“I also don’t have a lot of interest in being a good person or bad person, from what I can tell either way you are screwed.” This is what Georgia Lass, lead character of my favourite television production “Dead Like Me”, says, when she introduces herself in the pilot episode. I cannot speak for the developers behind the Kororaa Xgl live CD, but I’d think Georgia nailed the situation they must be in pretty well. Note: this is the Mon… Err, Sunday Eve Column. My apologies for the delay, but I was… Incapacitated yesterday eve.
As reported yesterday, an unspecified person sent an email to the developers of Kororaa, claiming the Xgl live CD is breaching the GPL by bundling built versions of the nVIDIA and Ati binary drivers. The Kororaa Xgl CD has recently gathered some fame by being the first live CD to ship a working, pre-built version of Xgl, the fancy-transparency-compositing-thing written by, among others, Novell. It installed the nVIDIA and Ati drivers automatically; that is, they are distributed pre-built against the Linux kernel, and as such, constitute as a derived work. According to the person or entity that notified Kororaa, this is a clear violation of the license terms of the GPL.
The keywords in all this are ‘derived work’. Derived work is a term you cannot easily define. Derived work is not an absolute term. Some things can clearly be defined as a derived works, while others clearly cannot. When I take the Linux source code, change every instance of ‘Linus Torvalds’ into ‘Thom Holwerda’, and then build the kernel, then it is clearly a derived work. As such, I must provide the source code in machine-readable form to anyone who has the binary. However, when I look at and learn from the Linux source code, and then move on to write my own kernel, then this is clearly not a derived work.
The problem does not lie at the extremes. The problem lies in between those two extremes, the so-called ‘grey area’. This is especially difficult when it comes to kernel modules. Torvalds clarified on the lkml:
“And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same. The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe’s about it. As a result, anything that is a derived work has to be GPL’d. It’s that simple.”
Upon first glance, this seems like a very clear answer. Modules are derived works of the kernel, end of story, Kororaa is violating the GPL. But you guessed it– indeed, it is not that simple. Linus then continues:
“Now, the ‘derived work’ issue in copyright law is the only thing that leads to any gray areas. There are areas that are not gray at all: user space is clearly not a derived work, while kernel patches clearly _are_ derived works. But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?
Linus then continues and explains that according to him, some modules cannot be considered as derived works, because they were not designed for Linux and do not use any Linux-specific behaviour.
Do you see the problem? How can someone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a driver he or she has written was written without Linux in mind? Does Linus’ reply here mean that if you simply avoid ‘Linux specific behaviour’, you can ‘circumvent’ the requirements of the GPL? Not even the big man himself knows the answers to these questions, since he writes:
“These days it would be hard to argue that a new driver or filesystem was developed without any thought of Linux. I think the NVidia people can probably reasonably honestly say that the code they ported had _no_ Linux origin. But quite frankly, I’d be less inclined to believe that for some other projects out there…”
If not even Linus can conclusively say whether some drivers are derived works or not, then how on this sweet earth can someone like the developer of a live CD make these calls? Now, this is why I often refer to the GPL as a legal grey area in the comments’ section on OSNews. If one of the most important terms in the GPL is not clearly definable, doesn’t that mean the license is simply not suited for something as complex as an operating system kernel? Or, that the license itself is too complex and unclear?
I, and others with me, have been almost buried alive because of the above. The fact I have the audacity to claim the GPL creates a legal grey area, is, for some people, reason enough to burst into flaming balls of anger. I never understood why, really, as as we just saw, even Linus himself acknowledges the grey area. Is Linus now the ‘uninformed troll’ as well?
But I digress. How should the Kororaa developer handle this situation? Well, I think he should continue to bundle pre-built versions of the video drivers. Linus himself clearly states that at least the nVIDIA driver is not a derived work, and as such can be supplied pre-built on the Kororaa live CD. The Ati drivers are a more difficult matter, as Linus does not specifically mention these. However, Free software purists will strongly disagree. They will continue to claim that Kororaa, and other distributions who also bundle these drivers, are in violation of the GPL. If the Kororaa developers follow the purists instead of Linus, than he will give up a major selling point of his distribution, making it far less attractive to the masses.
In other words, must the developer be a good person or a bad person? I do not think it really matters. Either way, he’s screwed.
–Thom Holwerda
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
To settle such nonsense. The developers shouldn’t worry about it until they get a cease and desist.
Who is stifiling creativity now?
Who is stifiling creativity now?
Noone is stifling creativity if noone is sending cease and desists, and noone is bothered by lone rangers sending emails that otherwise stop distributions dead in their tracks.
If Kororaa ignores the email, noone will be bothered.
Well, Linus just uses the GPL, he does not write it or control it. The email is not stated who it is from. If it is from the FSF, then of course it would have to be accomodated as they are the enforcers of the GPL, and have the lawyers to work on it. Not from the FSF though, it may just be someone trying to stop them from distributing it. Who knows.
Whether or not he is right or not people will listen to him. Especially when it comes to the grey erea’s his word could turn a judge or jury in favor of one or the other.
“Whether or not he is right or not people will listen to him. Especially when it comes to the grey erea’s his word could turn a judge or jury in favor of one or the other.”
True enough. My point is that it really only matters if the FSF has sent the cease and desist or not for the distribution in question. If they had sent it, then he would have to take the FSF to court to try the GPL in order for Linus to even be heard in that respect.
My point is that it really only matters if the FSF has sent the cease and desist or not for the distribution in question
As stated in my previous post, the FSF has no case and is not involved in this in any way. They have no copyright on any of the code.
“As stated in my previous post, the FSF has no case and is not involved in this in any way. They have no copyright on any of the code.”
I know that. This is not about the code…this is about the GPL, unless I am sadly mistaken, which is a possibility. The question is whether the GPL applies in this instance. The code is known to not be a derivative work. That is why I mentioned the FSF. It could be I misunderstood the whole thing, but my impression was that Kororaa (sp?) had recieved a cease and desisit letter from distributing the binary only pre-compiled modules with his distribution. There is a reason why no other distribution distributes those as well, hence the whole grey area. If the modules were not precompiled to the kernel there would not be a problem.
This is not about the code…this is about the GPL
Yes, but the FSF can only enforce copyright of things it owns copyright of. The fact FSF is the author of GPL doesn’t mean everything under the GPL is their.
It cannot practically do anything about copyright violations of something else (since copyright is personal, if I *want* John Doe to violate GPL on my work because he’s my buddy, I can absolutely do it). That’s why the FSF wants you to give them copyright of your work if you want them defend you in court:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright
“Yes, but the FSF can only enforce copyright of things it owns copyright of. The fact FSF is the author of GPL doesn’t mean everything under the GPL is their.”
