Hacker News Reader

Comment by hbex5 | Hacker News Reader

It's not entirely clear with the GPLv2 that that's the case. The FSF claims that because modules are loading into the address space of the kernel that makes them an integrated part of a single program and not mere aggregation, and are therefore covered by the GPLv2's restrictions as a derivative work.

It should be noted, however, that this is merely the FSF's opinion, and this has never been definitively legally established.

The GPLv3 was designed to, inter alia, eliminate such ambiguities, but added so much complexity it never really caught on outside the GNU project.

View on HN

>It's not entirely clear with the GPLv2 that that's the case.

I hear this argument a lot. It is certainly intended to be the case as it's the whole point of the GPL. VMWare is, at the very least, in clear violation of the spirit of the GPL. If it's not the case, as ruled by German courts, then the GPLv2 is useless and free software will be in deep trouble. In the US the courts have found that GPLv2 is pretty clear on this (and judges don't like those that try to find loopholes) with successful compliance cases like the Linksys WRT54G router firmware.

>this is merely the FSF's opinion

It's a pretty important opinion since they wrote it and know what the intent of the legalese was.

And usually ambiguities are evaluated in favor of the party who did not write the text.

Something seems specious where proof of authorship is required for standing in a case. The injured party may not be the copyright holder as much as it is the entire community or even other copyright holders.

Not authorship per se, but copyrights to source code was pretty much the entire linchpin of SCO v. IBM.[1]

I think I remember SCO trying your argument at some point (as they were wont to do), and if so it obviously didn't work. The law generally doesn't support being offended on behalf of someone else. What aspect do you think is specious?

1. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070810/184153.shtml

If you wish to sue someone for copyright infringement, you usually need to hold the copyright in question to have standing.

If you have been injured in some other way, you are welcome to try to sue for that instead.

> It's a pretty important opinion since they wrote it and know what the intent of the legalese was.

The intent of a license is defined by the person offering the license, not the person writing the license that they choose to offer.

This interpretation could imply that any software running on a GPL OS that lacks memory protection would also be forced to be GPL. The GPL has exceptions for GPL programs using proprietary OS components, but does it have the reverse?

It's easy enough to claim that a kernel module is more analogous to a program running on an OS than to a library linked into a program.

The relevant part of the GPL applies only when a derivative work is created. The determination of what constitutes a derivative work is the domain of copyright law. If a piece of software is not legally a copy of or a derivative work of a GPL-covered work, the GPL simply doesn't apply.

> it never really caught on outside the GNU project

Actually, I think GPLv3 did something even stranger, at least something I didn't expect. I've now seen numerous entities use the GPLv3 as a mechanism to deny Companies access to that software unless they purchase a copy that is under a proprietary license. This is because some company legal departments see the GPLv3 as inherently dangerous to use. So the "Open Source" entity uses the GPLv3 to get in the door, and then offers a proprietary license that the code is sold under as an alternative to the GPLv3 for corporate use.

I'm still torn on if I like this model of dual-licensing or not. It definitely gives Open Source companies an ability to earn money from Corporations that want to keep their code closed.

How is that a GPLv3 issue? You think the companies would prefer v2?

But anyways, how does that deny companies access any more than simply using a proprietary license in the first place? You're already denied access to 99.9% of code written because it isn't publicly licensed at all.

Its internal legal departments of large companies (and some medium sized ones). They tend to be most highly concerned with the patent provisions in GPLv3, and yes, GPLv2 is much more palatable, though I've often seen requirements that the code is not contributed to.

The denial is not from the GPL it's from the corporate legal team. This is a big reason why the Apache 2.0 and MIT licenses are much more popular among tech companies with private codebases (in addition to the Open Source code that they release).

The ambiguity cannot be resolved in a license, because it exists in copyright law, not the license. If the kernel modules are not derivative works as defined in copyright law, then no license is needed to create or distribute them, and any restrictions in the license are of limited effect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com