4 ms·

Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved

35 points by rabelaisian 14y ago

mkup 14y ago
Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated, Linus' exception for GPL works and viral nature of GPL does not extend to userspace subsystem, which can be kept close-sourced. Do I understand it right? Any opposing opinions?
- johnny22 14y ago
  it's not linux's exception. It's just clarifying what the GPL already says. Yes, you can bundle the gpl kernel with all sorts of non-free userspace applications.
- mseebach 14y ago
  The bigger issue in embedded deployments of Linux is that it's often not just a vanilla kernel with some userspace apps tacked on: there are typically at least some custom device drivers in the picture, and these aren't userspace.
- ajross 14y ago
  First, using the term "viral" is flame bait. You're just going to start arguments that way. And yes: you're correct that the official interpretation of the kernel license does not treat userspace programs as derived works. So merely running something in userspace does not require releasing that the code be licensed under GPL-compatible terms. Note that there's a lot more GPL software than the kernel that you will need to package, however. The kernel is merely the biggest single piece.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  The Linux COPYING file merely repeats what the GPL already says. The GPL is not viral, and cannot be viral because it is a copyright license. The Linux kernel is not LGPL, because you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result. There is no requirement for a work that merely links to a GPL'd work to itself be open-source, except under very particular conditions where the linking is obviously being used to try to evade the law.
  - mkup 14y ago
    For LGPL code, you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result too. Only dynamic linking is OK (DLL, libFOO.so, some other form of combining which permits enduser to upgrade/modify free part). And GPL adds more to this basic "do not close the source" LGPL level.
    - jmillikin 14y ago
      That's not true; the LGPL explicitly supports static linking to proprietary code. That's the whole point, that's the reason LGPL exists.
      - mkup 14y ago
        You are plainly wrong. Go reread LGPL. LGPL exists to have lesser GPL without viral nature. They both forbid static linking with proprietary code and distributing solely resulting binary file.
        jmillikin 14y ago
        I have read both the GPL and LGPL extensively. Since you apparently have not, please see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html before continuing your windmill-tilting. The LGPL permits static linking of an LGPL'd work into a proprietary binary, as long as there is some way for the user to modify the LGPL'd portion and re-link. As I said, that is why the LGPL exists. The objective of the LGPL is to simplify the process of distributing proprietary applications, as a statically-linked binary is much easier to distribute than a binary which dynamically links against system libraries. Both the GPL and LGPL permit proprietary applications to dynamically link against system libraries. The GPL takes great pains to state this, to try to reduce misunderstandings propagated by people like you. Neither the GPL nor LGPL are viral.
- c1658298 14y ago
  "include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated" is not actually compliant with the GPL. If you'd like to learn why and -- more importantly -- how to be compliant, read this article from the Software Freedom Law Center: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.h...
  - mkup 14y ago
    So, running proprietary software under Linux kernel is OK from legal point of view, but combining GPL kernel + proprietary initramfs to single BLOB and flashing it into hardware (distributing for end users for update) isn't safe?
losethos 14y ago
Yeah, the four freedoms. Viva la revolution. That four freedom shit is just like Animal Farm. It's hilarious. LoseThos is public domain. God says... don't_mention_it sad cowardice manufacturing you're_in_big_trouble are_you_sure employer geek One_finger_salute vice freak can_you_hear_me_now birds lighten_up hey_thats_right pride quite endure silly_human Knock_you_upside_the_head handyman WooHoo
ibotty 14y ago
one thing the article does not make clear is that there has been much enforcement by kernel hackers. but only in another jurisdiction (germany) by harald welte. see http://www.gpl-violations.org/ http://www.gpl-violations.org/ for (sparse) details. the news is, that now the software freedom conservancy has some kernel and samba copyright holders, so it can enforce the gpl even when busybox is replaced for infringing devices.

35 points by rabelaisian 14y ago

mkup 14y ago

Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated, Linus' exception for GPL works and viral nature of GPL does not extend to userspace subsystem, which can be kept close-sourced. Do I understand it right? Any opposing opinions?

johnny22 14y ago
it's not linux's exception. It's just clarifying what the GPL already says. Yes, you can bundle the gpl kernel with all sorts of non-free userspace applications.
mseebach 14y ago
The bigger issue in embedded deployments of Linux is that it's often not just a vanilla kernel with some userspace apps tacked on: there are typically at least some custom device drivers in the picture, and these aren't userspace.
ajross 14y ago
First, using the term "viral" is flame bait. You're just going to start arguments that way. And yes: you're correct that the official interpretation of the kernel license does not treat userspace programs as derived works. So merely running something in userspace does not require releasing that the code be licensed under GPL-compatible terms. Note that there's a lot more GPL software than the kernel that you will need to package, however. The kernel is merely the biggest single piece.
jmillikin 14y ago
The Linux COPYING file merely repeats what the GPL already says. The GPL is not viral, and cannot be viral because it is a copyright license. The Linux kernel is not LGPL, because you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result. There is no requirement for a work that merely links to a GPL'd work to itself be open-source, except under very particular conditions where the linking is obviously being used to try to evade the law.
- mkup 14y ago
  For LGPL code, you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then distribute the result too. Only dynamic linking is OK (DLL, libFOO.so, some other form of combining which permits enduser to upgrade/modify free part). And GPL adds more to this basic "do not close the source" LGPL level.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    That's not true; the LGPL explicitly supports static linking to proprietary code. That's the whole point, that's the reason LGPL exists.
    - mkup 14y ago
      You are plainly wrong. Go reread LGPL. LGPL exists to have lesser GPL without viral nature. They both forbid static linking with proprietary code and distributing solely resulting binary file.
      - jmillikin 14y ago
        I have read both the GPL and LGPL extensively. Since you apparently have not, please see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html before continuing your windmill-tilting. The LGPL permits static linking of an LGPL'd work into a proprietary binary, as long as there is some way for the user to modify the LGPL'd portion and re-link. As I said, that is why the LGPL exists. The objective of the LGPL is to simplify the process of distributing proprietary applications, as a statically-linked binary is much easier to distribute than a binary which dynamically links against system libraries. Both the GPL and LGPL permit proprietary applications to dynamically link against system libraries. The GPL takes great pains to state this, to try to reduce misunderstandings propagated by people like you. Neither the GPL nor LGPL are viral.
c1658298 14y ago
"include it in binary form to some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's website, GPL is not violated" is not actually compliant with the GPL. If you'd like to learn why and -- more importantly -- how to be compliant, read this article from the Software Freedom Law Center: http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html http://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.h...
- mkup 14y ago
  So, running proprietary software under Linux kernel is OK from legal point of view, but combining GPL kernel + proprietary initramfs to single BLOB and flashing it into hardware (distributing for end users for update) isn't safe?

losethos 14y ago

Yeah, the four freedoms. Viva la revolution. That four freedom shit is just like Animal Farm. It's hilarious. LoseThos is public domain. God says... don't_mention_it sad cowardice manufacturing you're_in_big_trouble are_you_sure employer geek One_finger_salute vice freak can_you_hear_me_now birds lighten_up hey_thats_right pride quite endure silly_human Knock_you_upside_the_head handyman WooHoo

ibotty 14y ago

one thing the article does not make clear is that there has been much enforcement by kernel hackers. but only in another jurisdiction (germany) by harald welte. see http://www.gpl-violations.org/ http://www.gpl-violations.org/ for (sparse) details. the news is, that now the software freedom conservancy has some kernel and samba copyright holders, so it can enforce the gpl even when busybox is replaced for infringing devices.