| |||||||||||||
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.Posted Mar 21, 2011 5:05 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. by bkuhn Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
1) I never thought that Naughton's paper claimed to know the answer. It was, just the way you see it, meant to ask an important question: is this a legally safe approach or are there risks that go beyond what's acceptable? And what's acceptable depends, as I point out in my blog post, on how much is at stake. For the C library of a platform on which an entire mobile ecosystem is built, there must undoubtedly be a more cautious and conservative approach than to, say, a device driver that affects only a single vendor, or to a single third-party application. 2) So when you claim that "he hasn't engaged in the detailed research that would be needed to justify the claims that have been made", I believe that someone highlighting a need -- in light of what I said in the previous paragraph -- to take a closer look at something doesn't have to meet the detailed research standard you would expect in court, or if he claimed with certainty that there is an infringement. So far I haven't seen any other expert claim that there isn't an infringement: you admit in your blog post that there may be one; Eben Moglen was evasive when ZDNet's SJVN asked; LWN's article above doesn't rule out the possibility. 3) There are good reasons to raise the question whether you, @bkuhn, engaged in even the non-detailed research that would have been necessary to make the claims you made. I don't think so in a couple of cases: 3.1) You claim that "Google wasn't seeking to circumvent the GPL at all." The LWN article above tells a different story. In my blog post, I link to this official Android architecture presentation, on page 36 of which you can find, in the specific context of Bionic, the stated goal: "keep GPL out of user-space [sic]" 3.2) You also seem to be placing bets without sufficient research: "If someone actually does all the research to prove that Google did, I'd easily offer a 1,000-to-1 bet to anyone that such a copyright infringement could be cleared up easily [...]" This flies in the face of everything I know about this industry after 25 years of work, during which I've had discussions on possible alterations of large codebases with CEOs, CTOs and VPs of Engineering on numerous occasions, often with those of major software publishers such as Blizzard Entertainment (I edited, although my focus at the time was on the commercial side, a small part of the Warcraft II C sources myself). During all of that time, I never came across an engineering decision-maker who made your 1,000-to-1-bet claim concerning any (even the slightest) change to a large codebase. Everyone who really knows how it works will tell you that once you make such changes -- and replacing a C library is pretty significant anyway, but let's assume you're right and it's small -- you run the risk of destabilizing parts of a large codebase where you didn't even expect it. With a "release early, release often" mentality one can just replace such a library without caring much; but I doubt that the likes of Samsung and Motorola want to "release early, release often" their devices.
(Log in to post comments)
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 6:11 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] "So far I haven't seen any other expert claim that there isn't an infringement" This sounds about as convincing as "So far I haven't seen any other expert claim that you do not beat your wife." Unless the wife in that statement, or a supposedly infringed party in your statement, speaks up, there is no point talking about it. Sorry, Florian, it is you who sound vague and unclear. You're throwing muck randomly, hoping that something will stick.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 6:18 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Sorry, @rsidd, you just quote very selectively. You cut off your quote right before "you [@bkuhn] admit in your blog post that there may be [an infringement]; Eben Moglen was evasive when ZDNet's SJVN asked; LWN's article above doesn't rule out the possibility." (So some people who should know did issue statements, but they are apparently unsure.)
Your analogy with the beaten wife (maybe could have come up with a less bizarre example anyway) doesn't work. Your position is that until someone with standing acts, "there is no point talking about it". I don't know in which world you operate but that position is neither in line with FOSS community values nor with (which is what my focus here is) the way the world of business operates.
From a FOSS point of view, if something is done that goes against principles that should be defended, then it's wrong and must be called out not only when someone goes to court.
From a business point of view, if a device maker or developer of a major app spends millions of dollars -- possibly MANY millions of dollars --, there has to be a degree of legal certainty that's reasonable under such circumstances. The possibility of any one out of thousands of Linux kernel contributors possibly going to court in some major jurisdiction is an issue to take into consideration before it happens.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 9:36 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> From a FOSS point of view, if something is done that goes against principles that should be defended, then it's wrong and must be called out not only when someone goes to court.
Creating a brand new libc that's not under the GPL *doesn't* go against principles. That it needs to use the linux syscalls is completely obvious, and even explicitly stated as permitted (in case anyone had any doubts).