Fair enough. I knew they did not own everything under the GPL, but I did think they were the only ones who could enforce the GPL. It appears I am mistaken. Live and learn
This is not about the code…this is about the GPL, unless I am sadly mistaken
You are sadly mistaken
This is about copyright. What it all boils down to is: Does the Kororaa guy have a valid license to distribute Linux?
The question is whether the GPL applies in this instance.
Of course it does. In order to distribute someone else’s copyrighted work you need their permission. When it comes to Linux, the only thing that allows you to distribute it is the GNU GPL 2. The FSF may have written the GPL, but this is still an issue between the copyright holders and the distributer.
If you read the GPL, it’s very clear that this sort of thing is not allowed. It doesn’t matter how you wrap your non GPL-compatible modules, the GPL doesn’t permit linking of GPL code with non-GPL code (with the exception of etcetc). However, what makes things a bit unclear is that Linus has always stated that binary modules are tolerated (given some unclear and ever changing conditions). It would be pretty difficult for anyone who’s actively contributed code to Linux that they were unaware of Linus’ stance on binary modules.
My take:
The unnamed kernel developer should have started off, not by making threats, but by politely stating the problem and assuming that Kororaa acted in good faith. We’ree all friends, aren’t we?
If you read the GPL, it’s very clear that this sort of thing is not allowed.
Where??? Please quote the relevant part of the GPL license terms (not the “how to use this” part)
“Well, Linus just uses the GPL, he does not write it or control it. The email is not stated who it is from. If it is from the FSF, then of course it would have to be accommodated as they are the enforcers of the GPL, and have the lawyers to work on it. Not from the FSF though, it may just be someone trying to stop them from distributing it. Who knows.”
The FSF provided a license template that projects could apply to their works. It has no control over if/how the license is enforced. Linux Corp. does. If Linux specifically and publicly defines those binaries as “derivatives” then it’s time to shut down. But as of yet it seems that, at least with nVidia, they feel otherwise.
I think the guy who put this distro together just got spooked too easily. No need for all the hubbub. An email is definitely not something to be concerned about whether or not it is from a kernel maintainer. Get worried when and only when you see a cease and desist.
Thom, you get extra points for quoting ‘Dead Like Me’
I agree! Bring back Dead Like Me!
Oh and more on topic, I’m pretty sure Big Linux also includes the nvidia drivers for their LiveCD, though I could be wrong, it’s been a while since I played around with it, and they haven’t made a release in a long time, but it had Metisse built into it (3D effects kind of like XGL) It was also only in Portugese.
He should continue to include the drivers from ati and nvidia. Also i think he should create a ad-on disk that contains the drivers that can easilly be integrated into the iso. I was thinking something like the delta iso’s Suse used for the beta releases.
My 2 cents
95% of Nvidia’s driver code is OS indpedendent. It’s basically taking the OpenGL/DirectX/Direct3d and whatever other functionality is available and translating it to register-level operations. So in no way, would linking Nvidia driver’s be a violation of the GPL. Now maybe there is something about Nvidia’s license that would prevent it, but I’m not really aware of their license. ATI’s driver is probably the same. Remember, there’s only two parties involved here. There’s Nvidia and whoever owns copyright on the code being used for the linking process. All other parties are irrelevant.
So basically, the developer of the live cd has nothing to fear, and it looks like a zealot was trying to spread FUD.
Whether Nvidia’s driver code is OS independent, or whether God scripted it on stone is totally irrelevant to this case; the fact is that the Linux kernel *itself* is GPL, so only GPL code may be added in, which is just what the programers agreed on when they developed the kernel.
Yes, life would be more comfortable if we blindly allowed binary drivers into the system, but only briefly, I believe, as outdated, unmaintained and incompatible drivers would pile up and throw Linux unto total disarray, with no means to fix it in that world where hardware specs would have no need to be but secret.
Is it static linking, dynamic linking or both that can’t be done between GPL code and code under an incompatible license?
edit:
Static linking would be obvious that it’s not allowed. Or so I think at least.
Dynamic linking. If that is not allowed, there’s a shitload of violations out there. Where some of these violations originate with GPL code and not the other way around.
Edited 2006-05-16 13:16
Linking is allowed. Linking of GPL+Proprietary is legal, it is the redistribution of the linked binaries that isn’t.
Nvidia driver is a binary file and independent from the linux kernel. What connects the nvidia file to the kernel is a small set of C header files. Those header files are what needs to be open source. And guess what, they already are!
Of course the drivers themselves are aren’t derived works. If I take the latest Tom Clancy novel and write my own ending, my writing won’t be a derived work of the Clancy novel (unless I actually reuse stuff from him). Obviously, it might be a bit non sequitur if I don’t include any of his characters or finish the plot, but still…
However, if I start selling copies of Tom Clancy’s novel with my ending, *that* is a derived work. It is derived from two independent works — his and mine. The fact that my ending was created independently means that I can do whatever I want with it, but Clancy’s work is still his, and if I want to distribute it, I need his permission.
So, the question is, do the Kororaa developers have permission from the Linux developers to distribute Linux bundled with non-GPL drivers?
So, the question is, do the Kororaa developers have permission from the Linux developers to distribute Linux bundled with non-GPL drivers?
No: the question is actually whether or not the result is a derived work. Indeed it’s not as simple as grandparent states, but n’either is the issue so clear as you present it. Welcome to the grey area
.
‘bundled’ is an unfortunate word to use here by the way, it is often used to describe the situation that 2 pieces are distributed together, but sufficiently seperated not to constitute a ‘derived work’.
If the result is indeed a derived work, Kororaa is f–ked: they’d need the permission of almost all kernel developers, which is practically impossible to get.
Many things people can’t do actually would make people’s work much more attractive. It’s just they are not allowed to do so and almost everytime it is to protect someone elses rights.
Some things, even if it’s sad, just can’t be done. The real problem are the proprietary drivers. I know there won’t be free nvidia drivers. But if windows would demand hardware developers to release their drivers open, guess what we would have. So blame nvidia, ati.
If there would be no GPL or GNU, there would be no linux distribution as you know it today. So don’t blame people for what they have contributed, just because they have done it in a way which doesn’t fit all needs.
Don’t say “this license doesn’t make sense, because I don’t care a f–k”. This doesn’t matter. The developers seem to care or have cared, and you have to obey their rules.
cu
Ford Prefect
If there would be no GPL or GNU, there would be no linux distribution as you know it today.
