8 ms·

It's not as if they were making us a gift... As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel sour

by doe88 13y ago

It's not as if they were making us a gift... As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dmix 13y ago
Just out of curiousity, if they didn't release the code given the GPL2 license, could they be sued in private courts to release it?
- jmonegro 13y ago
  Probably more preventing them from selling it rather than forcing them to release it.
- doe88 13y ago
  I'm not a specialist at all of these questions but I would say that kernel modifications are not worth taking such a big risk. And if they wanted to avoid publishing the code of some parts of their kernel implementation maybe they could instead make a kernel module and in this case I believe it is accepted of not releasing the source code of the module. But in any case as mentionned in other comments I believe the interesting code is more high level, or server side.
- icebraining 13y ago
  They could be sued, but only by copyright holders of Linux source code.
  - nnnnni 13y ago
    ...and wouldn't that be anyone who has ever submitted a patch that has been accepted by Linus?
    - hkmurakami 13y ago
      Considering legal costs (which, while I imagine are lower than patent litigation, must be formidable for random Joe), I'd imagine that some 'entity' would have to do this on the behalf of said contributor(s).
      - mistercow 13y ago
        That entity would probably be the Linux Foundation in this case.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      In theory, yes, but at least in the US, you'd also have to register the copyright. Plus a random patch runs the risk of getting a decision that it was de-minimis, etc.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        >you'd also have to register the copyright But you can do that after the infringement has taken place, as long as you do so within some period of time (60 days I think?) after you become aware of the infringement.
        DannyBee 13y ago
        Yes, you can do it after infringement, but it is a pre-requisite to actually filing a lawsuit (unless you want that lawsuit dismissed immediately :P)
  - huhtenberg 13y ago
    Someone like this guy - http://gpl-violations.org http://gpl-violations.org
  - belorn 13y ago
    Recipients of copies can still claim false product/advertisement. In EU law, if the consumer can claim that the expected product was one with source code included (thanks to GPL notifications), certain laws gets into effect. First, the consumer has the right for compensation (normally the price of the product). Second, the company will be forced to stop claiming that the product is under GPL. This then leads to either willing infringement (ie, removing the GPL notification once its been there), or continue misleading the consumer (Very large fines). So far, I have not heard of any case like that. The closest was a case regarding contract law, which is tangent.
DannyBee 13y ago
Technically, Google would only be required to make a written offer, and we could ship physical medium copies to folks who wrote them.
- 0x0 13y ago
  But then the first recipient could post it online on github or whatever.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Sure, but the parent said "it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code" This is not technically true.
    - H3g3m0n 13y ago
      Yes they are required to release it. 'Release' doesn't have to mean 'on the internet'. Even if it's sent out on 5¼ inch floppies by the slowest postal service known to man and only makes its way onto the internet by a 3rd party its still released.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        1. Besides being an engineer, I'm an IP lawyer specializing in open source (and run open source license compliance for Google), so I tend to use very precise terminology since the licenses do. 2. I actually was the person who put up the current glass kernel release. 3. Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet. They don't. They are only required to make a written offer. Someone can take them up on that written offer, yes, and then they could repost it to the internet, but Google definitely has no affirmative obligation to place the GPL'd source code on the internet as was implied. We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ...
        doktrin 13y ago
huhtenberg 13y ago
They clearly planned for that, because if they'd preferred to keep it closed-sourced, they'd gone with BSD. Just like Apple did. And it's not like Google is lacking resources for making Glass run on BSD instead of Linux.

by doe88 13y ago

It's not as if they were making us a gift... As soon as they sold their first device it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dmix 13y ago

Just out of curiousity, if they didn't release the code given the GPL2 license, could they be sued in private courts to release it?

jmonegro 13y ago
Probably more preventing them from selling it rather than forcing them to release it.
doe88 13y ago
I'm not a specialist at all of these questions but I would say that kernel modifications are not worth taking such a big risk. And if they wanted to avoid publishing the code of some parts of their kernel implementation maybe they could instead make a kernel module and in this case I believe it is accepted of not releasing the source code of the module. But in any case as mentionned in other comments I believe the interesting code is more high level, or server side.
icebraining 13y ago
They could be sued, but only by copyright holders of Linux source code.
- nnnnni 13y ago
  ...and wouldn't that be anyone who has ever submitted a patch that has been accepted by Linus?
  - hkmurakami 13y ago
    Considering legal costs (which, while I imagine are lower than patent litigation, must be formidable for random Joe), I'd imagine that some 'entity' would have to do this on the behalf of said contributor(s).
    - mistercow 13y ago
      That entity would probably be the Linux Foundation in this case.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    In theory, yes, but at least in the US, you'd also have to register the copyright. Plus a random patch runs the risk of getting a decision that it was de-minimis, etc.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      >you'd also have to register the copyright But you can do that after the infringement has taken place, as long as you do so within some period of time (60 days I think?) after you become aware of the infringement.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        Yes, you can do it after infringement, but it is a pre-requisite to actually filing a lawsuit (unless you want that lawsuit dismissed immediately :P)
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  Someone like this guy - http://gpl-violations.org http://gpl-violations.org
- belorn 13y ago
  Recipients of copies can still claim false product/advertisement. In EU law, if the consumer can claim that the expected product was one with source code included (thanks to GPL notifications), certain laws gets into effect. First, the consumer has the right for compensation (normally the price of the product). Second, the company will be forced to stop claiming that the product is under GPL. This then leads to either willing infringement (ie, removing the GPL notification once its been there), or continue misleading the consumer (Very large fines). So far, I have not heard of any case like that. The closest was a case regarding contract law, which is tangent.

DannyBee 13y ago

Technically, Google would only be required to make a written offer, and we could ship physical medium copies to folks who wrote them.

0x0 13y ago
But then the first recipient could post it online on github or whatever.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Sure, but the parent said "it was required by the Linux kernel GPL2 license to release the kernel source code" This is not technically true.
  - H3g3m0n 13y ago
    Yes they are required to release it. 'Release' doesn't have to mean 'on the internet'. Even if it's sent out on 5¼ inch floppies by the slowest postal service known to man and only makes its way onto the internet by a 3rd party its still released.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      1. Besides being an engineer, I'm an IP lawyer specializing in open source (and run open source license compliance for Google), so I tend to use very precise terminology since the licenses do. 2. I actually was the person who put up the current glass kernel release. 3. Again, the parent i responded to implied Google has some affirmative obligation to place the source code on the internet. They don't. They are only required to make a written offer. Someone can take them up on that written offer, yes, and then they could repost it to the internet, but Google definitely has no affirmative obligation to place the GPL'd source code on the internet as was implied. We do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do, but ...
      - doktrin 13y ago

huhtenberg 13y ago

They clearly planned for that, because if they'd preferred to keep it closed-sourced, they'd gone with BSD. Just like Apple did. And it's not like Google is lacking resources for making Glass run on BSD instead of Linux.