Obfuscated "GPL" driver?

Posted Oct 21, 2015 22:55 UTC (Wed) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106)
In reply to: Obfuscated "GPL" driver? by sfeam
Parent article: Status updates for three graphics drivers

> So according to that theory, the author of the work has fewer rights with respect to combining it than 3rd party recipients have? ... It would be strange to reject a contribution from the original author while saying the same bit of code with the same controlling license would be acceptable if passed through a 3rd party.

That would not be my argument. It seems to be what Wol is suggesting. I would argue that neither the original author nor 3rd party recipients have the right to combine obfuscated code (even if provided under a GPL license from the author) with other GPL code where the obfuscated version is not deemed by the other contributors to be in the "preferred form for modification".

> You lost me at the point where somehow "other contributors" get to decide what GPL works can be combined. So far as I know, that level of control was ceded by releasing the contribution as a GPL work in the first place. After that they no longer have control over how it is combined with other GPL works.

There are requirements about how GPL projects can be modified beyond simply that the modifications must also be released under the GPL. One of those requirements is that the source code of your altered version must be provided to others in the "preferred form for modification". Whether you consider that form to be determined by the previous contributors, the FSF, or "community standards", it clearly can't be left entirely up to the author of the modifications.

As I said before, the clause is really much to vague, but all the same it's a critical part of ensuring that the source code the GPL requires is actually usable code, and not obfuscated to the point that it provides nothing beyond what you could get by disassembling the binary.

Obfuscated "GPL" driver?

Posted Oct 22, 2015 0:45 UTC (Thu) by smckay (guest, #103253) [Link] (1 responses)

No one in their right mind is going to argue in good faith that the Vivante driver is in the preferred form for modification. I doubt that anyone not in their right mind would argue it either--for example, LoseThOS/TempleOS/SparrowOS guy is obviously not quite totally sane but his code is still far, far better than obfuscated C. You have to provide something that is recognizably source code that a human might be willing to open in vi and make changes to. It can't be QR codes printed on 10 reams of copy paper, it can't be the output of gcc -S, it can't be a pile of tortuous crap that's obviously been run through an obfuscator. Someone else could argue differently, and IANAL, but courts seem to notice when they're presented with jackass arguments like "no, really, git history notwithstanding, I PREFER to modify obfuscated source" and don't appreciate it.

Obfuscated "GPL" driver?

Posted Oct 22, 2015 17:32 UTC (Thu) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> No one in their right mind is going to argue in good faith that the Vivante driver is in the preferred form for modification.

I agree. That doesn't prevent the Vivante driver code from being released under a GPL license, so long as the work isn't considered derivative; copyright holders are not bound by the terms of the licenses they grant to others. Which leads to the question that I've been asking: could someone take the GPL-licensed (but obfuscated) Vivante driver, build a binary which is a derivative work of both the Vivante driver and the Linux kernel, and distribute that binary without violating the GPL license of the kernel?