Nonsense. If the FSF didn’t write a compiler, someone else would’ve. Saying that Linux thanks its existance to the FSF or the GPL is rather shortsighted– Linus would’ve just chosen another license. I don’t think Linus thought: “Hey, there’s a GPL, let’s write a kernel for it.”. It was the other way around. “I have written a kernel, maybe the GPL is a suitable license.”
There were compilers before the FSF was there. There was also UNIX. It’s not like “if guy xy wouldn’t have invented the wheel, someone else would have”.
Why should anyone write a decent C compiler and distribute it completely freely, if not for idealistic reasons?
What would Linus have done with his kernel without GNU? Would others have joined Linus’ development if it was another license? Do you really think the kernel is the biggest part of an operating system?
Who’s talking nonsense, you just can’t know what would’ve been. Who would’ve written a gcc equivalent? You?
It could be that we would have the same we have now without the FSF. But I don’t think that’s realistic for today.
cu
Ford Prefect
p.s.: Someone modded my comment done, but what was the reason so it got accomplished? I can only think of “Yes, I disagree with this user/opinion”. Surely an option only available for OSNews editors who can call other’s comments as “nonsense” I guess. Sadly enough I can’t mod down your *private opinion*.
BSD existed before the GNU. A whole operating system, given away freely and all you have to do is acknowledge UC Berkeley’s work. Linux could have done it without the FSF. They just made it easier.
“BSD existed before the GNU.”
Yes.
The only problem is that your delusionnal and think that BSD or any BSD’s can be the same as GNU. The most advanced BSD are ? Microsoft and Apple , they are both Not Free ( as in freedom ) and they are both closed source and are both traitor license ( They took Open Source code switch the license to something not Open Source controlled by only them )
“A whole operating system, given away freely and all you have to do is acknowledge UC Berkeley’s work.”
Thats why it fails , in order to be a real Open Source and real Free software , not just gratis ( the freely term you used is wrong ) , it as to be mandatory that it stay at all time Open Source and that it dont take rights that are what make it free. Otherwise you get BSD , and BSD dont work in reality.
“They just made it easier.”
No they made it a working reality in human society. Any theory is good on paper , but very few are realistic and workable in the human society.
The sad reality is that BSD is based on noble principle exept that because its a protection clause and that its irrealistic , it get taken over by the one who have the most power and money. Thats why its a failure.
The GPL is one license , that get updated over time to face the new legal reality of our world , the BSD’S are all protection clauses that are trying to be Free license ( as in freedom )like the GPL , but they dont care about freedom , just that you use the code.
http://www.nvidia.com/content/drivers/drivers.asp
Only FreeBSD.
https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=know…
No BSD driver.
BTW before you start foaming at the mouth and making lies and insult about me you have to look at the license of Xfree and X.org , they are Open Source and similar to BSD’s , thats why the Graphic driver are lacking we believed and listened to the false and empty promise made by the Open Source advocate and hardware maker to deliver the driver that everyone can use , as always , it dont exist , if we ( GNU/Linux IMF ) can stop following , listening and responding to the FUD and bulshit and jealousy that BSD and the rest of the OS who are lesser and of no consequence to us we can then start making the GNU/Linux GPL graphic driver.
Responding to every bozo who as a false opinion about the GPL and the state of the graphic driver according to what there clueless friend told them , is not going to fix the problem that we need GPL graphic driver that dont exist as direct replacement yet.
WE NEED TO FIX THE PROBLEM , not discuss it.
WE NEED GNU/LINUX GPL GRAPHIC DRIVER
The sad reality is that BSD is based on noble principle exept that because its a protection clause and that its irrealistic , it get taken over by the one who have the most power and money. Thats why its a failure.
Really? I’d like to know how BSD is a failure. I suspect you just don’t understand the thinking behind the BSD license. I seriously doubt the Open, Net, and Free BSD teams would continue working on their respective projects if they considered it a failure or were worried about the corporations stealing their work. What you really need to consider is why GPL and BSDL proponents think differently, and that maybe it’s not a matter of right and wrong but simply a difference of opinion on how things should be done.
Define failure , every angle will fit perfectly BSD’s.
There is no BSD license , its a Protection clause that get called a license , there is no thinking behind it , its just there to protect against possible legal problem.
Who say the BSD’s , Open , Net and Free original developpers are still working on there respective project ? Who do you think make a good chunk of the core of GNU/Linux ?
Corporation steal nothing , they are allowed by the traitor license.
I dont need to consider anything BSD, its quite clear they do not think. Those who do have left a long time ago.
BSD is wrong , 36 years of use , the current state of BSD , as shown it as such. GNU/Linux certainly aint responsible for its faith its 21 years older.
We cant allow you to say your right , because its false , you are wrong , we cant allow you to say GNU/Linux is the same , because its not , BSD is only killed by its people and by its choice in other words BSD is its own real enemy. Just as GNU/Linux is its own real enemy.
I was actually thinking of writing a longer answer to your uninformed, insulting, stupid little rant, but then I thought better of it and decided to simply post a link:
http://www.fsf.org/news/fsaward2004.html
If you tought you would have read it first :
In 2004 :
“For recognition as founder and project leader of the OpenBSD and OpenSSH projects, Theo de Raadt’s work has also led to significant contributions to other BSD distributions and GNU/Linux. Of particular note is Theo’s work on OpenSSH. Theo’s leadership of OpenBSD, his selfless commitment to Free Software and his advancement of network security, were cited by this year’s award committee.”
“If you tought you would have read it first :”
I did and the part that you quoted is one of the reasons why I posted the link.
As you probably won’t figure it out on your own:
This little quote shows that the BSDs and software released under a BSD license, that you hate with a vengance and insulted any way you could, in the eyes of the FSF significantly contributes to free software in general and Gnu/Linux in particular.
While this of course does not mean that you are not entitled to your little hate, how stupid and childish it may be, this simply shows that the FSF decidedly disagrees with you.
FSF President and founder, Richard Stallman presents this year’s award to Theo de Raadt.
Yes developper is the same as endorsing and fully supporting BSD’s , I wonder how much that award sold for when they needed money …
“Would others have joined Linus’ development if it was another license?”
No , the Linux kernel was first under another license and nobody used it , then LT switched it to the GPL and the GNU developper and user started contributing to it and building company to support it.
Thats one of the reason why the OS is called GNU/Linux.
Nonsense. If the FSF didn’t write a compiler, someone else would’ve.
