GPLv3 is out [LWN.net]

GPLv3 is out

Posted Jul 1, 2007 4:25 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
In reply to: GPLv3 is out by khim
Parent article: GPLv3 is out

The only dispute that I know about is what is and what is not 'derived work'.

This is a legal construct that can only realy be determined by a judge. 'Derived Work' is in the actual language of the copyright law itself and it pre-existed long before GPL came out.

This is my understanding of it.

For example you have the proprietary kernel modules. Some lawyers will tell you that some of them are, in fact, derived work while others are not. So some modules will violate the GPL and others won't. Other lawyers will tell you that ALL of them are derived from the kernel and all of them probably violate the GPL.

So this is the so-called gray area. Weither or not Nvidia or ATI or whoever is violating the GPL is realy up to a judge. (if it ever gets to the point were somebody decides to sue for copyright infringement.) This is one of those things were law is very different from software: Some things are kept intentionally gray. It makes law work better sometimes, but it is confusing.

But having 'derived work' clauses in licenses are a very valid thing to do. The results are probably a bit unpredictable sometimes though...

But if you have some 'plugins' that are not derived work it still doesn't make the GPL the same as LGPL.

IANAL, by the by. Just my personal understanding.

(Log in to post comments)

GPLv3 is out

Posted Jul 3, 2007 23:49 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"" 'Derived Work' is in the actual language of the copyright law... For example you have the proprietary kernel modules. Some lawyers will tell you that some of them are, in fact, derived work while others are not... So this is the so-called gray area. Weither or not Nvidia or ATI or whoever is violating the GPL is realy up to a judge. ""

Yes i agree. But it is specially in this 'driver issue' that some technical provisions can make the whole matter more clear.

Example:

. Use an 'hardened' DKMS to provide linking to some parts of the kernel allowing that linking, to the extend recognizable that the modules or plugins therefore are mostly independent BLOBs, because the interface is hardened and the 'maneuvering' space is therefore limited.

-_ a) It will permit proprietary modules like exist today.

-_ b) It will not allow proprietary modules to change indiscriminatory parts of the kernel as it is possible today.

-_ c) It will 'make more compiling' for hardware vendors serious about Linux support to engage in kernel development, specially in those parts that they know/feel are deficient. Instead of outsiders they will became part of the community.

-_ d) None of this invalidate NDAs, only restricts its applicability, because if a vendor making a driver decides that it must change a whole lot of kernel code, it dosent create more gray areas and instead gains more developers.

-_ e) It will not be only about license, but a very 'wit' technical approach, because recognizably parts of a driver are much more dependent of the underlaying hardware than of the kernel environment, and can be therefore used as base for other OSes drivers.

-_ f) It can make the Linux kernel the ' platform of excellence ' for driver development.

. Every other module goes ' in the usual way ' and are therefore a recognizably *derived work*.