10 ms·

If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. My competitors can take advantage of this, but in the end th

If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. My competitors can take advantage of this, but in the end they are bound by similar rules. This produces a feedback loop in which contributions back may be used by everyone under pretty much equal terms. If you assign your copyright to Google, they may make use of those changes and integrate them into further development and then _not_ release those changes or release those changes under another license. Do you see the practical difference now?

hollerith 6y ago
You are describing the difference between the GPL and BSD-like licenses. You have not said anything about the difference between a BSD-like license with copyright remaining with the contributors versus BSD-like license with copyright assigned to Google.
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  Well if I have the copyright I can straight up sell software based upon it without telling people you made it. Or I can release your code or derivatives of it under a different license while privately selling it under other licenses for profit. If these things don't bother you, then feel free to contribute. In fact, what I'm trying to understand exactly is if I assume that you are correct that there is no difference, then why would Google require the contribution in the first place? edit: If this ( https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual ) is the CLA in question, then you additionally agree on a patent grant to Google and those those Google distributes it to. So if Samsung takes the code and distributes it to other customers those customers and Samsung are not covered by the same grant? Why is this all centered on Google? Why is not simply a general patent grant as part of the submission to anyone receiving the code?
  - derefr 6y ago
    > In fact, what I'm trying to understand exactly is if I assume that you are correct that there is no difference, then why would Google require the contribution in the first place? The difference isn't relevant 99% of the time, but it comes up if the maintainership of a work tries to re-license the work. Works without assigned ownership cannot practically be re-licensed, as you'd have to get individual consent from all owning parties. This came up a lot when GPLv3 was introduced — many projects wanted to migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3, but couldn't, because they never acquired legal ownership of contributed code, and so didn't have the right to re-license the contributors' code.
    - warkdarrior 6y ago
      > it comes up if the maintainership of a work tries to re-license the work Bingo! Google will relicense Fuchsia to OEMs etc. under new terms if they want to include Google services.
      - dhodell 6y ago
        Well, sure. Because people who want to develop products on some platform also want some kind of warranty, which is explicitly not provided. Google establishes with the public a warranty- and guarantee-free use license. If someone feels they've been harmed by the software, they're prevented by the open source license from suing Google, but they're (more importantly) also giving up their right to sue the individual contributors. At the same time, vendors want to be able to hold suppliers accountable for support and warranty on products that are supplied. Permitting sublicensing allows Google to sell the software to OEMs and vendors with support agreements that allow those vendors to hold Google responsible for that support (rather than the individual contributors). There's a lot of complaint about the sublicensing going on, but I think most vendors aren't going to build systems where they can't get support, and I don't think contributors actually want to be liable under tort law for the code they provided for free. Then again, maybe the objection is to giving code to Google that Google can profit from. I guess that's fair, but you don't _have_ to contribute code and you're also not prevented from sublicensing and trying to turn a profit yourself. (edit: typo)
    - 6y ago
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
> If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. This is false. The GPL does not require you to make source code available to anybody who asks, only those you distribute the software too (in source or binary form). If you modify a GPL'ed application and then distribute that to 3 friends, those friends have the right to ask for the (modified) source code. Nobody else does.
- gpm 6y ago
  Incorrect, under GPLv3 if you do not distribute the source with the object, anyone with a copy of the object code is entitled to request the source code if you do not distribute the object code with the source code. I.e. if those friends give it to someone else your obligation to provide source follows the object to someone else. (This is a short and incomplete summary of section 6). GPLv2 is even more stringent, if you do not accompany the source with the object than any third party with or without access to the object is entitled to request the source code. (This is a short and incomplete summary of section 3).
  - PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
    I was not commenting on GPLv3. But even so, your first paragraph does not contradict what I wrote. You're also incorrect: there is no transitivity to providing source. Section 6 makes clear that if your offer of source relies on someone else's server (i.e. you are redistributing the work but do not control the location where the source is available): "Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements". These clauses in the GPL cover you the person distributing a copy of the work, not "them" (the people who gave you a copy of the work). You're incorrect about GPLv2. Section 3 states that if you distribute the work "in object code or executable form", you have to do one of 3 possible things: 1. accompany the object/executable with machine readable code 2. accompany the object/executable with a written offer of access to machine readable code 3. accompany the object/executable with the same information you received with the object/executable. (This option is only available for non-commercial distribution) So you're simply completely wrong about this.
andrewprock 6y ago
I think there is a lesson in here somewhere about the evolution of Linux as a platform, versus the evolution of Android as a platform. In particular, it seems that the license terms of Linux caused Android to become "as open as it needs to be, and no more open". I expect that Fucshia will take the same path as Android, as opposed to the path of core Linux.

hollerith 6y ago

You are describing the difference between the GPL and BSD-like licenses. You have not said anything about the difference between a BSD-like license with copyright remaining with the contributors versus BSD-like license with copyright assigned to Google.

