Re: module license taints kernel.

On Nov 26, 11:24 am, Lajos Parkatti ISES <lpark...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

In any event, the GPL grants you the right to copy and distribute the
original works. For copyright purposes, the result of linking is the
original works.

It grants you those rights, given that you obey the GPL. Not otherwise.

Unfortunately this gets extremely technical. I wish I could explain it
in simple terms but I really can't. The answer comes from two places:

1) You are confusing *who* needs to comply with the GPL. If you
distribute and copy a GPL'd work and I get a copy, that doesn't mean
that *I* need to comply with the GPL, it only means you do.

2) You can't use a license to create copyright violation claims based
on violation of that license. In other words, you can't use a license
to make failure to release source code a copyright violation.

When you distribute the sections you wrote yourself as part of a whole
which is a work based on the program the distribution of the whole
must be on the terms of the GPL - and wouldn't the kernel combined
with your module clearly be such such a whole?

The answer to whether it clearly is -- no. If the module is not a
derivative work of the kernel, then the two of them combined cannot be
either. In that case, it's likely not a "work based on the program"
because it's not a work. Linkers don't create works, people do.

You may distribute your non-derived work as you please, but you may
not distribute the GPL:ed program together whith it, if they form a
"whole", i.e. if they _combined_ are a derivative work. In the
aggregate you surely use creative expression from the original work.

Clearly they are not if they are combined by a linker. A linker can't
create a new work, so it can't create a derivative work where there
wasn't one before.

If you write a C program and I write a 'malloc' replacement, the two
of them linked together is not a work unless the linker was invoked in
some creative way.

Mere aggregation on a distribution medium is not covered, but I have a
hard time finding putting your module in /lib/modules/* being mere
aggregation on a distribution medium. You seem to argue that even the
running kernel is a "mere aggregation" of independent works. That
sounds crazy.

That's exactly what I'm arguing. That a linker is just like tar+gzip.
Any *non-creative* process that methodically copies bits and pieces of
the works and combines them is a mere aggregator. The opposite of
"mere aggregation" is creatively selective combination and extension.

Right, except no copying or distributing is needed. I can download 100
copies of the Linux kernel from kernel.org, and I can put them on CD
and give them to 100 of my friends without either copying or
distributing the kernel, legally speaking.

Maybe. But then that kernel _is_ tainted. It cannot be distributed by
folks downstream either.

Nonsense. You have serious misunderstandings about how the GPL works.
Please read section 6 *very* carefully. People who redistribute
modified or unmodified GPL and BSD licensed works *NEVER* relicense
those works. The licenses always flow from the original author(s) to
the final recipients.

And I think you _are_ making copies already by downloading the program
from kernel.org (at least that is the case legally where I live).
You could have somebody else download those copies, but that should be
an independent entity.

Nope. One copy flows over the network, is converted to the copy on
your disk, and that's that. One copy is all there is. The person who
sends it to you may arguably be copying (one copy on the disk, one on
the network, neither goes away since the recipient can make the
network copy persistent).

You don't need to agree to the GPL to receive and use a GPL'd work.
The GPL is not a shrink-wrap agreement or EULA.

This is a case where Static Controls copied and distributed an entire
piece of software made by Lexmark. Lexmark sued them for DMCA and
other copyright violations. The court held that because Static
Controls took only what it needed to make its toner cartridges work
with Lexmark printers, there was no copyright violation.

I am not familiar with your local legislation, so studying the case
would be quite much work. And local case law isn't very important, as
we talk about an international product. I think however, that handling
copies of a GPL product in a way that obviously isn't meant to be
allowed by the license, is something that would require lawyers in every
legislation where the product is going to be distr^H^H^H^H^sold. It
may also give you more badwill than you want to have.

The points I'm making are not minor legal technicalities, they are
fundamental things about how copyright works. As for badwill, quite
the opposite, the badwill results from people who try to restrict what
other people can do with what is theirs, not from people who exercise
the freedoms they have.

Wouldn't the free software movement be a bunch of crazy hypocrites if
they defended their IP like the RIAA does?

You can take what you need from the kernel to make your module work
with it. Copyright does not cover what you need to make something
work. Only patent does that. Copyright covers one choice out of
millions of equally good ones.

But the intent of the license may influence whether you and your
customers are allowed to do anything that requires permission from the
copyright holders. At least over here.

I don't see how the intent of the license can affect copyright law.
I'm only talking about the *scope* of the license, and that is set by
law, not by the license itself.

DS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: GPL only modules
    ... You mean "mere aggregation" is defined in copyright law? ... license with anything else the author establishes. ... the GPL doesn't do this. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: License issue with Fedora
    ... A mere aggregation is a jumble of things which are included largely by ... ]What the RH license says, ... ]The fact that RH does not limit the copying of GPL material. ... ]violating the GPL because you dislike them. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)
  • Re: Licence
    ... It is like saying novel is a mere aggregation of letters of the alphabet. ... The GPL does NOT say that you can extract the GPL. ... GPL is a license which gains its power from copyright law (there is no such ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • [PATCH] change libata license from OSL+GPL to GPL
    ... - changes license of all code from OSL+GPL to plain ole GPL ... indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Copyleft and embedded Forth
    ... rights of another. ... Developer may do with p.d. ... Use isn't an issue with any free software license. ... You have to choose to use GPL software. ...
    (comp.lang.forth)