whole world.

nuclear_eclipse 16y ago

Rovio will still never be forced to distribute Angry Birds under the GPL, even if they are found to be a derived work by association. Being found of infringement just means they have to stop distributing Angry Birds, in it's infringing form. Once the infringement is fixed, Rovio can then distribute the non-infringing form of Angry Birds without having to license it as GPL. If however, Rovio wants to continue distributing the infringing form of Angry Birds, they only license they are legally allowed to use for that is the GPL. But at no point is Rovio ever forced to distribute a GPL licensed version of Angry Birds.

cube13 16y ago
It is true that Rovio isn't forced by anyone to create a GPL version or to release their code. I should have pointed this out. However, their options are pretty limited, considering they want to make money off of the software. They could simply stop distributing it from the platform. But they want to make money, which means that they(presumably) want to get as many sales of the game as possible on as many platforms as possible. However, if the main system interface is GPL(and not LGPL), the GPL does not allow anything to link against it that is not GPL code. So, given that, they are effectively forced to do it if they want to get any further sales and ad revenue on the Android platform, because they would not be able to distribute the game in it's current version.