[OT] The GPL and possible violations

[Michael A. Peters]

Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
routers came up.

I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
source to their modifications.

Other arguments are that the driver uses the kernel and is not a
modification to the kernel. But I don't see how it could be that way, I
see it as adding functionality to the Linux kernel (the ability to talk
to the broadcom chipset) and as such, they are shipping a modified
kernel without also shipping the source.

Any GPL license gurus have comment?

The implications of my argument are bigger than Linksys - anyone who
ships a non GPL compatible driver _with_ the Linux kernel would be in
violation of the GPL - including distributions that ship with the nvidia
drivers. It wouldn't make the the modules themselves non distributable,
just that they are non distributable with the kernel.

I'm not positive my interpretation of the GPL is correct though, so I'd
like comments from people who know it better than I do.

[Andy Green]

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies

AIUI you only have standing to mount a legal attack (or reasonably
threaten it) if you have copyright on kernel code that the module is
linking to.  Therefore if you want to beat on Linksys you need to get a
kernel contributor on board.

The binary kernel module question is a deliberate big fudge-up, it is
strongly disapproved of but nVidia and vmware modules are tolerated
without attack for example.  So you are potentially opening a big can of
worms with some kernel contribs pulling one way and others another.  If
you want to go on talk to Greg Kroah Hartmann about it

http://www.kroah.com/log/2005/11/21/#gpl_pci_core

Eben Moglen has tried to de-heisenberg this particular cat

http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/

-Andy

[Joel Rees]

2006-02-17 (金) の 01:57 -0800 に Michael A. Peters さんは書きました:
> Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> routers came up.
>
> I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> source to their modifications.
>
> Other arguments are that the driver uses the kernel and is not a
> modification to the kernel. But I don't see how it could be that way, I
> see it as adding functionality to the Linux kernel (the ability to talk
> to the broadcom chipset) and as such, they are shipping a modified
> kernel without also shipping the source.
>
> Any GPL license gurus have comment?
>
> The implications of my argument are bigger than Linksys - anyone who
> ships a non GPL compatible driver _with_ the Linux kernel would be in
> violation of the GPL - including distributions that ship with the nvidia
> drivers. It wouldn't make the the modules themselves non distributable,
> just that they are non distributable with the kernel.
>
> I'm not positive my interpretation of the GPL is correct though, so I'd
> like comments from people who know it better than I do.

Less a question of what the GPL says and more a question of how the
authors of the kernel intend it, from what I understand. It's in a gray
area, and Stallman would probably agree with you, but is Stallman one of
the copyright owners of the kernel?

[Ian Malone]

On 2/17/06, Joel Rees  wrote:
> 2006-02-17 (金) の 01:57 -0800 に Michael A. Peters さんは書きました:
> > Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> > routers came up.
> >
> > I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> > the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> > if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> > thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> > shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> > source to their modifications.

As someone else has pointed out you can only really take action if
you're a contributor to the code that's being used (which is why the
FSF are so strict about copyright assignments for their stuff).  If you're
a minor contributor the most I think you could do is withdraw your code
from the kernel (which you'd be in your rights to do if you could show
the kernel people had contributed to licence violation).
> > Other arguments are that the driver uses the kernel and is not a
> > modification to the kernel. But I don't see how it could be that way, I
> > see it as adding functionality to the Linux kernel (the ability to talk
> > to the broadcom chipset) and as such, they are shipping a modified
> > kernel without also shipping the source.

An alternative view is that the kernel is designed to use modules and
the people who created it designed it like that.  It is a grey area,
seemingly intentionally so on the parts of the FSF and Linus (and for
different reasons I'd guess).  Making something a grey area is not going
to help their position if someone does end up in a courtroom.
> > Any GPL license gurus have comment?
> >
> > The implications of my argument are bigger than Linksys - anyone who
> > ships a non GPL compatible driver _with_ the Linux kernel would be in
> > violation of the GPL - including distributions that ship with the nvidia
> > drivers. It wouldn't make the the modules themselves non distributable,
> > just that they are non distributable with the kernel.
> >
> > I'm not positive my interpretation of the GPL is correct though, so I'd
> > like comments from people who know it better than I do.
>
> Less a question of what the GPL says and more a question of how the
> authors of the kernel intend it, from what I understand. It's in a gray
> area, and Stallman would probably agree with you, but is Stallman one of
> the copyright owners of the kernel?