Nonsense. It takes more than one person to write a compiler of that quality and breadth. Besides that, you seem to be missing a lot of important evidence to support your case — their are plenty of licenses to choose from yet GPL’d products are prevalant in FOSS. I posit that the reason so many people contribute to GPL projects is just because they know that their work will be equally shared by all as per the GPL agreement. No one is FORCED to use GPL products but the law insists that we obey copyrights. For example, I don’t use MS products because I don’t care for their licensing which prohibits things I might want to do, such as using parts of their code base to form a new product of my own. Yet I respect Microsoft’s right to choose how to license their product. It would be very nice (and not at all asking too much) if people choosing to use GPL’d products would obey copyright and adhere to the licenses that the products are provided with.
Nonsense. If the FSF didn’t write a compiler, Linux today would be no more.
The BSDs systems would have take his place.
And Yes, Linux thanks its existance to the FSF. A Linux kernel without GNU tools is useless.
Thom acts as if this is the only “grey area” in law. Ever hear of the USL v. UCB lawsuit, Thom? Or the Apple Corps vs Apple Computer case?
Leave sorting out the law to lawyers.
Thom acts as if this is the only “grey area” in law. Ever hear of the USL v. UCB lawsuit, Thom? Or the Apple Corps vs Apple Computer case?
Are either of those relevant to the issue as mentioned in the article? Of course there are more grey areas in the law than this; does that make it okay? Shouldn’t you strive for as much clarity as possible, esp. in a license?
Leave sorting out the law to lawyers.
What use is a license when adoptees do not know what to expect from said license?
Are either of those relevant to the issue as mentioned in the article?
Yes, when the point is an anti-GPL statement. Since the obtuseness of the GPL is a “feature” of just about any license, it’s at best an anti-license statement.
Actually, I find the GPL one of the easiest to understand software licenses. IANAL.
Of course there are more grey areas in the law than this; does that make it okay?
No, of course not.
Shouldn’t you strive for as much clarity as possible, esp. in a license?
Yes, of course.
What use is a license when adoptees do not know what to expect from said license?
Do any end users really know what to expect from any licence? Is it common knowledge, for example, that the Windows EULA limits your guarantee of suitability just as much as the GPL (which states its position on the subject clearly) does?
My point is that it’s impossible to legislate or license for every eventuality, and conflicts over the interpretation of the law are what we have lawyers and courts for.
He’s talking about grey areas pertaining to the GPL and no GPLed code, he’s not talking about anything else, so bringing up anything else would be off topic
It seems to me that hardware drivers are mostly derived from the actual hardware they are “driving”. There may be some parts or interfaces that derive from the OS kernal, or other framework, but for the most part I would think it’s derived from the hardware, not the accompanying software.
If a specific hardware driver is derived from GPL code, it would be that software that is in violation of the GPL, not the Linux distro that distributes it.
Actually, that brings up a good question – if I distribute a closed source product that I got from an original distribution point (say a manufacture’s driver website), am I also in violation of the GPL if that software uses GPL code, or is it the original source that is in violation – or is it both?
Nvidia’s source license is incompatible. It’s built to a binary.
Linux etc are GPL’ed and built to a binary.
Both are then shipped on a CD built to another binary form, together.
Isn’t this where the problem is?
The fallacy of this article is that it relies on the _viewpoint_ of a layman (in the legal sense) to define the legal definition of “Derivative Works”. The fact that Linus is the “founder” of Linux does not mean that his legal interpretation should in any way be considered valid or binding.
The only binding license in this case is the GPL plus that exclusion Linus has added to it.
Legally tested licensing laws would suggest that any piece of software written with or without another piece of software in mind, which does not use the source code of the original work, would not be considered a derivative work. In other words, if I write a Linux kernel module for Linux without the use of Linux header files (tough as that may be) then my work cannot be considered a derivative work.
]{
Aren’t most “Commercial” versions of linux set up to install the proprietary drivers if the hardware is detected upon installation? What makes it so that only the commercial ones can do this? Why can’t any distribution that doesn’t have the “Everything must be under a FSF approved license!” attitude distribute the nVidia and ATI drivers. There are other drivers out there that are not open sourced that many distributions come with, but always there is that problem with ATI and nVidia’s drivers. Why? It’s already been stated that nVidia doesn’t mind their drivers being distributed. This really is a ridiculous argument.
I love Linux and the things that it has done for computers, but this is moronic. People buy their hardware, they want their hardware to work with whatever operating system they are using. That is all that matters to most people. Even if they think “It’d be nice to have source code…” generally they think “It’s even nicer to be able to fully utilize the hardware I paid for.”
Let’s face it, in a lot of ways the userland utilities for GNU/Linux are better. For example, buy a digital camera. The software that usually comes with those suck hard. Yet a lot of them require to be installed so you can get your pictures, etc. In the open sourced world, there are tons of free and non-crappy utilities for doing all sorts of things with digital cameras.
It’s no wonder that OEM manufacturers won’t sell PCs with Linux pre-installed, if they can’t distribute the proprietary drivers with them. Is this really an issue for them too?
the whole issue boils down to there being no set-in-stone rules for what can be defined as a derived work?
It looks like it.
If one of the most important terms in the GPL is not clearly definable, doesn’t that mean the license is simply not suited for something as complex as an operating system kernel? Or, that the license itself is too complex and unclear?
This is why you get flamed – not because you highlight a grey area in a license, but because you use this grey area to stage an attack on said license (and, by extension, the Linux kernel, since at this stage it cannot be relicensed).
What constitutes “derived work” may not be clear cut, but that doesn’t mean that the license is useless. It only means that those who find themselves in grey areas should do well to play on the safe side. For the Kororaa devs, it would mean allowing users to compile the proprietary drivers themselves (by a simple point-and-click interface, or simply by answering “yes” during the installation process).
There are grey areas in lots of laws, contracts and licenses. I’m sure there are grey areas in other open-source licenses, and EULAs are basically nothing but grey areas. That doesn’t mean that they have no value (with a possible exception in the case of a EULA…).
It just sounds as if you’re going out of your way to demonstrate that the GPL is not a good license, and that sounds a bit disingenuous. I wouldn’t mind this from a regular poster, but from a OSNews editor that doesn’t look too good.
This is why you get flamed – not because you highlight a grey area in a license, but because you use this grey area to stage an attack on said license (and, by extension, the Linux kernel, since at this stage it cannot be relicensed).
So, basically, I am not allowed to critisise the GPL? That’s what you are saying. I’m pointing out an obvious flaw in the license, but according to you, I should not do that because I’m an editor? I’m sorry, but I fail to see the logic.
What constitutes “derived work” may not be clear cut, but that doesn’t mean that the license is useless.
