1 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> It sounds like you not only expect them to comply with the license, |
4 |
> but also with the kernel devs personal interpretation of copyright |
5 |
> law. |
6 |
|
7 |
What is a license but a statement of the intent of the authors as to what |
8 |
can and can't be done with their work? Well, it does have some legal force |
9 |
too... |
10 |
|
11 |
If you'd try to take away their right to decide about that next thing |
12 |
they'd do is modify the license to be even larger and explicitly cover all |
13 |
corner cases. But the world of licenses is complex enough so the next best |
14 |
thing is saying "this is GPLv2 and we consider this to be derived work". |
15 |
You can try to bypass that but will hit walls such as EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. |
16 |
And intent does matter in copyright law, if explicitly stated as in this |
17 |
case. |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
> I think the real issue here is what constitutes a "derived work." I |
21 |
> suspect the GPU legal teams have given these practices a thumbs-up, |
22 |
> and there is probably a reason that the Linux foundation hasn't tried |
23 |
> to sue them over it. |
24 |
|
25 |
That has always been the issue but I'll allow myself to quote an email |
26 |
on the matter: |
27 |
|
28 |
--- |
29 |
Newsgroups: fa.linux.kernel |
30 |
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@××××.org> |
31 |
Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? |
32 |
Original-Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312040753550.2055@×××××××××.org> |
33 |
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:59:35 GMT |
34 |
Message-ID: <fa.j5ccqt9.1e20lop@×××××××.no> |
35 |
|
36 |
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Jason Kingsland wrote: |
37 |
> > - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal |
38 |
> > Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck |
39 |
> > around |
40 |
> > with core code, you're derived, no question about it. |
41 |
> |
42 |
> |
43 |
> If that is the case, why the introduction of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL and |
44 |
> MODULE_LICENSE()? |
45 |
|
46 |
It is really just documentation. |
47 |
|
48 |
This is exactly so that it is more clear which cases are black-and-white, |
49 |
and where people shouldn't even have to think about it for a single |
50 |
second. It still doesn't make the gray area go away, but it limits it a |
51 |
bit ("if you need this export, you're clearly doing something that |
52 |
requires the GPL"). |
53 |
|
54 |
Note: since the kernel itself is under the GPL, clearly anybody can modify |
55 |
the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() line, and remove the _GPL part. That wouldn't be |
56 |
against the license per se. But it doesn't make a module that needs that |
57 |
symbol any less needful of the GPL - exactly because the thing is just a |
58 |
big cluehint rather than anything else. |
59 |
|
60 |
Linus |
61 |
--- |
62 |
|
63 |
Apparently the Linux foundation considers some pieces to be *clearly* |
64 |
GPL-only and these are marked as such. And I don't see a way for vendors |
65 |
around this other than to avoid the usage of such symbols - this is what |
66 |
they have done so far and this is what they will continue doing. If they |
67 |
want their drivers to be useful to anyone using linux that is. |
68 |
|
69 |
|
70 |
> The reason neither party talks about it openly |
71 |
> is probably because they can't be 100% sure which way a court will go |
72 |
> so it isn't in anybody's interest to stir things up. |
73 |
|
74 |
Who wants to go court when the current scheme is effective. The whole |
75 |
issue of "derivative work" is more applicable to binary kernel modules |
76 |
anyway. In this case we have the source code, and the kernel module build |
77 |
system will not allow a module that claims a certain license to use |
78 |
certain symbols. They (vendors) can: |
79 |
|
80 |
a) change their license to say "GPL" but then people would be allowed to |
81 |
demand full source code from them including binary blobs. |
82 |
|
83 |
b) apply the patch you posted - not really practical, definitely |
84 |
wouldn't be popular but I don't really see how that would be illegal. |
85 |
Full GPL would apply to the kernel anyway. |
86 |
|
87 |
c) avoid the usage of such symbols. |
88 |
|
89 |
and they will do c) because they really don't have a choice. |