4 ms·

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 Lin

by pornel 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    > unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation). Which might happen very easily: one #include and you might be there.
- bogwog 5y ago
  I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the GPL requires you to make source available upon request to users of your software. So I guess if someone asks you for the source code, you can require them to prove that they actually have a copy of the GPL version, and not the new one.
- adastra22 5y ago
  The license is abundantly clear about this and answers all your questions. It matters who is doing the rewriting and how they got the code in the first place.
  - messe 5y ago
    I think one of the matters that confused me about it was the CLISP question. IIRC, CLISP linked to readline, but was released under a non-GPL license. RMS contacted them, and asked them to relicense. They suggested either reimplementing a stub readline-library, or rewriting their line editing code against another lib instead. RMS insisted that they would still be a GPL-derivative, resulting in the current license situation. I may be misremembering the recount of this, as this was way before my time.
    - adastra22 5y ago
      RMS may have believed or wanted that, but it is my understanding (IANAL!) that the case law has been settled differently. If you are found in violation of the GPL due to a dependency you weren't aware was released under the GPL, you can fix that violation by rewriting your application to avoid the GPL dependency. CLISP et al cannot be forced to distribute their code under the GPL. It's their code and their choice; contract law cannot compel someone who has never entered into the contract to do something against their will -- CLISP didn't knowingly distribute GPL code, so that distribution doesn't trigger acceptance of the GPL terms. They just have to make the situation right once they're made aware of the violation.
      - pornel 5y ago
        It's more nuanced. If you've included GPL code and modified or redistributed it, then you either have to comply with the GPL to have permission for that use, or you've potentially committed a copyright violation. To comply with the GPL you only need to publish the one specific snapshot of source code you've combined and redistributed with GPL code, but you don't need to permanently relicense your project if it doesn't contain any code you don't have rights to use. The "tainted" version will be granted as GPLed forever, but other earlier or later versions that don't use any GPL code don't have to. Or you can go the copyright way, and claim it wasn't a copyright violation (because it was a fair use, or non-copyrightable code) or settle the matter in whatever way the law lets you get away with.
throw0101a 5y ago
Linus Torvalds: But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)? THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. Basically: - anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_ works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived work. - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around with core code, you're derived, no question about it. * https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html Then you have things like (Open)ZFS and DTrace.
- puffoflogic 5y ago
  > don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. This is the key point, and it is nearly impossible for firmware blobs to depend on any OS behavior, let alone "special Linux behavior". The only way they could do so is via the open-source part, so it should be easy enough to check that.
- tzs 5y ago
  By that reasoning every program written to run on MS-DOS was a "derived work" of MS-DOS. Such programs were written with MS-DOS in mind, and often mucked around with fundamental internal MS-DOS behavior. Same with pre-OS X Mac. Most Mac programs were written with Mac in mind, and it was not uncommon for programs mucked around with OS code and data. What matters is how copyright law defines derivative work, and in the US that has nothing to do with whether or not your work was written with another work in mind or plays with fundamental internal behavior of another work. What matters is whether or not it incorporates copyrighted elements of another work.
tzs 5y ago
> Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning The license does not contain a definition for "derivative" nor of the similar term "derived" which it also uses.

by pornel 5y ago

messe 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  > unless you've copied bits of GPL library into your code (or similar that would be judged as a copyright violation). Which might happen very easily: one #include and you might be there.
bogwog 5y ago
I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the GPL requires you to make source available upon request to users of your software. So I guess if someone asks you for the source code, you can require them to prove that they actually have a copy of the GPL version, and not the new one.
adastra22 5y ago
The license is abundantly clear about this and answers all your questions. It matters who is doing the rewriting and how they got the code in the first place.
- messe 5y ago
  I think one of the matters that confused me about it was the CLISP question. IIRC, CLISP linked to readline, but was released under a non-GPL license. RMS contacted them, and asked them to relicense. They suggested either reimplementing a stub readline-library, or rewriting their line editing code against another lib instead. RMS insisted that they would still be a GPL-derivative, resulting in the current license situation. I may be misremembering the recount of this, as this was way before my time.
  - adastra22 5y ago
    RMS may have believed or wanted that, but it is my understanding (IANAL!) that the case law has been settled differently. If you are found in violation of the GPL due to a dependency you weren't aware was released under the GPL, you can fix that violation by rewriting your application to avoid the GPL dependency. CLISP et al cannot be forced to distribute their code under the GPL. It's their code and their choice; contract law cannot compel someone who has never entered into the contract to do something against their will -- CLISP didn't knowingly distribute GPL code, so that distribution doesn't trigger acceptance of the GPL terms. They just have to make the situation right once they're made aware of the violation.
    - pornel 5y ago
      It's more nuanced. If you've included GPL code and modified or redistributed it, then you either have to comply with the GPL to have permission for that use, or you've potentially committed a copyright violation. To comply with the GPL you only need to publish the one specific snapshot of source code you've combined and redistributed with GPL code, but you don't need to permanently relicense your project if it doesn't contain any code you don't have rights to use. The "tainted" version will be granted as GPLed forever, but other earlier or later versions that don't use any GPL code don't have to. Or you can go the copyright way, and claim it wasn't a copyright violation (because it was a fair use, or non-copyrightable code) or settle the matter in whatever way the law lets you get away with.

throw0101a 5y ago

Linus Torvalds: But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)? THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. Basically: - anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_ works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived work. - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around with core code, you're derived, no question about it. * https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/gpl_modules.html Then you have things like (Open)ZFS and DTrace.

puffoflogic 5y ago
> don't depend on any special Linux behaviour. This is the key point, and it is nearly impossible for firmware blobs to depend on any OS behavior, let alone "special Linux behavior". The only way they could do so is via the open-source part, so it should be easy enough to check that.
tzs 5y ago
By that reasoning every program written to run on MS-DOS was a "derived work" of MS-DOS. Such programs were written with MS-DOS in mind, and often mucked around with fundamental internal MS-DOS behavior. Same with pre-OS X Mac. Most Mac programs were written with Mac in mind, and it was not uncommon for programs mucked around with OS code and data. What matters is how copyright law defines derivative work, and in the US that has nothing to do with whether or not your work was written with another work in mind or plays with fundamental internal behavior of another work. What matters is whether or not it incorporates copyrighted elements of another work.

tzs 5y ago

> Note that the word "derivative" is used here as defined by the license, not in its plain English meaning The license does not contain a definition for "derivative" nor of the similar term "derived" which it also uses.