Where did I say the license is useless? Don’t go making stuff up now.
There are grey areas in lots of laws, contracts and licenses. I’m sure there are grey areas in other open-source licenses, and EULAs are basically nothing but grey areas. That doesn’t mean that they have no value.
Just because there are more grey areas in the world of computing (ones that are unrelated to the topic at hand), I should not be allowed to point out the ones in the GPL?
I’m sorry, but for me, the GPL is just a stupid license, like all others, and it’s not the damn bible. If it contains weaknesses, I will point them out, editor or not, end of story.
You didn’t even highlight a flaw in a license, you highlighted the fact that “derived work” in the context of copyright law requires a lawyer to understand. That’s independant of license, it’s how copyright law works.
You didn’t even highlight a flaw in a license, you highlighted the fact that “derived work” in the context of copyright law requires a lawyer to understand. That’s independant of license, it’s how copyright law works.
Lawyers are NOT the ones responsible for the unclear content of the GPL– the writers of the license are. It is THEIR error that the license is unclear, NOT the lawyer’s.
Lawyers are NOT the ones responsible for the unclear content of the GPL– the writers of the license are. It is THEIR error that the license is unclear, NOT the lawyer’s.
Congratulations on continuing to not understand. The GPL doesn’t define what a “derived work” is. Thus, the fact that “derived work” is convoluted cannot be a problem of the GPL. Why is “derived work” not defined in the GPL? Because “derived work” is defined by copyright law and common law. Different districts have different tests to decide if something is a “derived work” or not. So, the only way to know whether or not your software (or anything else for that matter) is a “derived work” or not is to hire a lawyer who is an expert in that field (though, the only way to be 100% sure is to have the issue litigated and exhaust all the appeal options, but that’s a bit more expensive then just consulting a lawyer).
So no, “derived work” being unclear has absolutely nothing to do with the author of a license.
And finally, who did you think wrote the GPL and all the other licenses you use? That’s right, lawyers did. So lawyers are, in fact, the ones responsible for the unclear content in the GPL and every other license out there.
So it looks like no matter how you slice or dice your comments, you’re wrong.
As a closing comment, anyone who relies on a post on this or any other internet forum for legal advice is an idiot and deserves all the trouble they get into because of it. If you want to know whether or not your code is a derivative of someone else’s consult a lawyer.
Edited 2006-05-16 07:31
Why is “derived work” not defined in the GPL? Because “derived work” is defined by copyright law and common law. Different districts have different tests to decide if something is a “derived work” or not. So, the only way to know whether or not your software (or anything else for that matter) is a “derived work” or not is to hire a lawyer
This is really moronic.
I’m a big fan of GPL, but the license should surely define much better what a “derived work” is and is not. Otherwise it’s all left to interpretation, and how can I trust something left to random lawyer interpretation? No matter if everyone else in the universe left “derived work” undefined -it is plain stupid to maintain it undefined anyway.
I hope GPLv3 will address this issue. It is serious.
This is really moronic.
I’m a big fan of GPL, but the license should surely define much better what a “derived work” is and is not. Otherwise it’s all left to interpretation, and how can I trust something left to random lawyer interpretation? No matter if everyone else in the universe left “derived work” undefined -it is plain stupid to maintain it undefined anyway.
Derived work is a legal term with a legal meaning. Redefining it in a license just isn’t going to work. Welcome to the world of laws and lawyers. If you don’t like it, don’t ever redistribute a piece of copyrighted software.
And it’s not left to “random lawyer interpretation” there are rules defining how to do it. However, those rules are different depending on where you live and they are all defined in case law. So unless you understand legalese and can read an opinion correctly you’re going to need to hire a lawyer to figure it all out for you.
No license can address this issue, it’s outside the scope of a license. Someone would need to modify the law itself to define derived work clearly with a single prescribed test. But even then it’s only good in the country that it’s defined in, so you may still get into trouble when you distribute a copyrighted work to someone in a foreign country. Which wraps back to why the GPL doesn’t even bother to define it, it all boils down to how copyright law in the jurisdiction you live in is written and interpreted.
“Lawyers are NOT the ones responsible for the unclear content of the GPL– the writers of the license are. It is THEIR error that the license is unclear, NOT the lawyer’s.”
Thom, really, this is silly.
The GPL is absolutely clear: Derived works also have to be released under the GPL if they are distributed.
What isn’t clear is the legal definition of a derived work. However, this is clearly beyond the scope of the GPL to define, but a matter for those who write the laws and a matter of case law.
P.S.: As to why you get flamed.
It’s not that you try to point out problems, it’s that you frequently misquote what other people say, as is the case in the above example and don’t present your criticism in a sane way but instead are on a crusade against what you perceive to be zealots, fanatics, etc.
So, basically, I am not allowed to critisise the GPL? That’s what you are saying. I’m pointing out an obvious flaw in the license, but according to you, I should not do that because I’m an editor? I’m sorry, but I fail to see the logic.
Of course you’re not allowed to criticise the holy cow of the OSS world. Doing that is like depicting Muhammad…
So, basically, I am not allowed to critisise the GPL?
Of course you are. However, as an editor, you have a responsibility to remain “above the fray” and not give the impression of partiality. If you become partial, then you shouldn’t complain if people argue with you.
It seems to me you would like us to take whatever you say for the truth and refrain from criticising you when we feel you’re wrong…
Where did I say the license is useless? Don’t go making stuff up now.
I’m sorry, but you basically said that the license is unsuited for the kernel or programs of that complexity. That’s another way of saying it’s useless for that purpose, or for any similarly complex program. These are your words, not mine:
“If one of the most important terms in the GPL is not clearly definable, doesn’t that mean the license is simply not suited for something as complex as an operating system kernel? Or, that the license itself is too complex and unclear?”
Just because there are more grey areas in the world of computing (ones that are unrelated to the topic at hand), I should not be allowed to point out the ones in the GPL?
Sure you’re allowed, however when you present it in a way that implies that the GPL should not be used because of these grey areas, then you are in fact taking position against use of the GPL. As such, you should expect a fair amount of criticism from those who have benefited from the GPL or have used it for their own projects.
I’m sorry, but for me, the GPL is just a stupid license, like all others, and it’s not the damn bible. If it contains weaknesses, I will point them out, editor or not, end of story.
To claim that they are weaknesses you’d have to give us a compelte legal framework. You’re not a lawyer, Thom, and such criticism would be better done by someone who understands the license better.
I’m not sure what you’re saying here, though. Are you claiming that all licenses are stupid? And what is that quote about the Bible? Do you hold the Bible as a legally sound document?
