| |||||||||||||
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matterGoogle should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matterPosted Mar 21, 2011 16:14 UTC (Mon) by dank (guest, #1865)In reply to: Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter by wingo Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
IANAL, but:
In the US, law recognizes that the boundary between "disallowable copy of the expression of an idea" and "allowable reuse of an idea" is a fuzzy one, and tends towards allowing the use of really simple, essential ideas (like how the lines of a financial table are laid out, or how the elements of a struct are laid out). See http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/altai.html
Since the sanitized headers are (or should be) just a bunch of names, table offsets, sizes, and similar things, their use is likely the allowable reuse of ideas. This reading is bolstered by the fact that the authors of those lines of the kernel marked them with #ifndef __KERNEL__ to indicate they were intended to define the API to be used by userspace.
(Log in to post comments)
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 3:52 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Here's the issue reduced to it's simplest form:
struct foo { int x, y; };
#if __KERNEL__
struct bar { int x, y; };
#end /* __KERNEL__ */
Now Google says that this is not copyrightable:
struct foo { int x, y; };
What, then, makes this copyrightable:
struct bar { int x, y; };
Either they both are, or neither. Whatever it is that makes one copyrightable also makes the other copyrightable; they rise and fall together. Whatever transformation makes one not copyrightable could make the other not copyrightable. They're symmetric. Those magic __KERNEL__ guards don't effect whether one section or the other can be copyrighted; they merely outline the contours of the explicit and implied license grants once we've established actual, copyrighted material.
The same symmetry applies further up the ladder. Either kernel interfaces are protected expression and Google is violating their license by stripping notices, or Google is in the clear and kernel interfaces en toto aren't protected. Again, the boundaries of those magical __KERNEL__ guards don't dictate what interfaces are copyrightable. The same Altai, SCO, et al analyses of copyrightable subject-matter apply equally across the board. For every ctype.h outside of the include guards, there's something equally insubstantially expressive within the include guards; and for every copyrightable selection within the include guards there's something equally substantially expressive outside of the include guards. It doesn't matter what the test is: qualitative versus quantitative, too abstract versus de minimis creativity.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 4:13 UTC (Tue) by dank (guest, #1865) [Link]
One story is that most examples of 'foo' are specified by
POSIX, and are stable, whereas most examples of 'bar' are unstable internal kernel interfaces. POSIX interface documentation is also available under a free license, see http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-Dec...
But that's not enough; what about the other 'foo's that are part of Linux's extensions to POSIX?
Linus wrote on 19 Oct 2001 (see http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modul...):
So there y'go. It's different because Linus said it is.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 14:23 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Just peruse the Android git tree. We're not talking about syscall tables for POSIX interfaces. Those sorts of things constitute a mere fraction of the total of their tree. Most of the tree defines interfaces to Linux-original subsystems.
Yes, most of the unguarded sections are meant to be used in user-space. That's inconsequential. That's like saying all of your header files for your libfoo are not copyrightable. What does it matter what it's going to be used for? What makes something copyrightable is inherent in the content, not the authors' intentions for it.
And the question of how "thin" your copyright can be in headers doesn't amount to much, either. Can there be copyright in "struct foo"? "struct foo; struct bar;"? "struct foo; struct bar; struce t baz"? Google is saying it doesn't matter. No code in headers is copyrightable, period. Which amounts to saying that copyright can't subsist in the definition of your API. Which begs the question, if an API isn't copyrightable how can you prevent derivative use of that API? You can't. Not until your code is linked and loaded and running with the implementation would it be derivative. Which means there's no functional difference between the GPL and LGPL, if what they're doing is legal.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 14:59 UTC (Tue) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link]
Oh, for pity sake... Use of system calls is NOT MAKING YOUR CODE DERVATVE. POSIX or not, doesn't matter - just read the sodding license, already. Permission to use the definitions needed for use of said system calls follows from that.
And frankly, what you are trying to push is vile. On par with look-and-feel copyrights.
Incidentally, if libfoo provides only one function that takes no arguments and returns int, not adding any #include at all will *NOT* allow you to escape the need to comply with the license of libfoo. And no, it's not because the identifier "foo" in int n = foo(); is copyrightable.
Get a clue, get a life and piss off, already...
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 16:42 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Not one thing you said in your comment disputes what I said, nor do I disagree with the specific points you made other than your slights against me. If only you would read English as closely as C.
And I will piss off. You can continue living in the dark. And you can continue thinking that you have to cling to an improper understanding of the issue because of some other consequence you can neither perceive nor articulate. You're inability to distinguish the legal argument from your commitment to supporting Google's otherwise laudable work is disappointing.