CogitoCogito 6y ago
Well if I have the copyright I can straight up sell software based upon it without telling people you made it. Or I can release your code or derivatives of it under a different license while privately selling it under other licenses for profit. If these things don't bother you, then feel free to contribute. In fact, what I'm trying to understand exactly is if I assume that you are correct that there is no difference, then why would Google require the contribution in the first place? edit: If this ( https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual ) is the CLA in question, then you additionally agree on a patent grant to Google and those those Google distributes it to. So if Samsung takes the code and distributes it to other customers those customers and Samsung are not covered by the same grant? Why is this all centered on Google? Why is not simply a general patent grant as part of the submission to anyone receiving the code?
- derefr 6y ago
  > In fact, what I'm trying to understand exactly is if I assume that you are correct that there is no difference, then why would Google require the contribution in the first place? The difference isn't relevant 99% of the time, but it comes up if the maintainership of a work tries to re-license the work. Works without assigned ownership cannot practically be re-licensed, as you'd have to get individual consent from all owning parties. This came up a lot when GPLv3 was introduced — many projects wanted to migrate from GPLv2 to GPLv3, but couldn't, because they never acquired legal ownership of contributed code, and so didn't have the right to re-license the contributors' code.
  - warkdarrior 6y ago
    > it comes up if the maintainership of a work tries to re-license the work Bingo! Google will relicense Fuchsia to OEMs etc. under new terms if they want to include Google services.
    - dhodell 6y ago
      Well, sure. Because people who want to develop products on some platform also want some kind of warranty, which is explicitly not provided. Google establishes with the public a warranty- and guarantee-free use license. If someone feels they've been harmed by the software, they're prevented by the open source license from suing Google, but they're (more importantly) also giving up their right to sue the individual contributors. At the same time, vendors want to be able to hold suppliers accountable for support and warranty on products that are supplied. Permitting sublicensing allows Google to sell the software to OEMs and vendors with support agreements that allow those vendors to hold Google responsible for that support (rather than the individual contributors). There's a lot of complaint about the sublicensing going on, but I think most vendors aren't going to build systems where they can't get support, and I don't think contributors actually want to be liable under tort law for the code they provided for free. Then again, maybe the objection is to giving code to Google that Google can profit from. I guess that's fair, but you don't _have_ to contribute code and you're also not prevented from sublicensing and trying to turn a profit yourself. (edit: typo)
  - 6y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

> If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. This is false. The GPL does not require you to make source code available to anybody who asks, only those you distribute the software too (in source or binary form). If you modify a GPL'ed application and then distribute that to 3 friends, those friends have the right to ask for the (modified) source code. Nobody else does.

gpm 6y ago
Incorrect, under GPLv3 if you do not distribute the source with the object, anyone with a copy of the object code is entitled to request the source code if you do not distribute the object code with the source code. I.e. if those friends give it to someone else your obligation to provide source follows the object to someone else. (This is a short and incomplete summary of section 6). GPLv2 is even more stringent, if you do not accompany the source with the object than any third party with or without access to the object is entitled to request the source code. (This is a short and incomplete summary of section 3).
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  I was not commenting on GPLv3. But even so, your first paragraph does not contradict what I wrote. You're also incorrect: there is no transitivity to providing source. Section 6 makes clear that if your offer of source relies on someone else's server (i.e. you are redistributing the work but do not control the location where the source is available): "Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements". These clauses in the GPL cover you the person distributing a copy of the work, not "them" (the people who gave you a copy of the work). You're incorrect about GPLv2. Section 3 states that if you distribute the work "in object code or executable form", you have to do one of 3 possible things: 1. accompany the object/executable with machine readable code 2. accompany the object/executable with a written offer of access to machine readable code 3. accompany the object/executable with the same information you received with the object/executable. (This option is only available for non-commercial distribution) So you're simply completely wrong about this.

andrewprock 6y ago

I think there is a lesson in here somewhere about the evolution of Linux as a platform, versus the evolution of Android as a platform. In particular, it seems that the license terms of Linux caused Android to become "as open as it needs to be, and no more open". I expect that Fucshia will take the same path as Android, as opposed to the path of core Linux.