GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 21, 2011 16:10 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
In reply to: GPL not legally vetted? by vonbrand
Parent article: Kuhn: Clarification on Android, its (Lack of) Copyleft-ness, and GPL Enforcement

While there are details of GPL that aren't tested in court of law, its meaning is clear enough

You might want to read Heather Meeker's book "The Open Source Alternative", particularly the chapter on the GPL Borderline Dispute (concerning copyleft). The GPL is irretrievably ambiguous in that area (and in others, too).

And what RMS and Linus think the license means has some legal relevance, even while not completely binding.

What they think has relevance to a court's decision only as what may be regarded as persuasive authority, but persuasive authority ranks relatively low among all of what goes into a proper construction of contract terms.

And the folks at Red Hat (whose livelyhood depends on assorted licenses)

That's a non sequitur, at least without a convincing explanation. Red Hat itself supports weak copyleft interpretations (closed-source nVIDIA drivers etc.), but apart from that, I can't see how Red Hat's business model depends much on the copyleft borderline issue. They could always adjust their business model to court decisions (should they ever have to).

the people from IBM (who invested heavily in Linux) did too

IBM also does a lot of business based on permissive licenses (particularly Apache). So again, I don't see the business logic of what you're trying to say.

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 21, 2011 18:19 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] (5 responses)

You've made a very disappointing selective quote. I'll provide it in it's entirety:

While there are details of GPL that aren't tested in court of law, its meaning is clear enough that controversies around it haven't reached the courts. Most are silently settled.

Now here's something you've said with regard to Nvidia:

Red Hat itself supports weak copyleft interpretations (closed-source nVIDIA drivers etc.)...

Perhaps you missed that Red Hat sponsors and distributes only the open source nouveau driver? Are you intentionally being dishonest?

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 21, 2011 18:28 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (4 responses)

If anything here is "very disappointing", it's the quality of your comment I'm replying to.

Your entire quote concerning "tested in court of law" doesn't change anything about the accuracy or relevance of what I said. I stopped at "clear enough" because that's the point I commented on. It was a legitimate way to stay focused. It was not like taking anything out of context.

Concerning nVIDIA, what difference does Red Hat's sponsorship and distribution of "only the open source nouveau driver" make? The question is whether Red Hat believes that closed-source Linux drivers are acceptable from a GPL point of view. Red Hat's position (and that of its EU evangelist taken in a Twittersation with me) is that it's OK to do such drivers as long as they're distributed separately. Of course, since their position is that the GPL can be circumvented by distributing such code separately (I don't think so, but they apparently do), they can't distribute it themselves along with GPL'd code.

But the thing they would do, if they really wanted strong copyleft, is to sue nVIDIA for release of its source code, claiming it's a derivative work.

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 21, 2011 18:57 UTC (Sat) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]

Your entire quote concerning "tested in court of law" doesn't change anything about the accuracy or relevance of what I said. I stopped at "clear enough" because that's the point I commented on. It was a legitimate way to stay focused. It was not like taking anything out of context.

Except that you selectively quoted, and answered out of context. This is unfortunate behaviour of yours.

Regarding Nvidia, you made a dishonest and uninformed argument. Worse, you're attempting to change the topic again. Please, take a moment to understand the nouveau project.

I suppose I'm flattered by your disappointment.

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 22, 2011 5:10 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link] (2 responses)

> But the thing they would do, if they really wanted strong copyleft, is to
> sue nVIDIA for release of its source code, claiming it's a derivative work

So not suing over something automatically means that you "believe that behavior is acceptable"? Since you're the "expert," can I quote you on that?

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 22, 2011 6:05 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

Note that I said all of this against the background of vonbrand claiming that Red Hat's livelihood depends on this. If it livelihood depended on strong copyleft for Linux, they would definitely fight to have closed source drivers by such a major player declared illegal. They might not care about little or subtle violations, but again, if (as vonbrand claims) this was about their livelihood, they would take action.

GPL not legally vetted?

Posted May 22, 2011 15:01 UTC (Sun) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link]

There's a certain irony in your words here. Vonbrand didn't claim Red Hat's livelihood depends on Red Hat suing Nvidia. Your entire position is that litigation is evidence that you support, or do not support, positions. Surely your "Twittersation" -- your words -- clears all of this up.

I keep mentioning the Nouveau project because it's a concrete position taken by Red Hat with regard to Nvidia drivers. Yet you mentioned Nvidia in an attempt to spread misinformation. You've been caught.