If he is he's certainly not one of the leading ones.  It was mentionned in
a UK magazine (Linux Developeer and User I think) that there was a recent
dust-up on the kernel mailing list on this issue.  Anyone here follow it?

--
imalone

[Michael A. Peters]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 19:10 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> Less a question of what the GPL says and more a question of how the
> authors of the kernel intend it, from what I understand. It's in a gray
> area, and Stallman would probably agree with you, but is Stallman one of
> the copyright owners of the kernel?

Actually it's not - it is the GPL that governs the distribution rights
to the software (in this case the kernel), not the unwritten intent of
the developers.

[Andy Green]

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Actually it's not - it is the GPL that governs the distribution rights
> to the software (in this case the kernel), not the unwritten intent of
> the developers.

nVidia binary seems to exist on the basis of "unwritten intent of the
developers".

Another guy worth talking to is Harald Welte:

http://gpl-violations.org/

In the Tom Tom case

http://gpl-violations.org/news/20041024-linux-tomtom.html

It seems that a central element was "The source code for the Linux
Operating System Kernel, including TomTom's own modifications, is now
made available at http://www.tomtom.com/gpl."

-Andy

[Mike McCarty]

Joel Rees wrote:
> 2006-02-17 (金) の 01:57 -0800 に Michael A. Peters さんは書きました:
> > Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> > routers came up.
> >
> > I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> > the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> > if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> > thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> > shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> > source to their modifications.
> >
> > Other arguments are that the driver uses the kernel and is not a
> > modification to the kernel. But I don't see how it could be that way, I
> > see it as adding functionality to the Linux kernel (the ability to talk
> > to the broadcom chipset) and as such, they are shipping a modified
> > kernel without also shipping the source.
> >
> > Any GPL license gurus have comment?
> >
> > The implications of my argument are bigger than Linksys - anyone who
> > ships a non GPL compatible driver _with_ the Linux kernel would be in
> > violation of the GPL - including distributions that ship with the nvidia
> > drivers. It wouldn't make the the modules themselves non distributable,
> > just that they are non distributable with the kernel.
> >
> > I'm not positive my interpretation of the GPL is correct though, so I'd
> > like comments from people who know it better than I do.
>
> Less a question of what the GPL says and more a question of how the
> authors of the kernel intend it, from what I understand. It's in a gray
> area, and Stallman would probably agree with you, but is Stallman one of
> the copyright owners of the kernel?

I can answer this... He is not. In fact, in some exchanges with
him that I've seen, he has expressed some exasperation that most
of what people call "Linux" is actually "GNU", and not Linux at all.
Linux is a kernel, and that's all. All the other stuff, like ls,
mv, cp, etc. is GNU, and not Linux.

Mike

[Matt Higgins]

Here is what linus thinks

http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

On 2/17/06, Michael A. Peters  wrote:
> Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> routers came up.
>
> I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> source to their modifications.
>
> Other arguments are that the driver uses the kernel and is not a
> modification to the kernel. But I don't see how it could be that way, I
> see it as adding functionality to the Linux kernel (the ability to talk
> to the broadcom chipset) and as such, they are shipping a modified
> kernel without also shipping the source.
>
> Any GPL license gurus have comment?
>
> The implications of my argument are bigger than Linksys - anyone who
> ships a non GPL compatible driver _with_ the Linux kernel would be in
> violation of the GPL - including distributions that ship with the nvidia
> drivers. It wouldn't make the the modules themselves non distributable,
> just that they are non distributable with the kernel.
>
> I'm not positive my interpretation of the GPL is correct though, so I'd
> like comments from people who know it better than I do.
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[Michael A. Peters]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 07:22 -0500, Matt Higgins wrote:
> Here is what linus thinks
>
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735

That's for shipping a binary module.
Shipping a kernel with a binary module is different in my view - because
shipping the kernel means you are shipping GPL software that is modified
by the kernel module.