The only question is whether in a technical legalistic sense, they erred in their implementation. Making a big fuss of that seems to me is just blowing smoke.
BTW, RMS had this to say about it (from 2003):
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 10:47 UTC (Mon) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link]
Thanks, I think this completes the article nicely.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 10:49 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Are you saying that taking files with original copyright and GPL notices and cutting out those notices is just fine and in the spirit of the GPL?
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 11:41 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Florian, what are you trying to do?
1. we are not talking about random code files, but a very special case.
Your position is very, very weak. You can only argue about legal subtleties, and even there you're not in firm ground. Why do you insist in spreading the FUD?
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 11:48 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
How will you separate this special case from other cases of copyright laundering? Are you sure Google hasn't already done this in other cases, too?Are you sure nobody else has done or will now consider doing this, following Google's example?
How come that neither Eben Moglen in his answer to ZDNet nor Brad Kuhn in his blog post nor LWN (on this very page) rule out the possibility of an infringement? Apparently what you think is not apparent.
This is a totally unsupported claim of yours.
Unfortunately, such "legal subtleties" can be outcome-determinative. I don't claim that I know 100% for sure that there is an infringement. I read Edward Naughton's paper and I think he has a reasonable basis for raising concerns. I'd love to see Google take care of those concerns by replacing those headers with glibc.
The word FUD is wrong here for various reasons. I'll name two. One, as the aforementioned, non-committal positions by Eben Moglen, Brad Kuhn and LWN show, there is a lack of certainty out there. So it's not like FUD in the sense of artificially creating or suggesting uncertainty. Two, I don't say that this is the end of Android. I believe a fix is doable, and it's imperative. The sooner it's done, the better. The easier it is to do, the better. But it must be done.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 12:01 UTC (Mon) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] FUD is exactly what you are doing. Why are Eben Moglen, Brad Kuhn and LWN not saying categorically that there is no infringement? Because they cannot say so without auditing 2.5 MB of headers. All they can say is that there are no reasonable grounds to suspect a problem -- which is what they are saying. Can I stand on a soapbox and claim that Linux has a problem because nobody in the world will categorically assert that its code does not violate any copyrights, trademarks or patents held by others? Nobody, certainly not the kernel developers, will ever assert that. All anyone can reasonably do is fix problems once they are alerted. Problems may exist with bionic and copyright infringement -- no sane person will categorically deny that possibility. But you, sir, have not demonstrated ANY problem that needs fixing. The "problems" you have pointed out have been debunked, and you are reduced to saying "but there may be other problems!" You cannot expect Moglen, Kuhn or LWN to do that dirty work for you.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 12:05 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Why are Eben Moglen, Brad Kuhn and LWN not saying categorically that there is no infringement? Because they cannot say so without auditing 2.5 MB of headers. All they can say is that there are no reasonable grounds to suspect a problem -- which is what they are saying. No, they don't say there are no reasonable gorunds to suspect an infringement. Brad Kuhn and LWN explicitly admit the possibility of a copyright infringement. Eben Moglen tried to beat around the bush. All anyone can reasonably do is fix problems once they are alerted. [...] But you, sir, have not demonstrated ANY problem that needs fixing I believe the Naughton paper provides indications that there is a need for fixing. Have you even read it in its entirety? I mean the paper, not just the Huffington Post article?
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 14:33 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
If you were a lawyer you'd realize there is no such thing as 'black and white' in laws like this. Everything is up for interpretation. It's extremely difficult to say for certain.
It's very unlikely that it's really a infringement issue.
In reality is that unless one of the copyright owners actually gives a crap about bionic using the header files then the entire issue is completely irrelevant.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 14:43 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
I don't need legal education from you, @drag. Of course there's no black and white. However, while you say "[i]t's very unlikely that it's really a [sic] infringement issue", they say there may be one, and LWN and Brad Kuhn talk about what they consider an easy fix, which is an admission in and of itself.
While you say it's irrelevant until someone sues, you can be sure that there are defenders of the copyleft principle who think that potential and actual violations are an issue all by themselves, and more importantly, the way you argue is not the way corporate decision makers in the ecosystem can afford to look at such matters.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 15:53 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I really couldn't give a shit about copyleft in this case.
