4 ms·
I think the part of the article everyone should make sure to focus on is that Google is doing exactly what Linus says is impermissible. "In short: you do _NOT_
by mycroftiv 16y ago
I think the part of the article everyone should make sure to focus on is that Google is doing exactly what Linus says is impermissible.
"In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program."
"So you can run the kernel and create non-GPL'd programs [...] BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES. Comprende?" - Linus Torvalds quote, taken from the linked article
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- eli 16y agoAn excellent point, though (unfortunately) just because Linus wants the GPL to apply that way doesn't necessarily mean that it does. As a layman, it seems entirely reasonable that you should be able to inspect the interface of a software product in order to make something compatible with it without your new product counting as a "derived work." If they had read documentation for all the functions rather than parsing the headers through a script would that have made a difference? Put another way, I'm sure Microsoft asserts that it is impermissible to reverse engineer Windows kernel code, but that doesn't mean they have the power to stop it.
- humbledrone 16y agoWhat Linus says is impermissible is rather immaterial; he's not a lawyer. What matters is a court's interpretation of the GPL as it applies to the kernel.