| |||||||||||||
Proprietary loadable kernel modulesProprietary loadable kernel modulesPosted Mar 21, 2011 8:42 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: Proprietary loadable kernel modules by wahern Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
It's not so hard to explain why people would fail to understand the significance of this. To understand it requires the combination of (i) a grasp of the issue (including the ability to understand that in certain contexts, uncertainty is bad enough even if there's no certainty for a bad hypothesis being true) _AND_ (ii) the ability to focus on an issue without thinking about possible sympathies for, or allegiances to, particular companies.
But again, there's a few vocal apologists and they are all quite weak. None of them has stood up to say that what Google does to those headers isn't infringing. So in a way they all agree with me :-)
Concerning LKMs, while one might try to come up with other derivative work theories, the use of copyrighted, GPL'd headers would of course be the best chance to prevail in court. All you would have to do then is request, in discovery, production of the source code of a proprietary LKM (in the US that's child's play, and even in Europe you could get to that point if you do it right). Then you prove that GPL'd material was part of the source code that was compiled, and you've won. Any other theories are far harder to prove, if they can work at all.
(Log in to post comments)
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 21, 2011 9:53 UTC (Mon) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> But again, there's a few vocal apologists and they are all quite weak. None of them has stood up to say that what Google does to those headers isn't infringing. So in a way they all agree with me :-)
If what google does is considered infringing, it'd be nice for someone to explain how it's different than what glibc does. Perhaps they're both infringing, then...
(unlikely)
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 21, 2011 9:56 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
The differences are quite fundamental. glibc uses the "sanitized" headers provided by the kernel maintainers for the purpose of creating libraries. Google reprocesses and repurposes the "raw" (original, non-sanitized) kernel headers.
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 21, 2011 11:01 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
So... what magic does the headers_install script perform to strip out copyright that the (very similar) script that Google provides omits to do? It would be trivial for Google to use the output of headers_install, and then all your doom-mongering would be for nothing (except to spread FUD, but that *of course* isn't your intention, oh no).
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 21, 2011 11:05 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
One of the differences is that the output of headers_install is provided by the kernel maintainer for the purpose of integration into C libraries. That's different than just repurposing something else.
Your thinly-veiled FUD accusation is unwarranted. If it's (according to you) trivial for Google to use the output of headers_install, and if they do that in the future, everything's fine from my point of view. I'd love to see exactly that happen, and the sooner, the better. So the easier it is for them to do it, the better. Still I believe this must be done.
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 21, 2011 12:44 UTC (Mon) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] You're talking lawyer-magic here, not reality. Only in lawyer-magic-land does it matter whether they use the "raw" headers and then create their stripped version or use the headers_install version and then create their stripped version. Lawyers may think that there's a difference, but there isn't.
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Mar 21, 2011 21:33 UTC (Mon) by chrisV (subscriber, #43417) [Link]
"It's not so hard to explain why people would fail to understand the significance of this. To understand it requires ..."
Since you are neither a lawyer nor a kernel developer, to be perfectly frank your understanding probably doesn't mean very much.
Judging by the number of post you have made to this thread, you also have a significant amount of time on your hands, so you could consider using it to obtain a legal qualification.
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Apr 18, 2011 20:31 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
What? Florian's not even a lawyer? But he spouts off so much about other poeple (hello PJ) not being lawyers and therefore not being eligible to say a blessed thing...
*boggle*
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted Apr 18, 2011 20:33 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
You miss the point here. I never said that non-lawyers are ineligible to talk about those matters. I pointed out that the avatar named "PJ" doesn't provide any background other than the status of "paralegal".
Proprietary loadable kernel modules Posted May 9, 2011 11:12 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes, you did. Over and over again. What you failed to indicate is why we should care at all, much less why we should consider her employment credentials more significant than the things she's done under the groklaw banner. "Florian does it" is not sufficient evidence.
|
|||||||||||||