The only people that have any rights in this case are the copyright holders. I am certainly not going to care more then the people that wrote the code.
And the way I argue is expressing the reality of the situation. If 'corporate decision makers' want to look at it differently they are being delusional.
Nobody can know for certain, mistakes happens. Shit happens constantly. Then problems are fixed.
People believing in pseudo-legalistic bullshit and making big issues out of non-issues is a severe problem. It needs to be nipped in the bud as all it generates is useless drama and bad feelings.
> they say there may be one
The fact that you can keep saying shit like this with a straight face shows that you understand far less then you think you do. Either that or your being intentionally obtuse.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 19:48 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> People believing in pseudo-legalistic bullshit and making big issues out of non-issues is a severe problem. It needs to be nipped in the bud as all it generates is useless drama and bad feelings.
+1. ISTM Florian seems to be making a really bad habit out of this. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but come on...
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 18:24 UTC (Mon) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link] I don't need legal education from you, @drag. Of course there's no black and white. However, while you say "[i]t's very unlikely that it's really a [sic] infringement issue", they say there may be one, and LWN and Brad Kuhn talk about what they consider an easy fix, which is an admission in and of itself.You need a legal education from someone if you are going to spout off about legal matters and sow FUD in the community. Unless they are providing legal counsel their response is the one required or they will fall afoul of the US Bar and could be liable if their "advice" turns out incorrect. That's legal 101. I doubt the FSF has even bothered to review the issue as they haven't been asked to by the copyright holders so they result to the typical non-committal lawyer speech when they can't answer a question. Finally, suggesting a fix doesn't mean there is a problem. The fix could be to eliminate concern or it could simply be to eliminate FUD or even just be suggestion without merit. While you say it's irrelevant until someone sues, you can be sure that there are defenders of the copyleft principle who think that potential and actual violations are an issue all by themselves, and more importantly, the way you argue is not the way corporate decision makers in the ecosystem can afford to look at such matters.Unless the copyright holders wish to take action then it doesn't matter what anyone in the community thinks. It's not their concern because they can't legally take action. The kernel has always included the user space exception since very very early on. You've been spreading FUD. Why don't you tell everyone why you are so concerned about this issue that you have run around on a press gauntlet screaming about how dangerous Android is to use? Explain your motives and maybe people will take you more seriously. Because there is a significant percentage of the community that thinks you are whoring FUD for your current employer. So what is your motivation in this?
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 18:29 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
When did Brad Kuhn become a member of the Bar? The answer: never. And Jake Edge? I don't see any indication he's admitted as an attorney at law. Therefore, you can't claim they're limited in expressing their opinions. @rahvin, your post is generally unreasonable and doesn't contribute anything of substance to the discussion.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 27, 2011 0:43 UTC (Sun) by malor (subscriber, #2973) [Link] Florian, you are just being freaking ridiculous here. You have yet to state an actual cause for action, but you post again and again and AGAIN, in every Android thread, screaming about possible infringement. I mean, you've actually used the term 'copyright laundering' with a straight face.Here's the deal. If you think there's infringement, prove that there's infringement. It'll take a hell of a lot of work. But that's the ONLY basis from which you can be making those kinds of claims Your current claim seems to amount to this: certain specific people aren't stating with absolute certainty that there's no infringement. Therefore, there must be infringement. This is stupid.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 12:03 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>How will you separate this special case from other cases of copyright laundering?
By applying laws. Technical interfaces are not copyrightable.
>Are you sure Google hasn't already done this in other cases, too?Are you sure nobody else has done or will now consider doing this, following Google's example?
So what? Use only of structure definitions from include files is totally OK.
BTW, MinGW and Cygwin both do this for their "windows.h" file.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 24, 2011 5:22 UTC (Thu) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link]
It seems to me that one of the main points of misunderstanding in this issue is this quote from the LWN article of what Naughton supposedly said in his advisory:
"But if Google is right, if it has succeeded in removing all copyrightable material from the Linux kernel headers, then it has unlocked the Linux kernel from the restrictions of GPLv2. Google can now use the "clean" Bionic headers to create a non-GPL'd fork of the Linux kernel, one that can be extended under proprietary license terms...."
