5 ms·

Samsung may not have intended it as such, but aren't all derivatives of GPL-licenced code also GPL by definition?

Nursie 13y ago
The questions are - is it a derivative of GPL code, and if so have they distributed binaries? I don't think drivers necessarily have to be derivative of GPL code (look at, for instance, nVidia's closed source drivers and lots of Android/ARM graphics drivers).
- lucian1900 13y ago
  Those are technically GPL violations, but kernel devs haven't (yet) complained much.
  - agf 13y ago
    That is absolutely not the community consensus. Linus and the kernel community as a whole have taken the position that this is specifically allowed by the GPL as using a public interface isn't creating a derivative work.
    - kristofferR 13y ago
      Linus Torvalds disagrees with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_and_firmware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License...
      - belorn 13y ago
        If you use Wikipedia as source, please verify that the section you are referring has a source. Both now has citation needed tags on them.
    - caf 13y ago
      It does not seem that there is a community consensus position.
    - regularfry 13y ago
      Not unless something's changed recently: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
  - Nursie 13y ago
    I've been able to find a statement from 2008 in which many kernel devs publicly said they think that closed drivers are harmful. But violations? I'm not convinced. Got a link that might convince me?
    - belorn 13y ago
      Depend which you want to listen to. If you want to listen to what lawyers think (fsf), then there is a GPL violation( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonfreeDriverKerne...). If you want to listen to kernel hackers, (such as Linus Torvalds), then he doesn't say if it is, or isn't a violation. Rather, he says that developers has a right to write non-free drivers to the kernel using modules (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules....). So... what does that mean? Im not a lawyer, but it looks to me as an GPL violation which has been given permission to exist by one of the kernel developers. That it is the project leader that gives permission does lower the risk that any individual kernel developer will suddenly go out and start suing companies for GPL violations, even if they has a legal right to do so under copyright.
      - Nursie 13y ago
        Interesting. The non-litigious nature of the kernel devs seems to keep this from kicking off. It would probably end up hysterically expensive for all concerned and be a bit of a PR failure I guess.
      - tbrownaw 13y ago
        That FSF page also claims that Perl programs that use GPL'd Perl modules are required to be licensed under the GPL, and assorted other absurdities (hint: if there is no copying or modification of something copyrighted, there can be no copyright violation). Contrary to the FSF's apparent belief, dependency has nothing to do with derivation.
        teddyh 13y ago
        Since FSF for years has had (and still have) lawyers advising them that this is indeed the case, what is your authority to claim otherwise? Or, in other words, citation needed.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
effn 13y ago
No. The authors of GPL-licensed code has no say in how other people license their code they don't own the copyright on. Derivatives of GPL-licensed code is either: 1. GPL-licensed 2. Illegal If it's not explicitly 1 by the license on the derived work, it becomes 2. It is not automatically "forced" into category 1.
- andreasvc 13y ago
  By illegal you mean illegal to distribute. If Samsung used this code internally and it was leaked accidentally, they are not in violation of the GPL.
  - dmytrish 13y ago
    If Samsung ships binaries produced from this code to customers and this code is derivative from GPL code, they _are_ in violation of the GPL.
  - effn 13y ago
    Yes, of course.
- crististm 13y ago
  This is not such a gray area as you think. Search for the readline license and what that meant to clisp. Hint: derivative work of a GPL code is GPL (although that was slightly different for clisp). You are free not have GPL stamp on your code as long as you keep it to yourself. If you distribute it to a third party you are automatically bound by GPL.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    There is no gray area. Derivative works are GPL or illegal. But nothing physically forces people from breaking the law. You cannot GPL a piece of code against the author's will.
    - icebraining 13y ago

The questions are - is it a derivative of GPL code, and if so have they distributed binaries? I don't think drivers necessarily have to be derivative of GPL code (look at, for instance, nVidia's closed source drivers and lots of Android/ARM graphics drivers).

lucian1900 13y ago
Those are technically GPL violations, but kernel devs haven't (yet) complained much.
- agf 13y ago
  That is absolutely not the community consensus. Linus and the kernel community as a whole have taken the position that this is specifically allowed by the GPL as using a public interface isn't creating a derivative work.
  - kristofferR 13y ago
    Linus Torvalds disagrees with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_and_firmware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License...
    - belorn 13y ago
      If you use Wikipedia as source, please verify that the section you are referring has a source. Both now has citation needed tags on them.
  - caf 13y ago
    It does not seem that there is a community consensus position.
  - regularfry 13y ago
    Not unless something's changed recently: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
- Nursie 13y ago
  I've been able to find a statement from 2008 in which many kernel devs publicly said they think that closed drivers are harmful. But violations? I'm not convinced. Got a link that might convince me?
  - belorn 13y ago
    Depend which you want to listen to. If you want to listen to what lawyers think (fsf), then there is a GPL violation( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonfreeDriverKernelLinux https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonfreeDriverKerne...). If you want to listen to kernel hackers, (such as Linus Torvalds), then he doesn't say if it is, or isn't a violation. Rather, he says that developers has a right to write non-free drivers to the kernel using modules (http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules....). So... what does that mean? Im not a lawyer, but it looks to me as an GPL violation which has been given permission to exist by one of the kernel developers. That it is the project leader that gives permission does lower the risk that any individual kernel developer will suddenly go out and start suing companies for GPL violations, even if they has a legal right to do so under copyright.
    - Nursie 13y ago
      Interesting. The non-litigious nature of the kernel devs seems to keep this from kicking off. It would probably end up hysterically expensive for all concerned and be a bit of a PR failure I guess.
    - tbrownaw 13y ago
      That FSF page also claims that Perl programs that use GPL'd Perl modules are required to be licensed under the GPL, and assorted other absurdities (hint: if there is no copying or modification of something copyrighted, there can be no copyright violation). Contrary to the FSF's apparent belief, dependency has nothing to do with derivation.
      - teddyh 13y ago
        Since FSF for years has had (and still have) lawyers advising them that this is indeed the case, what is your authority to claim otherwise? Or, in other words, citation needed.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

effn 13y ago

No. The authors of GPL-licensed code has no say in how other people license their code they don't own the copyright on. Derivatives of GPL-licensed code is either: 1. GPL-licensed 2. Illegal If it's not explicitly 1 by the license on the derived work, it becomes 2. It is not automatically "forced" into category 1.

andreasvc 13y ago
By illegal you mean illegal to distribute. If Samsung used this code internally and it was leaked accidentally, they are not in violation of the GPL.
- dmytrish 13y ago
  If Samsung ships binaries produced from this code to customers and this code is derivative from GPL code, they _are_ in violation of the GPL.
- effn 13y ago
  Yes, of course.
crististm 13y ago
This is not such a gray area as you think. Search for the readline license and what that meant to clisp. Hint: derivative work of a GPL code is GPL (although that was slightly different for clisp). You are free not have GPL stamp on your code as long as you keep it to yourself. If you distribute it to a third party you are automatically bound by GPL.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  There is no gray area. Derivative works are GPL or illegal. But nothing physically forces people from breaking the law. You cannot GPL a piece of code against the author's will.
  - icebraining 13y ago