3 ms·

Can the Linux kernel be included in the OS?

by gkoz 27d ago

palata 27d ago
Linux is GPLv2, though. Not sure if that makes a difference here.
- grapheneos 26d ago
  It does make a difference. GrapheneOS includes a lot of GPLv2 code from AOSP and we choose it as a license for several of own projects within GrapheneOS.
HybridStatAnim8 27d ago
Yes, the GPLv2 license does not have the same restrictions GPLv3 does, it does not necessitate making the code it is bundled with GPLv2.
- microtonal 27d ago
  Neither does the GPLv3: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. If you'd include a GPLv3 gallery app in, say, a mobile OS, it does not mean that the rest of the OS has to be under the GPLv3. It merely means that you cannot limit the user's right when it comes to the GPLv3-part (the gallery app). They would still be allowed to redistribute/modify it and you have to provide the source code on request. You only have to make other code GPLv3 if you somehow create a derivative work (e.g. linking against a GPLv3 library). (IANAL blah blah)
  - grapheneos 26d ago
    The issue isn't that GPLv3 applies to non-derivative OS components but rather that the terms apply to the overall redistribution of the OS. Including any GPLv3 component means GrapheneOS cannot be used in products where AOSP can be used due to having additional restrictions beyond GPLv2. We don't want more restrictive licensing than AOSP. We're fine with using additional GPLv2 code as long as we're sure it's not going to move to GPLv3 or that if it does we're prepared to maintain it ourselves.
    - mitxela 26d ago
      Name the restrictions.
      - singing_tartly 23d ago
        idk but I saw people saying there are problems with it. I hear it conflicts with GPLv2 and other permissive licensing. GPLv2 doesn't allow restrictions added by GPLv3, the two aren't compatible. iirc it would restrict how users or companies use GOS. GOS is an open source software project, they know how licenses work in practice better than most of the rest of us.
grapheneos 27d ago
Yes, AOSP includes a lot of GPLv2 code and we use GPLv2 licensing ourselves including for our Vanadium browser project. We don't want GrapheneOS to be more restrictively licensed than the Linux kernel and AOSP so we avoid GPLv3 code bundled with the OS. GPLv3 is perfectly acceptable for apps in our App Store but we don't want it for the ones in the OS.

Can the Linux kernel be included in the OS?

by gkoz 27d ago

Can the Linux kernel be included in the OS?

palata 27d ago

Linux is GPLv2, though. Not sure if that makes a difference here.

grapheneos 26d ago
It does make a difference. GrapheneOS includes a lot of GPLv2 code from AOSP and we choose it as a license for several of own projects within GrapheneOS.

HybridStatAnim8 27d ago

Yes, the GPLv2 license does not have the same restrictions GPLv3 does, it does not necessitate making the code it is bundled with GPLv2.

microtonal 27d ago
Neither does the GPLv3: A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate. If you'd include a GPLv3 gallery app in, say, a mobile OS, it does not mean that the rest of the OS has to be under the GPLv3. It merely means that you cannot limit the user's right when it comes to the GPLv3-part (the gallery app). They would still be allowed to redistribute/modify it and you have to provide the source code on request. You only have to make other code GPLv3 if you somehow create a derivative work (e.g. linking against a GPLv3 library). (IANAL blah blah)
- grapheneos 26d ago
  The issue isn't that GPLv3 applies to non-derivative OS components but rather that the terms apply to the overall redistribution of the OS. Including any GPLv3 component means GrapheneOS cannot be used in products where AOSP can be used due to having additional restrictions beyond GPLv2. We don't want more restrictive licensing than AOSP. We're fine with using additional GPLv2 code as long as we're sure it's not going to move to GPLv3 or that if it does we're prepared to maintain it ourselves.
  - mitxela 26d ago
    Name the restrictions.
    - singing_tartly 23d ago
      idk but I saw people saying there are problems with it. I hear it conflicts with GPLv2 and other permissive licensing. GPLv2 doesn't allow restrictions added by GPLv3, the two aren't compatible. iirc it would restrict how users or companies use GOS. GOS is an open source software project, they know how licenses work in practice better than most of the rest of us.

grapheneos 27d ago

Yes, AOSP includes a lot of GPLv2 code and we use GPLv2 licensing ourselves including for our Vanadium browser project. We don't want GrapheneOS to be more restrictively licensed than the Linux kernel and AOSP so we avoid GPLv3 code bundled with the OS. GPLv3 is perfectly acceptable for apps in our App Store but we don't want it for the ones in the OS.