If you are just shipping the binary module - and not the kernel, you
aren't shipping a GPL product that the module modifies when loaded.
That's what nvidia does - they ship a module, the user installs the
module. But with linksys - they are shipping a kernel that has its
functionality altered by the module - just as if they had compiled it
into the kernel itself.

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 07:25, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> > Here is what linus thinks
> >
> > http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735
>
> That's for shipping a binary module.
> Shipping a kernel with a binary module is different in my view - because
> shipping the kernel means you are shipping GPL software that is modified
> by the kernel module.
>
> If you are just shipping the binary module - and not the kernel, you
> aren't shipping a GPL product that the module modifies when loaded.
> That's what nvidia does - they ship a module, the user installs the
> module. But with linksys - they are shipping a kernel that has its
> functionality altered by the module - just as if they had compiled it
> into the kernel itself.

Isn't that the same claim that SCO has tried to make - that
anything developed for and compiled with the Unix kernel
is covered by their copyright and controlled by their
terms regardless of who wrote it?

--
  Les Mikesell
    [e-mail]

[Michael A. Peters]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 07:35 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Isn't that the same claim that SCO has tried to make - that
> anything developed for and compiled with the Unix kernel
> is covered by their copyright and controlled by their
> terms regardless of who wrote it?

No - not at all.
Different scenario all together.

Ship a binary driver by itself - you aren't shipping any GPL code.
nvidia could ship their driver with their video cards, for example - and
be fine.

But once you are shipping the kernel, you have to abide by the GPL or
else you have no right to distribute the kernel at all. Since the binary
module adds functionality to the kernel, it is a modification to the GPL
product (kernel) you are shipping - and therefore has to be released
with a GPL compatible license.

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 08:14, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> > Isn't that the same claim that SCO has tried to make - that
> > anything developed for and compiled with the Unix kernel
> > is covered by their copyright and controlled by their
> > terms regardless of who wrote it?
>
> No - not at all.
> Different scenario all together.

The laws don't change from one product to another.
> Ship a binary driver by itself - you aren't shipping any GPL code.
> nvidia could ship their driver with their video cards, for example - and
> be fine.

That seems to be a fuzzy area.
> But once you are shipping the kernel, you have to abide by the GPL or
> else you have no right to distribute the kernel at all. Since the binary
> module adds functionality to the kernel, it is a modification to the GPL
> product (kernel) you are shipping - and therefore has to be released
> with a GPL compatible license.

If the module is a separate file and doesn't infringe separately
then you'd be able to ship them together under the
'mere aggregration' clause.

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 03:57, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> routers came up.
>
> I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> source to their modifications.

Regardless of what the GPL does or doesn't say, it only has
effect based on copyright law, so a violation must match
the legal definition of a derived work.  SCO has a flock
of lawyers trying to prove a similar case that anything
developed for Unix belongs to them regardless of who
wrote it.  Perhaps they'll be unemployed soon so someone
could hire them to do even more damage to Linux with
this line of argument.

But unlike patents, copyright law says that something has
to be copied to have a violation.  If you could write a
module with an interface definition (and there should be
a fair-use argument if you couldn't - you might want to
remember why *bsd and Linux are allowed to have compatible
header files with Unix) then no copying happens.  Also
consider something like NDISwrapper.  It's absurd to think
that a binary NDIS driver written with no knowledge of the
Linux kernel could violate it's copyright.  If someone
wanted to pursue the issue it might be possible to make
module writers split their work into two parts - one provided
in source and GPL'd that connects to the kernel interface
and provides the interface to the binary portion - but
I don't quite see the point.

[Andy Green]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> wanted to pursue the issue it might be possible to make
> module writers split their work into two parts - one provided
> in source and GPL'd that connects to the kernel interface
> and provides the interface to the binary portion - but
> I don't quite see the point.

FWIW nVidia and vmware at least do do this.  There is a technical
advantage that it insulates the genuninely binary portion from ABI
fragility by allowing small changes in the open shim part.

