Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Mar 2011 21:14 UTC, submitted by jbicha
Google Does Google's Android violate the GPL? This bold claim is being made by Edward Naughton, and was picked up here and there across the web. The problem seems to be that Android's Bionic, a glibc alternative, supposedly violates the GPL by stripping the Linux kernel header files of all comments and other extraneous information and relicensing them under a more permissive license so that non-GPL programs can be written. Bradley Kuhn, former FSF executive director and expert on GPL violations, believes the claims are way overblown.
Thread beginning with comment 467215
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RMS calls BS on this!! (Back in 2003)
by glarepate on Mon 21st Mar 2011 23:58 UTC
glarepate
Member since:
2006-01-04

Saw this info on /.

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html

I'm not sure what your project is designed to do, so I don't have an opinion about how it stands regarding the GPL. However, I've talked with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of using simple material from header files.

Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always makes a derivative work. That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that.
---

This might also explain why no coders have come forward to complain or object to it. (^;)

Reply Score: 2