Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet) [LWN.net]

Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Nov 13, 2007 15:46 UTC (Tue) by xav (subscriber, #18536)
In reply to: Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet) by i3839
Parent article: Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Using something and depending on it is not enough to be a derived work from it in a copyright meaning. The GPL only applies if part of the distributed software is under the GPL. So for instance don't count on properietary software that links to a GPL lib, but doesn't distribute it, to be illegal.

That's gratuitous talk - could you show me a case backing your saying ? A lawyer or a judge could have an opposite stance on the matter, and I bet they would.

In the end it's not the linking or not that counts, but if you rely on a GPL pice of work. And a driver developed for linux, however you turn the question, relies on linux.

(Log in to post comments)

Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Nov 13, 2007 17:24 UTC (Tue) by sepreece (subscriber, #19270) [Link]

Note that copyright only covers expression, not function. There is a bunch of recent case law
(in the US) that suggests that interfacing to a program is non-infringing.

This is all really gray area, both in terms of what constitutes a derived work of a piece of
software and in terms of what is allowed by fair use regardless. Coupling that with the terms
of the GPL that don't exactly align with copyright (using permission to distribute the covered
work as a lever to also control the way its distributed and what's distributed with it), it's
really hard to predict what would happen in a court test of issues like proprietary drivers.
It's best (and most polite to authors) to just avoid questionable practices.

Device manufacturers, in many cases, don't really care that much about exposing their drivers.
Their value-add is usually in more domain-specific areas, usually above the kernel.

I think the key points that handset manufacturers and carriers will want to lock down are
around (a) access to the air stack and RF control, (b) access to middleware services that use
the network (placing calls, sending messages), and (c) IP-control mechanisms (DRM, content
copying). (a) because it affects whether the FCC will let them ship the device, (b) because
they potentially can be used for DoS attacks on the network and can make users very unhappy
about unexpected charges, and (c) because they want to be able to offer access to content that
they can't get without guaranteeing (with substantial financial penalties) that their access
controls work. Their key GPL question will be around whether they can allow replacing the
kernel while still meeting those guarantees. Drivers are not that big a deal.

Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Nov 13, 2007 18:59 UTC (Tue) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

> That's gratuitous talk - could you show me a case backing your saying ?

Just butting in here.  This sort of argument annoys me, as it puts pressure for evidence on
the other guy.  Requiring evidence for every statement can very quickly turn discussions into
PhD level papers.  

In my opinion, it'd be fair if the guy calling for evidence also provides evidence.

In other words, I think that if xav wants case law references from drag, xav should provide
references of his own.

Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Nov 14, 2007 12:00 UTC (Wed) by i3839 (subscriber, #31386) [Link]

Yes, quite annoying, especially because I'm not a lawyer, so don't know heck about cases. ;-)
(BTW, xav wanted references from me, not drag.)

I'm just a programmer who once tried to figure out what rights/restrictions there really were.
So I read some copyright laws, especially the Bern convention and WIPO stuff. It's unclear and
muddy, as lawyer talk tends to be. Suffice to say, you've quite a weak case when none of your
work is actually copied, but only extended or interacted with.

It gets easier if your work gets distributed with their work, because then you can use the GPL
terms (e.g. that combined works should all be distributed under the GPL). But if they only
release their software, and not your GPLed code, it's a though nut to crack (hi Nvidia).

But that depending on something and interacting with it are themselves not enough reason to
involve copyright law is obvious, and just common sense. Else programs written specifically
for, say, MSWindows should follow its license instead of their own.

All this said, I wouldn't dare to bet either way. Distributing closed modules is quite risky,
but at the other side, don't expect to have rights that you don't have.

If you do want to nitpick, here's how the Bern convention defines "derivative works":

>(3) Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations 
> of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works 
> without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.

The full text can be found at http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html.
For people going to read that, keep in mind that according to WIPO:

> Computer programs are protected as literary works within
> the meaning of Article 2 of the Berne Convention.

In short, if they don't change your work, it's not a derivative work. The time to lower
expectations is about now.

However, the real fogginess comes from the uncertainty what they mean exactly with "work" and
"computer programs". For instance, is a module a work, or just a small part of the greater
work that is the kernel? Similar for libraries.

Google Calling: Inside Android, the gPhone SDK (O'ReillyNet)

Posted Nov 15, 2007 19:15 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

It's not a case, but djb's oft-expressed opinion that anyone has the right to release a patch
to his software guaranteed to them by copyright law, without any further intervention from
him, is applicable here too. As far as I am aware, the licensing problems with qmail do not
stem from that - otherwise, netqmail would be in trouble.

In any case, as far as I'm aware, nVIDIA do it the way they do for technical reasons - it
means they don't have to support a different binary module for every single kernel version out
there, instead relying on their thunk to be recompiled for the particular kernel under which
it finds itself installed. It might also make redistribution of the driver with a precompiled
kernel permissible - strictly speaking, the closed-source part is not derived from Linux; only
the thunk is, and that is GPL'd - but that's one for lawyers.