KS2009: How Google uses Linux [LWN.net]

KS2009: How Google uses Linux

Posted Oct 21, 2009 14:23 UTC (Wed) by cma (subscriber, #49905)
Parent article: KS2009: How Google uses Linux

What a waste of resources...Google could just work tied with the kernel community. Come on Google what are you waiting for? Besides this fact, if linux kernel code is GPLv2 why don't they release their code and respect GPLv2 license terms?

(Log in to post comments)

KS2009: How Google uses Linux

Posted Oct 21, 2009 14:36 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

I don't know if you noticed or not, but the GPL licensing terms only kick in
during distribution. Seeing how a corporation is a independent legal person I
don't think that moving software and hardware around internally really counts
as distribution. And I don't think that Google has any plans on selling its
systems to other people.

So the GPL is pretty irrelevant.

So it is just a business case of whether working with the kernel community is
going to be more profitable or not. And so far they decided that taking care
of stuff internally is a better approach. Maybe that will change.

GPL doesn't require, but maintenance kills you

Posted Oct 21, 2009 15:00 UTC (Wed) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link]

Correct, the GPL doesn't require the release of this internal source code. However, the GPL does have an effect (by intent): Google cannot take the GPL'ed program, modify it, and sell the result as a proprietary program. Thus, what Google is doing is almost certainly wasting its own resources, by trying to do its own parallel maintenance. They could probably save a lot of money and time by working with the kernel developers; it's a short-term cost for long-term gain. And as a side-effect, doing so would help all other kernel users.

There's probably some stuff that will stay Google-only, but if they worked to halve it, they'd probably save far more than half their money. Google can do this, in spite of its long-term inefficiencies, because they have a lot of money... but that doesn't mean it's the best choice for them or anyone else.

Appliance kernel source?

Posted Oct 21, 2009 15:11 UTC (Wed) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

If you buy a Google Search Appliance, you should be able to request a copy of the source code to any GPL software on it. (Could be that they're maintaining a whole extra kernel for the GSA, though.)

Appliance kernel source?

Posted Oct 21, 2009 18:17 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

By their reports, you wouldn't _want_ to see the code.

Appliance kernel source?

Posted Oct 27, 2009 9:13 UTC (Tue) by dsommers (subscriber, #55274) [Link]

That's exactly why I would insist on seeing the code ;-)

Appliance kernel source?

Posted Oct 30, 2009 22:25 UTC (Fri) by cdibona (subscriber, #13739) [Link]

You guys are killing me, we've had this up The GSA Mirror for years and years. Enjoy!

Chris DiBona

KS2009: How Google uses Linux

Posted Oct 21, 2009 21:57 UTC (Wed) by jmm82 (subscriber, #59425) [Link]

I believe the reasons were outlined why they are not contributing code into the kernel.

1. They are not using kernels that are close to linus git head.
2. Some code would not be wanted in the mainline kernel.
3. Some code is not good enough to get into the mainline kernel.
4. They don't want to have 30 people saying the code will only get in if it does this. Aka. They don't want to make it support the features they are not using.
5. Some code is proprietary and they want to protect the IP. As was stated above as long as they are not distributing the code the changes are their property.
6. A lot of there patches are code backported from mainline, so it is already in the kernel.

I think moving forward that you will see Google have a few developers working on mainline to try and influence future kernels because it will be financially cheaper to carry as few patches as possible. Also, I feel they will always have some patches that they feel are too valuable IP to gave back and will continue to maintain those outside the mainline.