| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4?Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4?Posted Aug 15, 2011 18:59 UTC (Mon) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642)Parent article: Android and the GPLv2 death penalty
The part that's missing in all this is the original violation by Google. I have never seen a report with facts that support that Google violated the GPL with regard to its distribution of Linux as part of Android/Linux. Sure, there are many downstream GPL violators, Matthew Garrett has identified plenty, but I don't see Google on that list. It's absolutely correct that under GPLv2§4 a violator loses their right to copy, modify and distribute the copyrighted work, but that presupposes some violation has occurred. As I said in the blog post I made the last time Naughton went off on this stuff, I am still waiting to see the actual GPL violation report.
(Log in to post comments)
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 15, 2011 19:58 UTC (Mon) by felipec (guest, #75494) [Link]
GPLv3? Seriously?
I see more likely the kernel project coming up with it's own licence, probably based on GPLv2, or maybe the opportunity would be ceased to create an entirely new beast that would be completely independent from GNU.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 2:13 UTC (Tue) by rusty (✭ supporter ✭, #26) [Link]
> GPLv3? Seriously?
> > I see more likely the kernel project coming up with it's own licence, > probably based on GPLv2, or maybe the opportunity would be ceased to > create an entirely new beast that would be completely independent from GNU.
Now, that seems unlikely. Mainly because coders don't have the skills to read, let along write, a license. But also much of the "sky is falling" anti-GPLv3 stuff hasn't panned out; personally I'm happy that all my kernel stuff is v2 or later.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 4:27 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the same can be said for all the 'sky is falling' anti GPLv2 stuff that was used to justify creating GPLv3
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 6:30 UTC (Tue) by rusty (✭ supporter ✭, #26) [Link]
> the same can be said for all the 'sky is falling' anti GPLv2 stuff that
> was used to justify creating GPLv3
Agreed. And it *is* annoying that lawyers (on any side) won't publicly discuss details of how to circumvent the GPL, but I understand their reasons. I also don't know how many of these exploits were practical, rather than theoretical.
But those I know involved in the drafting, such as Harald Welte and Andrew Tridgell and various lawyers were reasonably happy with the overall result. Eventually, as a user, it's time to upgrade, and for me that time has come.
Cheers,
Please back up this claim. Posted Aug 16, 2011 13:55 UTC (Tue) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] Can you please give backup for the claim that those promoting GPLv3 used I still think GPLv2 is a good license. GPLv3 is a better one.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 14:29 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
That wasn't the justification for creating GPLv3 at all. There was very clear reasons stated throughout the very large drafting process involving many members in the volunteer community and several vendors. There has been many good advantages as a end result. Apache v2 license compatibility, explicit patent license and internationalization among the large items and other several smaller ones include more explicit terms when recovering from a license violation, dealing with bittorrent distribution etc. GPLv3 *is* a better license.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 5:08 UTC (Tue) by cmccabe (subscriber, #60281) [Link]
Hmm. The COPYING file at the top level of the kernel tree says:
> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
As far as I can see, the kernel can't be relicensed from GPLv2 without the consent of all the copyright holders.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 6:17 UTC (Tue) by rusty (✭ supporter ✭, #26) [Link]
> Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Indeed, but there *are* places where "or later" is explicitly stated. It would be a major PITA to relicense to anything, but GPLv3 would be slightly easier for that reason.
Cheers,
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 20:29 UTC (Tue) by dbruce (subscriber, #57948) [Link]
"As far as I can see, the kernel can't be relicensed from GPLv2 without the consent of all the copyright holders."
IMHO, the reason the kernel is still GPLv2 is that Linus wants it that way. If he and the core kernel devs reached a consensus that they wanted to go to e.g. GPLv3 or later, any code belonging to those who refused to go along could be ripped out and replaced. Not so sure about the authors who don't reply or can't be reached, but if need be their code could be replaced as well. I just don't think there is any desire on Linus' part to switch, to put it mildly.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 20, 2011 16:21 UTC (Sat) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]
What about all the drivers maintained by hardware vendors? Some vendors have consciously decided not to licence under 'or later'. If the hardware documentation has not been made freely available then a vendor can block what it sees as a hostile rewrite. That may just result in removal of the driver and loss of business for such a vendor. But the earlier customers would also be hurt by such a removal.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 17, 2011 15:36 UTC (Wed) by felipec (guest, #75494) [Link]
> Now, that seems unlikely. Mainly because coders don't have the skills to read, let along write, a license.
Who says coders have to write a license? There's many organizations involved in Linux, some certainly must have the resources to undertake this endeavor. Who says GNU is the only organization capable of writing licenses?
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 4:56 UTC (Tue) by clacke (guest, #69542) [Link]
MPL v2 comes to mind. Coming soon to a project near you. Fits well with how Linus et al treat proprietary kernel modules.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 17, 2011 8:15 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
MPLv2 isn't a well suited license for Linus position.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060112162424/http://people.r...
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 16, 2011 20:50 UTC (Tue) by etrusco (subscriber, #4227) [Link]
This article (and Naughton's one) is not about any infringement in Android, is about the implication of previous infringement perpetrated by cell manufacturers like Samsung and LG.
Where was the original violation that kicked in GPLv2 Section 4? Posted Aug 18, 2011 21:36 UTC (Thu) by mattl (subscriber, #56508) [Link] GPLv2 section 4 is as strict as they're saying, but nobody's enforcing it that strictly against cooperative violators. That wouldn't be good for free software, which is why GPLv3 has better termination provisions.
|
|
||||||||||||