The GPL is a fine license, despite the grey area that you pointed out. This is corroborated by the fact that no one has challenged it and won in a court of law. Is it perfect? No, however nothing is, and therefore that fact alone is not sufficient to single it out in condemning it.
Now, you may not like the GPL on philosophical grounds, and that’s quite acceptable, but on legal grounds the GPL is quite strong (as far as licenses go).
>This is why you get flamed – not because you
>highlight a grey area in a license, but because you
>use this grey area to stage an attack on said
>license (and, by extension, the Linux kernel, since
>at this stage it cannot be relicensed).
Huh? Is the GPL so holy that criticism of it is not to be tolerated? And why, if I criticise GPL, does that suggest that I criticise Linux by implication? And if I criticise Linux, is that wrong and I should be flamed?
Good grief.
I suspect that you’re right, but perhaps people who flame for those reasons should have a good look in the mirror and ask themselves what they see.
Huh? Is the GPL so holy that criticism of it is not to be tolerated? And why, if I criticise GPL, does that suggest that I criticise Linux by implication? And if I criticise Linux, is that wrong and I should be flamed?
Of course you can criticise the GPL and Linux. However, if you do so in an aggressive manner, then you should expect those who use the GPL and/or Linux, who have used the former and/or have contributed to the latter, to respond aggressively as well. I’m not saying it’s the correct response, mind you – I agree with you that flaming is not an appropriate form of debate. I’m just saying that one should expect it.
But wouldn’t it be better to directly ask FSF and LKML than speculating in this column.
One thing that would be really interesting is what those people have to say about this.
Now,… to be perfectly honest, as much as I like GPL, I sometimes hate it even more, and this would be perfect example of those cases where I hate this license. Still, GPL is the license of my choice, no matter what and it would need more cases like this one to crumble my belief.
Edited 2006-05-16 01:42
Isn’t it in fact legal to link LGPL code to both GPL and Proprietary/Closed stuff?
As far as I know, that was the intent – and many KDE libs are licensed as LGPL.
Wouldn’t it be logical, therefore, for the ATI/NVIDIA binaries to use an LGPL wrapper of some sort for communication with the kernel?
A workaround yes, but legal?
My knowledge of kernels/programming is rather limited, but I’m trying
Isn’t it in fact legal to link LGPL code to both GPL and Proprietary/Closed stuff?
As far as I know, that was the intent – and many KDE libs are licensed as LGPL.
Wouldn’t it be logical, therefore, for the ATI/NVIDIA binaries to use an LGPL wrapper of some sort for communication with the kernel?
A workaround yes, but legal?
My knowledge of kernels/programming is rather limited, but I’m trying
No, wouldn’t work that way. LGPL is more or less intended for standalone libraries that are being used by other applications without forcing the linking code to be GPL. LGPL originally stood for Library GPL for that reason.
LGPL’d code linked to GPL code would still require a linking application to respect the GPL. In the particular case of KDE, the libraries are LGPL’d in order to allow developers to link closed source if they’re using the commercial Qt license the KDE libraries are linked to. If the devs choose to use Qt’s GPL license, then they need to GPL the code they are linking to KDE, even though KDE is LGPL’d.
Conversely, because GTK is LGPL, and linked Gnome libraries are LGPL, then a GTK/Gnome application could be LGPL or GPL, as the developer chooses. If GTK was GPL (I need to tread carefully here to avoid starting a whole different debate…) then any application written for Gnome would have to be GPL in respect of the GTK license.
What nVidia does is use a GPL’d wrapper (shim) that links with the kernel but communicates with a proprietary binary module. The source code for this wrapper is included with the nvidia installer, which compiles the wrapper against the kernel. On the one hand, it could be argued in strict terms that the binary module should be required to respect the GPL since it is linked to the GPL kernel through a GPL wrapper. But the grey area Linus is pointing out is that nvidia’s binary driver isn’t specific to linux, it’s based on the same code they use for BSD and Windows, so it’s not necessarily a “derived” work of the kernel, which is where the GPL kicks in.
Hmmm, I don’t know if I’m helping clear this up for you, or making matters worse…
Were you hit by a flying toilet seat?
Well after this little incident I’ve begun looking for a suitable BSD to replace my linux install. I for one tire of all these GPL debates.
“Linus himself clearly states that at least the nVIDIA driver is not a derived work”
Since when Linus is allowed to interpret the GPL ?
Only the FSF is able to say of the NVIDIA driver is a derived work or not, not Linus “himself”…
“Linus then continues and explains that according to him, some modules cannot be considered as derived works, because they were not designed for Linux and do not use any Linux-specific behaviour.”
lol. How can you say that a driver MADE for the Linux kernel, wasn’t designed FOR the Linux kernel.
The whole argument that a Linux kernel module is not designed for Linux is total crap.
[EDIT] I mean “Linus opinion” in the title … Linux doesn’t think a lot about this 😉
Edited 2006-05-16 06:22
Since when Linus is allowed to interpret the GPL ?
Only the FSF is able to say of the NVIDIA driver is a derived work or not, not Linus “himself”…
Linus is (with other people) the holder of the Linux copyright, not FSF. So it’s his interpretation that matters, here.
“Linus is (with other people) the holder of the Linux copyright”
No ,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
All Linus is is owner of his own code. Which allow him to relicense it under another license. Linus is also the trademark owner of Linux in some country ( it would be worldwide if Linus would have been legally savy and respectfull of the power of the law.
“So it’s his interpretation that matters, here.”
No , because GPL does not stand for Granted Property by Linus. Freedom of speech does not entail judicial power or property ownership either. No one is going to sue or waste time on making LT realise he is wrong ( I would but thats just because I am fed up with the bulshit of some that originate from LT opening is mouth and spouting what he think , not what is legally right or the reality and there FUD and remixed version from it ) , he use the GPL , contribute GPL code and he as not claimed or show he whant control over it , the prblem is not Linus or the Linux kernel or GNU/Linux or the GPL.
Its the lack of GNU/Linux GPL driver , after all this time we need to realise no one will make them or make something good as Open Source.
“All Linus is is owner of his own code.”
Which makes him the copyright holder automatically. That he chose to release his work under a copyleft license (which is of course also a copyright license legally) does not change this basic fact.
“No , because GPL does not stand for Granted Property by Linus. Freedom of speech does not entail judicial power or property ownership either.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Linus’ take on this matters as he has a large part of the copyright of the code in the kernel. This would give him legal standing if he were to decide to challenge someone in court about GPL infringement if this concerns the kernel.
So his opinion is very relevant here.
