3 ms·
GPLv3 licensed, despite almost certainly being a derivative work of Linux, which is GPLv2 licensed (with no "or later" provision). Now, I ain't no lawyer or no
by yellowapple 4y ago
GPLv3 licensed, despite almost certainly being a derivative work of Linux, which is GPLv2 licensed (with no "or later" provision).
Now, I ain't no lawyer or nothin', but I reckon that's a legal paddlin'.
- c4mpute 4y agoMost probably not. Kernel devs are tame even with closed-source device and software vendors pirating the Linux kernel. I doubt any kernel copyright holder will bat an eye over GPLv3 vs. GPLv2. Not to mention the very relevant question of "is it really a derivative work?", which very much depends on the depth and complexity of integration, provided interfaces, GPLONLY symbols and other minutiae.
- yellowapple 4y ago> Kernel devs are tame even with closed-source device and software vendors pirating the Linux kernel. It's more complicated than that: https://lwn.net/Articles/698452/ https://lwn.net/Articles/698452/ > I doubt any kernel copyright holder will bat an eye over GPLv3 vs. GPLv2. Probably not, but why risk it? The only meaningful difference between the two is the anti-TiVoization clause, and considering how thoroughly Android is already TiVoized, that seems pretty pointless anyway. > Not to mention the very relevant question of "is it really a derivative work?", which very much depends on the depth and complexity of integration, provided interfaces, GPLONLY symbols and other minutiae. It's a kernel module, the build process for which entailing pulling the KernelSU code into a cloned Linux repo. It's pretty unambiguously a derivative work.