6 ms·

Those are technically GPL violations, but kernel devs haven't (yet) complained much.

by lucian1900 13y ago

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.
      - tbrownaw 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

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.
    - tbrownaw 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]