Seriously, I can fully understand your enthusiasm for free software, however I’m also of the strong opinion that enthusiasm is only a very poor substitute for having a clue.
Not that I want to accuse you of anything, but I suspect I was someone like you who feels strongly about free software yet doesn’t have the slightest clue about it who send the poor Kororaa devs this disgusting email.
“Which makes him the copyright holder automatically.”
No , but you dont understand law and how copyright works , the GPL is Copyleft and is controlled by the FSF , if you whant normal copyright protection and control of the license dont use the GPL , because you whont like it at all.
“That he chose … this basic fact.”
In reality copyright are really not basic and you dont make facts. Facts are verifiable and based on truth.
“Blah, blah, blah.”
Yes , I knew that this argument would come up eventually , but as you know very well , this argument dont hold much value or power at anything.
“Linus’ take on this … concerns the kernel. ”
No , but its fun of you and Linus to think so 😉
“So his opinion is very relevant here.”
No , because the Kororaa people are not claiming ownership over the linux kernel code , they are “accused” of something relating to GPL infrigment.
Its a licensing issue , not a copyright one. If it is ever something real. I dont get the detail and the FSF as not commented on it that I know of.
“Seriously”
Your not serious …
“I can fully understand your enthusiasm for free software”
No , but its likely that you think so , you seem to make up the world as you see fit , not as it actualy is.
“however I’m also of the strong opinion that enthusiasm is only a very poor substitute for having a clue. ”
Luckily , for me , and I dare suggest everyone else , your opinion are just as powerless as you are worthless.
“Not that I want to accuse you of anything”
Yes , you whant to smire me , but then again your too coward to do it in court. If you whant to , have your lawyer contact me , my email is [email protected]
“but I suspect … this disgusting email.”
Personnaly , what I think is disgusting is the lack of detail and the hordes of liar such as yourself who are jumping on this in order to bash the GPL , and the GNU/Linux developper and users.
What I really find funny is the Kororaa developper asking ATI and Nvidia about the GPL , and people claiming Linus as any say at all in it.
I will just wait this one out from the side from now on , because I really think its just blown out of proportion by those who hate the GPL. You know morons like you.
“No , but you dont understand law and how copyright works , the GPL is Copyleft and is controlled by the FSF , if you whant normal copyright protection and control of the license dont use the GPL , because you whont like it at all. ”
Jesus, this has to be some of the dumbest stuff I read recently.
1. The GPL is a copyright license legaly. Otherwise the GPL would be meaningless.
2. It’s copyleft becuase it uses the legal framework of copyright to give a license that runs contrary to what most copyright licenses want to achieve. This however does not in any way change the fact that the GPL is a copyright license.
“In reality copyright are really not basic and you dont make facts. Facts are verifiable and based on truth.”
As the fact and the truth that the GPL is legaly is copyright license. FFS, if you are to dumb to figure it out yourself, write the FSF an email.
“No , because the Kororaa people are not claiming ownership over the linux kernel code , they are “accused” of something relating to GPL infrigment.”
They are accused of breaking the freaking license of the freaking kernel!!!!!!
“Personnaly , what I think is disgusting is the lack of detail and the hordes of liar such as yourself who are jumping on this in order to bash the GPL , and the GNU/Linux developper and users.”
No, what is disgusting are little idiots like you who don’t have a clue about the GPL and free software yet troll the internet and give free software a bad name.
I did not in any way, shape or form bash the GPL, on the contrary, all I did was point out your factual errors.
“I will just wait this one out from the side from now on , because I really think its just blown out of proportion by those who hate the GPL. You know morons like you.”
Again, my little dimwit friend, I don’t hate the GPL, on the contrary, I really like it. That’s why I defend it from idiots like you.
“Jesus, this has to be some of the dumbest stuff I read recently. ”
You finnaly read what you wrote ? BTW dont insult the name of the son of god. He as nothing to do with your stupidity.
“1. The … copyright license. ”
Read what is written , if you dont understand it seek a lawyer.
“As the fact and the truth that the GPL is legaly is copyright license”
You keep repeating this like it means something different and answer it each times , in what I discuss. Thats not what you have a problem understanding , I did not even discuss this , I said that copyright ownership is different with the GPL because its copyleft.
“FFS, if you are to dumb to figure it out yourself, write the FSF an email. ”
Why ? I got it right.
“They are accused of breaking the freaking license of the freaking kernel!!!!!! ”
No , but thanks for showing you dont understand whats being discussed.
“No, what is disgusting … give free software a bad name. ”
[email protected] have your lawyer contact me and sue me. Because of course your right.
“I did not in any way, shape or form bash the GPL”
Your falsely claiming copyleft is irrelevant …
“on the contrary, all I did was point out your factual errors. ”
I made no errors.
“Again, my little dimwit … idiots like you.”
I aint your friends , you defend nothing , you make up lies that have zero basis in reality or law.
Like I said you whant to proove your point have your lawyer contact me by email and lets settle this in court. It will be my pleasure to have you explained the principle of copyleft.
“No , but thanks for showing you dont understand whats being discussed.”
Yes, that’s exactly what is being discussed.
The kernel is licensed under the GPL and the email alledges that Kororaa breaks this license.
“Your falsely claiming copyleft is irrelevant …”
I did not. I simply pointed out that contrary to your claims the GPL legaly is a copyright license.
” you make up lies that have zero basis in reality or law.”
Show me one.
Quote what I wrote, write up how you understand it and then show me how what I wrote was a lie.
P.S.: As there obviously is no sense trying to reason with you, I’ll stop now.
However, assuming that your enthusiasm for free software is genuine, may I suggest that you take some time to read the very good essays on the gnu site about free software, so that in future discussions you won’t make any more false claims about free software and thus stop to give free software a bad name.
“Yes, that’s exactly what is being discussed.”
No , your discussing copyright of Linus to the kernel , thats what your discussing.
“The kernel is licensed under the GPL and the email alledges that Kororaa breaks this license.”
close enough , yes.
“I did not. I simply pointed out that contrary to your claims the GPL legaly is a copyright license. ”
I said that the GPL is not a normal copyright license. I never said its not a legal copyright license , go read what I wrote.
“Show me one.
Quote what I wrote, write up how you understand it and then show me how what I wrote was a lie. ”
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14616&comment_id=125120
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=14616&comment_id=125193
I understand it the way you wrote it , not what you tought you wrote.
“As there obviously is no sense trying to reason with you,”
If you made sense you would not need to reason with me.
“assuming that your … gnu site about free software”
Why ? I read it probably , some I fully agreew with others , I see are politically motivated and disagree with.