Good day, sir.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 16:53 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
Actually, upon more careful reading I do disagree with what viro you said, because it's conflating copyright subject matter with licensing. What makes something derivative is a matter of law that can't be avoided by a license. Though I'm not disputing that mere use of a system call does not necessarily make something derivative (I'm not insinuating anything by being circumspect with my words, either); nor that a license can make derivative use okay.
I respond only to protect my name; what with archiving and all. I'm not returning to this thread for the foreseeable future.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 15:52 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] Bingo. Despite your implicit scepticism, this is the correct analysis. There is no functional difference between the GPLv2 and LGPLv2 in the case of an external library that is being linked. I limit that statement to v2 simply because I haven't examined v3 in enough detail to have a separate opinion. The FSF argues otherwise, but that does not make them correct on this point. You pointed that out yourself: "What makes something copyrightable is inherent in the content, not the authors' intentions for it." IANAL and all that.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 4:40 UTC (Tue) by swetland (subscriber, #63414) [Link]
I can't comment on theory about what's copyrightable or not (I'm not a lawyer), but I can offer this fact:
The primary motivator in subsetting the kernel headers is to end up with a minimal set of headers necessary to encompass the userspace<->kernel interface surface, and avoid clutter, confusion, or future brokenness by avoiding exposing userspace to anything more than is strictly necessary to make calls into the kernel.
From a support standpoint, anything in headers that doesn't need to be there (as far as structures, function declarations, etc) is something that might break when we refresh the headers from a newer kernel version.
Knowing the habits of application developers, if we didn't yank the #if __KERNEL__ sections, *somebody* would inevitably write code that #define __KERNEL__ 1 and included some linux header for some absurd reason and then they'd be cranky if it stopped working in the future.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 12:28 UTC (Tue) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
In this particular example, both would probably be judged to be trivial, and to lack sufficient content to be worthy of copyright. Exactly what is worthy, varies by jurisdiction, but I'm not aware of any where "struct foo { int x, y; };" would suffice.
Notice, as a parallell, how Wikipedia commons claim, after careful legal review, that a flat-on photo of a 2-dimensional work of art, does not enjoy copyright. (the work of art may or may not, but the PHOTO as such, does not), because there's not sufficient creativity and/or artistic skill involved in the creation.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. So if a certain struct, or a certain photo, does not contribute beyond the idea itself, then it's not protected by copyright.
Yes the borders are fuzzy.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 14:09 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
I wasn't trying to be literal. There's little doubt that "struct foo" is bereft of original, creative expression. It was merely an exercise which in substance is no different when you apply the analysis to the larger tree.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 23, 2011 8:18 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
Like always with non-trivial question the answer is "it depends".
Some people in CompSci tends to think in overly strict principal lines, wanting the grey to go away. Perhaps this has something to do with how a computer works, in binary. But it's not how law works.
If one sentence contains insufficient creativity and/or artistic skill to be worthy of copyright, it does -not- follow that 50 similarily well-written sentences as a whole *also* does not deserve copyright.
In practice, merely doing more of the same, can give copyright. The creativity and/or artistic skill which is there adds up, and at some point crosses the threshold. This message as a whole, for example, may well be sufficient - whereas any individual sentence in it, would likely not be. (and I'm sure many of the sentences have been used in a very similar form before by others)
What I'm saying is, you *cannot* generalise from trivial examples to the whole tree. It's certainly possible that each of the examples, in isolation, is unprotected, while the sum total is protected.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 23, 2011 19:26 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
> Some people in CompSci tends to think in overly strict principal lines, wanting the grey to go away. Perhaps this has something to do with how a computer works, in binary. But it's not how law works.
Or perhaps it's how reasonable people think? Many laws are designed to be wishy washy so that the people who speak in vague illogical terms and who spend money on lawyers can take advantage of those reasonable people who don't. Copyright is just one of the many examples of this. Patents are an obvious other.
The fact that this discussion is currently over 100 comments of bickering over the understanding of copyright, likely by professionals who actually operate in the copyright field daily, should tell you that the concept of copyright is beyond grey, and very vague. This is not a subject matter that any law could ever be fair about. It is not a subject matter that you could expect juries to reasonably agree upon in a consistent matter. It is simply a bad use (not just a bad implementation) of law.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 22, 2011 14:43 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
So what are you arguing? That every userspace program is a derived work of the Linux Kernel? Because there's nothing substantially different from what glibc is doing than what bionic is doing; they rise and fall together.
Google should strip out unreferenced symbols... but it probably doesn't matter Posted Mar 23, 2011 21:06 UTC (Wed) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] Either they both are, or neither. Whatever it is that makes one copyrightable also makes the other copyrightable; they rise and fall together. Even if both are copyrightable, Google's ability to use them without getting in copyright trouble is not necessarily the same. It may be fair use to copy the public symbols because they are part of a defined interface and hence necessary for compatibility. The same does not hold for the internal interface.
|
|||||||||||||