-Andy

[Andy Green]

Andy Green wrote:
> > in source and GPL'd that connects to the kernel interface
> FWIW nVidia and vmware at least do do this.  There is a technical

Whoops... kind of missed the key point there.... they provide sources to
compile but not under a free license.  Sorry about that.

-Andy

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:23 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> Andy Green wrote:
> > > in source and GPL'd that connects to the kernel interface
> > FWIW nVidia and vmware at least do do this.  There is a technical
>
> Whoops... kind of missed the key point there.... they provide sources to
> compile but not under a free license.  Sorry about that.

I don't know about vmware, but Nvidia doesn't.

They provide a wrapper's sources, but the core of their work is binary
only. It's basically the "sdk/link-kit" approach they apply, a pretty
common way to avoid restrictions of OpenSource licenses.

The distributor ships binaries, but leaves final linking and compiling
of the "glue" code to the end user.

Ralf

[Andy Green]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:23 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> > Andy Green wrote:
> > > > in source and GPL'd that connects to the kernel interface
> > > FWIW nVidia and vmware at least do do this.  There is a technical
> > > advantage that it insulates the genuninely binary portion from ABI
> > > fragility by allowing small changes in the open shim part.
> > Whoops... kind of missed the key point there.... they provide sources to
> > compile but not under a free license.  Sorry about that.
>
> I don't know about vmware, but Nvidia doesn't.
>
> They provide a wrapper's sources, but the core of their work is binary
> only. It's basically the "sdk/link-kit" approach they apply, a pretty

Hi Ralf -

I expanded the quotes above to show this was in fact what I was talking
about.

-Andy

[Rudolf Kastl]

2006/2/18, Andy Green :
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:23 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> > > Andy Green wrote:
> > > > > in source and GPL'd that connects to the kernel interface
> > > > FWIW nVidia and vmware at least do do this.  There is a technical
> > > > advantage that it insulates the genuninely binary portion from ABI
> > > > fragility by allowing small changes in the open shim part.
> > > Whoops... kind of missed the key point there.... they provide sources to
> > > compile but not under a free license.  Sorry about that.
> >
> > I don't know about vmware, but Nvidia doesn't.
> >
> > They provide a wrapper's sources, but the core of their work is binary
> > only. It's basically the "sdk/link-kit" approach they apply, a pretty
>
> Hi Ralf -
>
> I expanded the quotes above to show this was in fact what I was talking
> about.
>
> -Andy
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Actually the nvidia kernel module is not a derivate of the kernel
because its a ported driver. The gpl also gives every user rights and
dutys on the software.
i as a user can demand the source code fo a gpl derivate just fine
without beeing an upstream author/developer. Seems like some of you
confuse that with license changes :).

regards,
Rudolf Kastl

p.s. read the gpl and loop that atleast 3 times.

[OT] Source of enforcement capability for the license

[Andy Green]

Rudolf Kastl wrote:
> Actually the nvidia kernel module is not a derivate of the kernel
> because its a ported driver. The gpl also gives every user rights and
> dutys on the software.

Linus has said the same thing when discussing nVidia.
> i as a user can demand the source code fo a gpl derivate just fine
> without beeing an upstream author/developer. Seems like some of you
> confuse that with license changes :).

Confusion is rife alright... you can demand what you like, but the power
to enforce your demand in the GPL is coming through copyright law, and
those powers in law are granted only to the guy that holds copyright on
the work.

To bring such a complaint before the court you have to have standing in
the eyes of copyright law and that means to hold copyright on the work.
 The GPL is a license from the copyright holder to allow you to copy
under certain constraints, not an assignment of copyright or an
agreement giving you or anyone distributed to power of attorney over the
rights of the copyright holder to decide what to do.

After all, what if the guy that actually holds copyright disagrees with
your assessment that such and such is derivation?  Some random guy who
got a copy should hardly be able to trump the guy that actually did the
work.

-Andy

[Michael A. Peters]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 08:03 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 03:57, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> > Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> > routers came up.
> >
> > I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> > the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> > if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> > thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> > shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> > source to their modifications.
>
> Regardless of what the GPL does or doesn't say, it only has
> effect based on copyright law, so a violation must match
> the legal definition of a derived work.

