Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 01:01:15
Message-Id: CAGfcS_kpPi4Rf1i2qmeGKWQPZsfnNhy0XUKp+x_bA9FBni6RkA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [WAS: keyboard stops working] Recent kernels block the loading of non-GPL kernel modules by Jeremi Piotrowski
1 On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski
2 <jeremi.piotrowski@×××××.com> wrote:
3 >
4 > They could, but I was under the impression that by using licensed software
5 > you agree to follow it's terms. And the binding nature of licenses is
6 > codified in copyright law.
7
8 You don't need a license to use software. You need a license to copy software.
9
10 >
11 > Copyright law talks of licenses. Linus' talks about the license under
12 > which the kernel is licensed. Ergo, seems to me as though his words
13 > should have some authority,
14
15 All law talks of people. I'm a person. Therefore it sounds like my
16 words should have some authority.
17
18 That really is no different an argument. You can't just stick
19 anything you want under the heading "license agreement" and enforce
20 it.
21
22 > but I won't argue that.
23
24 Uh, you just did.
25
26 >
27 >> And none of them say a word about linking creating a derived work.
28 >
29 > The FSF says that and who knows if they're actually right, but I believe
30 > so far everyone generally complies with their interpretation.
31
32 Well, you're talking to somebody who doesn't, so "everyone" is a bit
33 of a strong word.
34
35 >
36 >> And would we really want to live in a world where they did? Do you
37 >> really want to need permission to use a product in a manner the author
38 >> didn't originally intend?
39 >
40 > Proprietary licenses already say that I can't do that, and it's the free
41 > licenses that tell me I can do whatever I want as long as I release the
42 > sources. Sounds reasonable to me.
43
44 I see, and because proprietary licenses purport to do all kinds of
45 horrible things, we ought to emulate them? I don't suggest that those
46 licenses are any more legal with regard to these specific details.
47
48 >
49 > But again, I'm speaking mostly out of common sense and opinion here.
50 > Neither one of us is going to go around citing cases and laws as that
51 > would be a waste of bandwidth.
52
53 It wouldn't waste much bandwidth, because there aren't any relevant
54 laws or cases. That is my whole point. I can't cite them, because
55 they don't exist. In the absence of law, there is liberty.
56
57 The onus is really on you to prove that somebody ISN'T allowed to do
58 something, not for them to prove that they can.
59
60
61 >
62 >> All they have to do is have the human-readable license say non-GPL,
63 >> and have it report GPL to the kernel, and not ship the source. The
64 >> only recourse anybody has is to sue them, and it is doubtful that a
65 >> court is going to force them to comply, as they clearly indicated
66 >> their intent to not release the code as GPL.
67 >
68 > On the other hand they would also be clearly indicating to others that
69 > their code is GPL (if they did in fact add MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")). I may
70 > be wrong here, but if that is not in the least bit ambiguous then shoot me.
71
72 I guess that is why I said that it is a bit ambiguous in the part that
73 you chose not to quote:
74 You might be able to get away with redistributing the blob since the
75 situation is a bit ambiguous, but I doubt the driver manufacturers
76 care that much if you redistribute their blobs.
77
78 Here is the thing, you can use the law as a sword or a shield. You
79 want to use it as a sword, which puts the onus on you to prove that
80 the law says what you think it says to take any action at all.
81
82 Sure, if you argue the driver is really GPL you might be able to
83 defend yourself from a copyright claim by the author of the driver.
84 However, they really don't care if you redistribute it anyway. On the
85 other hand, if you want to force them to release the source to their
86 driver you have an uphill battle. Even if they released their driver
87 under the GPL that STILL doesn't compel them to release the source to
88 it. It just means that YOU have to give anybody you distribute the
89 driver to any sources you were given. Licenses are granted to the
90 recipient of code. They don't affect the copyright holder.
91
92 >
93 > To me it seems like it is not hard to bypass, but it would be *atleast*
94 > indecent.
95 >
96
97 There is nothing indecent about bypassing the efforts of somebody who
98 wants to regulate the end-use of software.
99
100 --
101 Rich