How does using kernel headers in user-space binaries (bionic) (which is allowed according to the quoted statements from Linus) imply that it is legal (allowed by the license) to use kernel headers to produce a non-GPL fork of the Linux kernel (which is not user-space, but kernel space)? I think the answer is "There is no such implication."
It seems to me that making a sound judgement on this issue requires both legal and technical expertise. The quote of Naughton's appears to indicate that he may have sound legal expertise, but he does not at all appear to have sound technical expertise, nor to have a sound technical consultant at his disposal.
The result appears to be a bogus argument based on a technical misunderstanding.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Apr 6, 2011 19:32 UTC (Wed) by krakensden (subscriber, #72039) [Link]
> Your analogy with the beaten wife (maybe could have come up with a less bizarre example anyway) doesn't work
He's referencing a famous explanation of 'poisoning the well', a rhetorical strategy.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 9:20 UTC (Mon) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] "keep GPL out of user-space" doesn't sound like circumvention to me. "Find a legalistic hack that lets us provide userspace stuff based on GPL without creating GPL exposure for third-party userspace developers" would be circumvention.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 14:36 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Re 1: It is a question, sure; but important it isn't. For more than a decade all sorts of propietary programs have used glibc and run under Linux, nobody ever complained about it. Re 2: While there isn't detailed research pointing one way or the other, the (limited) evidence available seems to indicate the point is moot. Also, the relevant people have explicitly stated several times what they mean by the license, see e.g. Linus on what he deems covered by GPL, see also Richard Stallman's view on header files. This surely clarifies any remaining murkiness (thanks to Groklaw's news pick for the references). Re 3.1: Sorry, but "keep GPL out of userspace" (legally!) isn't the same as "circumventing GPL" Re 3.2: I'd bet the same way than he does, sorry. The intent of the kernel folks is precisely that the GPL doesn't cross over to userland, so if/when some real problem is found here they'll work on straigtening it out.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 14:52 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Re 1) I'm not complaining -- but instead advocating -- glibc in this context. Since glibc has a genesis that is fundamentally different from that of Bionic, you can't infer anything from the fact that glibc is legally safe according to industry understanding. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Bionic used glibc, or a similar library derived from the sanitized headers.
It seems @vonbrand that you don't fully understand the genesis of the sanitized headers, so please educate yourself before you confuse people here. Again, I'm all for glibc, but Bionic is a very different animal.
Re 2) What Linus Torvalds and RMS said is not related to Bionic and doesn't answer any of the legal questions at issue here.
Re 3.1) You conflate Google's objective with the legality of its chosen means in a way that distorts what I said. The objective clearly was to work around, or "circumvent", the GPL. TheFreeDictionary defines "to circumvent" in this context as "to go around; bypass; avoid or get around by artful maneuvering." So it can be legal or illegal. In that nonjudgmental sense, there's no doubt Google sought to circumvent the GPL, and the use of a script to cut out parts of approximately 750 header files to declare the remainder (which is actually the essence of those files) non-copyrightable is at least "artful".
Re 3.2) Your bet just shows that you're unlike the decision makers at commercial software companies (or hardware and other companies that build software for commercial purposes). His bet is meaningless -- and so is your support of it -- because real decision makers will take a different perspective and Google will only convince them by actually delivering a fix, not by saying it's easy to deliver one if and when needed.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 16:35 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Re 1: Google doesn't want glibc, they wrote their own. Perfectly allowed. There never has been a requirement to use glibc (Yes, I was around when it was adopted). If they start with the headers sprinkled with holy penguin pee by doing "make install_headers" or the raw ones is something easy to fix, and probably not enough of a difference to do any harm. Re 2: Linus and RMS are talking explicitly about this exact point in the emails I link. Their intent surely means something here... if somebody came out of the woods and claimed their lines in *.h were meant only for use in GPLed code, the above, unambiguous, statements to the contrary (which as a contributor to the kernel everybody is aware of) would surely get them into big trouble. Re 3.1: OK, if it is called "circumvent the GPL" or not isn't the point. The point is that what they are doing is exactly in line with what the copyright holders intended (and stated very explicitly). If something is being done "artfully" (skillfully, clever) or plain bluntly is besides the point here. Re 3.2: My bet is mine, and mine only. Yes, extremely paranoid decision makers might shy away because of this brouhaha, but I daresay they won't take decisions for long if they insist in such views... there are certainly much more tangible risks in all sort of routine activities.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 24, 2011 5:27 UTC (Thu) by jtc (subscriber, #6246) [Link]
"Re 2: Linus and RMS are talking explicitly about this exact point in the emails I link. Their intent surely means something here... if somebody came out of the woods and claimed their lines in *.h were meant only for use in GPLed code, the above, unambiguous, statements to the contrary (which as a contributor to the kernel everybody is aware of) would surely get them into big trouble."