The point is - you only have permission to distribute the kernel if you
follow the GPL. Whether your module is a derived work doesn't matter, it
modified the function of the kernel and therefore the kernel you are
distributing is a derived work - so the module has to be released under
a GPL compatible license or else you don't have permission to distribute
the kernel.

You may still have permission to distribute your module - it's the
kernel where I see there being a potential issue.

[jdow]

Another troll. This list is turning pretty sour - again.

View the LKML archives. This issue has been hashed over and over and
over again. There is no need to do so again.

{o.o}
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael A. Peters"
> Having a discussion on the GPL - and the broadcom driver in Linksys
> routers came up.
>
> I'm taking the position that since it is a kernel module, it modifies
> the kernel when the kernel loads it - and thus, it is no different than
> if they were shipping a static kernel with the module compiled in, and
> thus they (Linksys) are in violation of the GPL because they are
> shipping a modified GPL product (the kernel) without releasing the
> source to their modifications.
>
> Other arguments are that the driver uses the kernel and is not a
> modification to the kernel. But I don't see how it could be that way, I
> see it as adding functionality to the Linux kernel (the ability to talk
> to the broadcom chipset) and as such, they are shipping a modified
> kernel without also shipping the source.
>
> Any GPL license gurus have comment?
>
> The implications of my argument are bigger than Linksys - anyone who
> ships a non GPL compatible driver _with_ the Linux kernel would be in
> violation of the GPL - including distributions that ship with the nvidia
> drivers. It wouldn't make the the modules themselves non distributable,
> just that they are non distributable with the kernel.
>
> I'm not positive my interpretation of the GPL is correct though, so I'd
> like comments from people who know it better than I do.

[Michael A. Peters]

On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:30 -0800, jdow wrote:
> Another troll. This list is turning pretty sour - again.

This is NOT a troll.
Just for your information - Linux is the only OS I use, and the only OS
I have used in quite some time.

And no - this hasn't been discussed that I have seen.
This is a different issue than distributing binary modules - this is
distributing the binary modules WITH the kernel.

-=-

For reference, see the fluendo mp3 plugin.
They make it clear that you can't distribute it with GPL gstreamer
software for the same reason - the GPL gstreamer software (ie rhythmbox)
would gain functionality from the plugin - therefore, it would be a GPL
violation to distribute the GPL software with their free mp3 plugin -
that doesn't make the plugin not OK - nor does it make it not OK to use
it with GPL software - it is the _distribution_ where there is an issue.

How is the kernel scenario any different?

[Andy Green]

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:30 -0800, jdow wrote:
> > Another troll. This list is turning pretty sour - again.
>
> This is NOT a troll.

Right - this is a serious issue.  I am working on an Embedded Linux
device and would be in Linksys' position.  As it happened for technical
reasons our driver will only work when compiled into the actual kernel
tree, so we were left with no real choice but to GPL the source.  But
certainly there would otherwise have been a raging argument as to
whether we should have tried to keep the module binary-only.

I am sat here in front of the nVidia binary running my displays.  I have
two 54Mbps WiFi cards I can't use because they only have Windows binary
drivers and I don't want to use ndiswrapper.

One way or another if there is an attack on Linksys that's something we
will all be feeling the ramifications of for good and/or ill.

-Andy

[Christofer C. Bell]

On 2/18/06, Michael A. Peters  wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 14:30 -0800, jdow wrote:
> > Another troll. This list is turning pretty sour - again.
>
> This is NOT a troll.
> Just for your information - Linux is the only OS I use, and the only OS
> I have used in quite some time.
>
> And no - this hasn't been discussed that I have seen.
> This is a different issue than distributing binary modules - this is
> distributing the binary modules WITH the kernel.

Aggregate media (read: simply having a file on distribution media that
also contains GPL software) does not fall under the GPL.  This is
explicitly stated in the license and also by RMS himself.  There is no
point to discuss.

--
Chris

"I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford.  I
trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."