3 ms·

> The module was a proprietary binary. Since a kernel module requires interfacing with the kernel API, it could be considered a derivative work and a breach of

> The module was a proprietary binary. Since a kernel module requires interfacing with the kernel API, it could be considered a derivative work and a breach of the GPL license. I never quite understood this logic: the same (?) binary blob is used for the FreeBSD and Solaris drivers. * https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/ https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/unix/ So how can it be a 'derivative' of the GPL Linux if it it also used on non-GPL systems?

messe 4y ago
That's an interesting cognitive dissonance that I've always been fascinated by. I've heard people criticize developers who release proprietary drivers for the linux kernel, but never those who release something dual licensed as GPL2/MIT, or those who distribute a dual licensed GPL2/MIT module as if it were solely under the MIT license; surely that would violate the Linux kernel's GPL (in being a derivative work) as much a proprietary module would?
- jabl 4y ago
  MIT is Ok because MIT is compatible with GPL. GPL has language saying you can't add restrictions, but the combination GPL+MIT is essentially GPL so it's ok. Dual GPL/MIT essentially means that you as a user can choose whether you to use the code as GPL or as MIT, but if you contribute to the code you must provide the full GPL+MIT rights. As to why release a driver as GPL/MIT instead of just the GPL, I think the idea is that the BSD's (or other OS'es) can take the code and use it under the terms of the MIT license and port it to their kernels. IIRC there are many drivers in Linux that are dual licensed in this way for that reason.
marcodiego 4y ago
I'm not sure about the details, but to write a linux kernel module you must include some .h files under the GPL license. You really have to include it because linux ABI is intentionally not stable exactly to prevent proprietary abuse. So, AFAIK, every functional linux kernel driver must be released under the GPL.
- amelius 4y ago
  APIs and ABIs should be open. GPL taking a different stance here is not helping anyone.
  - marcodiego 4y ago
    The point is: if you want to include a GPL licensed header, your code must comply with its license. Your opinion on the GPL is an entirely different matter.
    - my123 4y ago
      btw for the Oracle vs Google lawsuit, OpenJDK was licensed as GPLv2. It was very much a GPL (purported) violation case.
pornel 4y ago
Because to make a driver work with Linux you have to add Linux-specific code that typically uses Linux's source code, and that combination of the driver and Linux-specific code could be considered a "derivative". Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning.
- messe 4y ago
  You quickly get into something similar the ship of theseus (or Trigger's broom) argument. You write some code that must link to a GPL library to functon; that code is now GPL because it's a derivative work of the library. You rewrite that library under an MIT license, so now your code can link to that and run. Is your original code still a derivative work?
  - pornel 4y ago
    Your original code is never a derivative work. You retain copyright to the code you wrote yourself, even if it's combined with GPL later. GPL even contains this interesting clause: > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. So to answer your question: no, unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation). There's also a crappy situation of Oracle vs Google that made APIs copyrightable, so now it's not entirely clear if your code + your rewrite of library is still yours if it uses an API of the GPL library.
    - messe 4y ago
      > Your original code is never a derivative work[...] > > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. > So to answer your question: no, unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation). Actually that clears a lot up for me, and I'd have considered myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to copyright in general; I think I had a few conflicting ideas about what it means to be an original work. Thank you.
    - vetinari 4y ago
AshamedCaptain 4y ago
"Derivate" I think here is red herring. The biggest problem is that the combination of kernel + nvidia modules could never be redistributed, which means that technically no distro should have been able to ship these drivers by default.

messe 4y ago

That's an interesting cognitive dissonance that I've always been fascinated by. I've heard people criticize developers who release proprietary drivers for the linux kernel, but never those who release something dual licensed as GPL2/MIT, or those who distribute a dual licensed GPL2/MIT module as if it were solely under the MIT license; surely that would violate the Linux kernel's GPL (in being a derivative work) as much a proprietary module would?

jabl 4y ago
MIT is Ok because MIT is compatible with GPL. GPL has language saying you can't add restrictions, but the combination GPL+MIT is essentially GPL so it's ok. Dual GPL/MIT essentially means that you as a user can choose whether you to use the code as GPL or as MIT, but if you contribute to the code you must provide the full GPL+MIT rights. As to why release a driver as GPL/MIT instead of just the GPL, I think the idea is that the BSD's (or other OS'es) can take the code and use it under the terms of the MIT license and port it to their kernels. IIRC there are many drivers in Linux that are dual licensed in this way for that reason.

marcodiego 4y ago

I'm not sure about the details, but to write a linux kernel module you must include some .h files under the GPL license. You really have to include it because linux ABI is intentionally not stable exactly to prevent proprietary abuse. So, AFAIK, every functional linux kernel driver must be released under the GPL.

amelius 4y ago
APIs and ABIs should be open. GPL taking a different stance here is not helping anyone.
- marcodiego 4y ago
  The point is: if you want to include a GPL licensed header, your code must comply with its license. Your opinion on the GPL is an entirely different matter.
  - my123 4y ago
    btw for the Oracle vs Google lawsuit, OpenJDK was licensed as GPLv2. It was very much a GPL (purported) violation case.

pornel 4y ago

Because to make a driver work with Linux you have to add Linux-specific code that typically uses Linux's source code, and that combination of the driver and Linux-specific code could be considered a "derivative". Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning.

messe 4y ago
You quickly get into something similar the ship of theseus (or Trigger's broom) argument. You write some code that must link to a GPL library to functon; that code is now GPL because it's a derivative work of the library. You rewrite that library under an MIT license, so now your code can link to that and run. Is your original code still a derivative work?
- pornel 4y ago
  Your original code is never a derivative work. You retain copyright to the code you wrote yourself, even if it's combined with GPL later. GPL even contains this interesting clause: > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. So to answer your question: no, unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation). There's also a crappy situation of Oracle vs Google that made APIs copyrightable, so now it's not entirely clear if your code + your rewrite of library is still yours if it uses an API of the GPL library.
  - messe 4y ago
    > Your original code is never a derivative work[...] > > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. > So to answer your question: no, unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation). Actually that clears a lot up for me, and I'd have considered myself reasonably knowledgeable when it comes to copyright in general; I think I had a few conflicting ideas about what it means to be an original work. Thank you.
  - vetinari 4y ago

AshamedCaptain 4y ago

"Derivate" I think here is red herring. The biggest problem is that the combination of kernel + nvidia modules could never be redistributed, which means that technically no distro should have been able to ship these drivers by default.