In other words, this quote, above, is 100% incorrect:
"Re 2) What Linus Torvalds and RMS said is not related to Bionic and doesn't answer any of the legal questions at issue here."
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 15:41 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]
Mr. Mueller,
Could you state explicitely, that you're have not been and are not currently being paid 1) by any of the companies being Google's competitors and 2) to work on PR stuff related to Google Android? Just to make things clear once and for all.
Thank you in advance,
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 16:06 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
I don't know who you are and who you work for, so you're not being nearly as transparent as I am by using my real name here. And you're off-topic. On my blog and in discussions like I express exclusively my own beliefs, and that's all I have to say about that. Now let's get back to the actual issues. Conspiracy theories are weak and pointless, especially when they're baseless like in this case.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 16:19 UTC (Mon) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link]
Thank you for answering my question in such a clear and concise manner.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 18:41 UTC (Mon) by jonquark (subscriber, #45554) [Link]
I don't think whether you are paid to campaign on this issue (or against Android in general) is off-topic. Could you just confirm that you are receiving no remuneration in connection with consultation/lobbying on Android or against Google.
If you think it's relevant despite me expressing no other opinion on this issue so far: my full legal name is Jonathan Levell. My homepage is http://www.coralbark.net/ . I am employed by IBM as a software engineer (writing closed-source middleware unconnected to this issue) but I write this comment purely in a personal capacity. I am not authorised to speak on this issue (or pretty much any other ;) by my employer and certainly do not represent them here.
A short (clear) comment from you would be both on-topic and illuminating.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 21:28 UTC (Mon) by mdakin (subscriber, #42701) [Link]
But you did not answer his question.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 23:37 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] I don't know who you are and who you work for, so you're not being nearly as transparent as I am by using my real name here.You've not disclosed any conflicts of interest. Jubal has been more transparent in this discussion. And you're off-topic.Because you link incessantly to your blog, you are in fact inserting yourself and your opinions in the discussion. Your conflicts of interest are therefore relevant. Now let's get back to the actual issues. Conspiracy theories are weak and pointless, especially when they're baseless like in this case.The actual issue is still your failure to disclose conflicts of interest, or the lack of conflicts of interest.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 22, 2011 3:55 UTC (Tue) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Florian - thanks for that comment. I'm bookmarking it, to remind myself (and perhaps others) where you stand on disclosures of conflicts of interest. (Hint: "off-topic" won't cut it with an editor of a scholarly journal, a respectable newspaper, or, for that matter, LWN.net. With scholarly journals, in particular, failure to disclose conflicts of interest is viewed as a serious ethical breach.)
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 22, 2011 12:01 UTC (Tue) by michel (subscriber, #10186) [Link]
Pretty funny how Mr. Mueller disappeared from here right after that non-answer while prior to that he pretty much immediately answered any post with his name in it. Of course, that could be a coincidence but it amuses me.
I'd say we pose the same question immediately any time he shows back up here with his comments. If it makes him disappear, I for think that it would improve the overall quality of the conversation. But if not, perhaps we'll actually get that answer at some point.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 19:26 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Excuse me, ripping out and replacing a libc is certainly something I'd not bet on for any largeish codebase. But we are talking about selecting a libc (or deciding to write our own). In which case, if I had any slight doubt of legality of using a LGPLv2.1 libc (and the considering the possibility that it'd move to LGPLv3) I'd also consider writing my own. Exactly the type of risk analysis you propose, but the result is different.
Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions. Posted Mar 21, 2011 21:14 UTC (Mon) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]
Again, I respectfully ask that you disclose any conflicts of interest.
|
|||||||||||||