” so that in future discussions you won’t make any more false claims about free software ”
I dont make false claim.
“and thus stop to give free software a bad name”
I dont give free software a bad name.
Its not because of me that GNU/Linux GPL graphic driver dont exist today. I am probably one of the few who say we really have a need for them.
I said that copyright ownership is different with the GPL because its copyleft.
The GPL has nothing to do with ownership of a copyright. Whoever wrote the code owns the copyright to the code unless they legally transferred ownership to another entity (assuming they live in a jurisdiction where you can even do that; in Germany for example, there is no way to transfer copyright ownership). Using the GPL does not affect your ownership of the copyright. The copyright owner can license the code in anyway (s)he pleases including dual licensing it under the GPL and a proprietary license. MySQL, for example, is licensed in such a manner.
The term “copyleft” isn’t even a legal term, it’s a made up word which is used to describe GPL like licenses which use copyright law in a way it was not originally intended to be used.
Linus is a kernel programmer, not a lawyer and not an IP specialist. The FSF has lawyers and IP specialists.
In a court of law (this being a legal issue), he would be considered perhaps an expert witness but not competent to argue, much less decide, the case himself. Don’t delude yourself otherwise.
Authorship confers no authority over contract or copyright law.
Only the FSF is able to say of the NVIDIA driver is a derived work or not, not Linus “himself”…
Nope. A lawyer is the only one who can say whether or not a driver constitutes a derived work.
lol. How can you say that a driver MADE for the Linux kernel, wasn’t designed FOR the Linux kernel.
Because the driver wasn’t designed specifically for the Linux kernel. It is OS indepedent. The shim is the only part that depends on the kernel.
The whole argument that a Linux kernel module is not designed for Linux is total crap.
It’s not crap. You just don’t understand how the technology works.
Your argument is besides the point, if not totally irrelevant. The right question is, do the developers have the right to distribute the ATI and Nvidia drivers?
If not, they are in bigger trouble. The ATI and Nvidia drivers are not licensed under a free software license, and I’m pretty sure it is illegal to distribute these drivers unless the developers have a distribution license from ATI and Nvidia themselves.
I don’t even know how the GPL fits into this, since these drivers are modules of X.org and not the kernel directly. Last time I check X.org was not licensed under the GPL.
So do the Korora developers have the right do distribute the proprietary drivers?
I don’t even know how the GPL fits into this, since these drivers are modules of X.org and not the kernel directly.
Err, we’re talking about the linux kernel modules that allow userspace (in casu X.org) to access the nvidea/ati hardware. Unforuntately I don’t think this can be done entirely in userspace
.
no it cant, or atleast it cant be done under the linux kernel without work. but look at the usb drivers, there one have a cooperation between kernel and user space.
i wonder if not one could write some kind of generic graphics card drivers that could allow a user space program to send custom control signals to the card. this way the nvidia driver could be a daemon rather then a kernel module. still, i worry about the performance for a setup like that…
Too much comments for an article written with the following opinion on the author’s mind :
“I’m sorry, but for me, the GPL is just a stupid license, like all others, and it’s not the damn bible. If it contains weaknesses, I will point them out, editor or not, end of story.”
Thom Holwerda the world is not perfect and licenses are not strongholds.
Your article was written just to give you some more ground to show your opinion “the GPL is just a stupid license”.
GPL is not a bible but there are a lot of OSS developers which like it enough to adopt it, that doesn’t mean they love it, if you don’t have any respect for licenses please give some respect to developers.
Thanks
That’s very funny:
http://www.lxnaydesign.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&i…
yep thankyou, http://beranger.org/index.php?article=967
“Licenses and Copyright” (1996) (this happens to explain how to link dynamically to LGPL libraries for being able to release binary-only w/o breaching the GPL! and it also states: “It is possible, however, to distribute a driver in binary form only, under any licensing terms you wish, as a kernel loadable module. The kernel provides a public interface to which object modules can be bound at run time. The key words here are public interface. A public interface cannot be copyrighted.)
“Derivative Works” (2003)
“I’m sorry, but for me, the GPL is just a stupid license, like all others, and it’s not the damn bible. If it contains weaknesses, I will point them out, editor or not, end of story.”
I think I did not make myself clear. Read it like this: “the GPL is just a license.” I did not mean to say, “the GPL is a stupid license.”
Just to clarify.
Edited 2006-05-16 08:29
I think I did not make myself clear. Read it like this: “the GPL is just a license.” I did not mean to say, “the GPL is a stupid license.”
Point taken. That makes more sense.
“As reported yesterday, an unspecified person sent an email to the developers of Kororaa, claiming the Xgl live CD is breaching the GPL by bundling built versions of the nVIDIA and Ati binary drivers.”
Exactly the kind of malice or fanaticism that causes folks to stay away from open source in droves, out of fear they’ll have a system that in some way doesn’t work properly or which is crippled. I hope Kororaa tells the person concerned to get stuffed and continue their good work.
As far as I can remember there are a few distro’s that have the nvidia drivers installed. The nvidia driver is in 2 parts a gpl’ed part and a commercial (want for a better word) part, only the gpl part touches the kernel. If i’m wrong why do Pclinuxos (since i can remember .5 or something to present day), SUSE, Elive, RR4 xgl, Mandriva and a shed load of others. I feel the email is from an anti-linux person that just wanted to mess things up for the poor chap…
just my 2 pence worth
Be Well
Alie
edited a typo
Edited 2006-05-16 14:32
Authorship confers no authority over contract or copyright law.
True, but only the copyright holder (or someone representing him) can sue for copyright infringement.
OK, there’s a lot of FUD going on here, but let’s do something amusing and look at the actual text of the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html states, in section 2: In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
Guess what the NVidia and ATI drivers qualify as?
That’s right, they’re “another work not based on the Program”.
By the way, it is, in fact, section 2 that is the reason why the GPL is obscure and confusing. It does not use the term “derived”, which is a legal term of art, but rather the English phrase “based on”, which is not.
By the way, the GPL is a boilerplate document, and not everyone who uses it uses it as is. Linus Torvalds, in fact, uses a modified GPL to license his code.
Though quoting Linus Torvalds in this article may make an impact to the casual reason, it should be understood that Linus isn’t exactly qualified to make assumptions about what is legal or not when it comes to the GPL. Just because Linus states what he *thinks* is a grey area in a post on a mailinglist doesn’t make it so. Lawyers might disagree very much with his assertions. Or they might not, who knows. Until someone actually tries this matter in a court, we might never know.
But then again, everything you read on teh intarweb is true, no?