4 ms·

> but is there any reason other than promoting the GPL why a non-free module should not use linux-only APIs? I think this question illustrates something of an

> but is there any reason other than promoting the GPL why a non-free module should not use linux-only APIs? I think this question illustrates something of an invisible generation gap in software. GPL is not a utilitarian license. There is no materialistic value in choosing to use the GPL whatsoever. The text of the GPL is itself a legal edifice specifically designed to dismember the very framework in which it exists, rendering it anti-utilitarian. This is all to say that the GPL is politics. One chooses the GPL specifically for political reasons. In politics, you do not go out of your way to aid your ideological adversaries; you either convert them or destroy them. > if getting rid of non-free modules is the goal, why even have a syscall exception? why not force all modules to be GPL? Despite what I just said about GPL as ideology, the GPL is simultaneously a legal construct which necessarily must bend to the rules of the framework it exists within. The logic of GPL extending through syscalls is based in a legal argument similar to that used in the Google vs. Oracle debacle -- we created the "shape" of this API, so we have certain rights regarding it. The "shape" of the Unix syscalls predate Linux and are therefore beyond the project's reach, legally speaking.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
The best analogy for the GPL that I've seen is to consider what happens with a typical for-profit corporation. If you join the company (they have to agree to hire you for this to happen), then in the work you do for the company, you have free access to all the IP of the company, to whatever extent is it useful in the tasks you are undertaking within the company. You must, of course, promise not to leak the IP outside the company. Now consider that there is a similar organization: a not-for-profit organization of programmers for which the only qualification for entry is that you agree to use the same license as everybody else. Once you do, you are free to use all the IP of the organization. You may not, however, use the IP of the organization for things you might do under different licenses, since that is not considered to be within the scope of the organization. In short: if you don't want to join the GPL "organization", don't. But just as you don't expect to get access to Nvidia's internal IP unless you join Nvidia, don't expect to get access to the GPL organization's IP.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

The best analogy for the GPL that I've seen is to consider what happens with a typical for-profit corporation. If you join the company (they have to agree to hire you for this to happen), then in the work you do for the company, you have free access to all the IP of the company, to whatever extent is it useful in the tasks you are undertaking within the company. You must, of course, promise not to leak the IP outside the company. Now consider that there is a similar organization: a not-for-profit organization of programmers for which the only qualification for entry is that you agree to use the same license as everybody else. Once you do, you are free to use all the IP of the organization. You may not, however, use the IP of the organization for things you might do under different licenses, since that is not considered to be within the scope of the organization. In short: if you don't want to join the GPL "organization", don't. But just as you don't expect to get access to Nvidia's internal IP unless you join Nvidia, don't expect to get access to the GPL organization's IP.