3 ms·

> PowerManagement-1132.50.3 At least the name sounds promising. None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly, but having the source available c

by gpm 6y ago

> PowerManagement-1132.50.3 At least the name sounds promising. None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly, but having the source available can speed up the reverse engineering process such that they can rewrite their own version of the code that interacts with the hardware.

arghwhat 6y ago
Note that this requires a clean-room process - reading the original source code as inspiration usually taints any work derived from the observations. This is why open source developers actively avoid reading leaked sources from proprietary projects for example. "open source" code with too restrictive licenses is no different from closed source code.
- gpm 6y ago
  The relevant developers are of the opinion (one that I agree with) that it does not require a clean room process. A clean room process is a gold standard for preventing accidental copyright infringment, but is not necessary and is enough work they don't consider it worthwhile. Reading (and even to the extent that it's compatible with the license modifying) the original source code to learn how the underlying hardware works is not copyright infringment and does not make future works you produce derivative works of the original. Source/explanation in their words instead of mine: https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ (See: "Reverse engineering policy")
  - arghwhat 6y ago
    The policy of those developers does not mean much, and while the policy of upstream kernel developers that need to accept the code can be interesting, but ultimately only a lawyer's opinion have any meaning here. They might coincidentally be right of course, but their advice, policy and opinion in this legal matters mean as little as yours and mine.
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly Not sure what you're referring to here?
- gpm 6y ago
  All the interesting bits are Apple License [1], which isn't GPL compatible [2]. [1] https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-585/APPLE_LICENSE.auto.html https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-58... [2] https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ - See "Referencing Other Open Source Code"
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Interesting. I'm now doing some more Googling, and I can't seem to find a place that explains why the APSL isn't GPL compatible. (But it's almost certainly not, given that lots of authoritative sources including GNU[1] say as much. They just don't say why.) 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Probably (I haven't studied it) because of what the FSF says here "It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." So it's apparently file-based copyleft, which is in the same vein as CDDL. (Which is also generally considered GPL-incompatible for that reason.)

by gpm 6y ago

arghwhat 6y ago

Note that this requires a clean-room process - reading the original source code as inspiration usually taints any work derived from the observations. This is why open source developers actively avoid reading leaked sources from proprietary projects for example. "open source" code with too restrictive licenses is no different from closed source code.

gpm 6y ago
The relevant developers are of the opinion (one that I agree with) that it does not require a clean room process. A clean room process is a gold standard for preventing accidental copyright infringment, but is not necessary and is enough work they don't consider it worthwhile. Reading (and even to the extent that it's compatible with the license modifying) the original source code to learn how the underlying hardware works is not copyright infringment and does not make future works you produce derivative works of the original. Source/explanation in their words instead of mine: https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ (See: "Reverse engineering policy")
- arghwhat 6y ago
  The policy of those developers does not mean much, and while the policy of upstream kernel developers that need to accept the code can be interesting, but ultimately only a lawyer's opinion have any meaning here. They might coincidentally be right of course, but their advice, policy and opinion in this legal matters mean as little as yours and mine.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

> None of this is licensed such that they can use it directly Not sure what you're referring to here?

gpm 6y ago
All the interesting bits are Apple License [1], which isn't GPL compatible [2]. [1] https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-585/APPLE_LICENSE.auto.html https://opensource.apple.com/source/IOGraphics/IOGraphics-58... [2] https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ https://asahilinux.org/copyright/ - See "Referencing Other Open Source Code"
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Interesting. I'm now doing some more Googling, and I can't seem to find a place that explains why the APSL isn't GPL compatible. (But it's almost certainly not, given that lots of authoritative sources including GNU[1] say as much. They just don't say why.) 1: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.en.html
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Probably (I haven't studied it) because of what the FSF says here "It is not a true copyleft, because it allows linking with other files which may be entirely proprietary." So it's apparently file-based copyleft, which is in the same vein as CDDL. (Which is also generally considered GPL-incompatible for that reason.)