4 ms·

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/COPYI

by 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.
        mkup 14y ago
        Your emotional active downvoting will not make any my statements false. All I said in this thread is true. GPL-licensed code is viral: GPL in any library expands itself to the whole work; and it is illegal to distribute solely binary file, statically linked with LGPL-licensed library. Why do you think OpenOffice is under LGPL? Who is going to statically or dynamically link with that "library"? They are using LGPL because they don't want copyleft to infest every code bundled with their code in the 'collective', or 'derived' work. That is the difference between strong copyleft and weak copyleft, and you should have educated yourself before using downvote button.
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?

by mkup 14y ago

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.
      - mkup 14y ago
        Your emotional active downvoting will not make any my statements false. All I said in this thread is true. GPL-licensed code is viral: GPL in any library expands itself to the whole work; and it is illegal to distribute solely binary file, statically linked with LGPL-licensed library. Why do you think OpenOffice is under LGPL? Who is going to statically or dynamically link with that "library"? They are using LGPL because they don't want copyleft to infest every code bundled with their code in the 'collective', or 'derived' work. That is the difference between strong copyleft and weak copyleft, and you should have educated yourself before using downvote button.

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?