Kororaa Accused of Violating GPL

AlanS2002 writes "The Kororaa Project, a pre-configured binary install method for Gentoo Linux which bundles nVidia's and ATI binary drivers in its Kororaa Xgl Live CD , has put its Live CD on hold after being accused of violating the GPL. The issue appears to be the distribution of the Linux Kernel and nVidia's/ATI binary drivers together. When the binary drivers are built the GPL'ed code is included in the binary result, which is a violation."

Comments

GPL and the copyright laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any basis in the copyright law for the claim that bundling binary drivers in the same binary
as a GPL kernel is copyright violation, while having them as separate downloads is OK ?

This seems like a very naive interpretation of the "derived work". Are there any laws or precedents
that support it ?

Why not wait to see if this is an issue?

[khasim]

Before you go on about how evil the GPL is, why not wait until there is some clarification on the issue.

So far, an un-identified person sent an email to someone distributing a Live CD making certain claims.

As far as I can see, no one has said whether that person has any code of his/her own in that Linux distribution. Nor has anyone who would be able to say one way or the other been quoted.

Personally, I'd wait until Linus or ATI said that this was wrong before going off on how evil the GPL is.

Re:All the more reason...

[EmoryBrighton]

All the more reason... To avoid the GPL. I thought it was supposed to make things simpler, not have all of these caveats and 'gotchas'. I understand the next version of the GPL is supposed to eliminate these, but then there's the problem with dealing with multiple versions of the GPL.

It's sadly true... The GPL is far too restrictive. I do not believe the FSF will ever 'force' any of the major GPU makers to open source the software.

... but they could always switch to the FreeBSD kernel, they already have a Gentoo/FreeBSD project going on.

Re:All the more reason...

[muyuubyou]

Linux is a GPLd OS. If that doesn't suit you then you're quite right to use something else.

It suits me fine, but it doesn't suit many people for this reason. Lacking userbase causes many problems, like the lack of hardware support and ultimately vendor support. It helps nobody.

I seem to detect some aggressiveness in your reply. You have no business in telling me which OS to use or quit using.

HAND

Don't confuse "Free".

[khasim]

If you can't tell if you're free or not, are you really free?

So, if I can't piss on the cheese at the local deli, I'm not really "Free", am I?

The GPL is about making the code Free so that anyone can use it and improve it ... PROVIDED that they share any changes they've made IF they distribute those changes.

There are other licenses that are more "Free", depending upon your point of view.

While I agree flying off the handle is probably not the best course of action at the moment, railing against the GPL for creating a situation like this where it really is quite difficult to see if there is a violation or not I would think is perfectly acceptable.

Maybe. But then, as soon as any restriction is placed upon any code, you create edge cases. That's nothing new. Which is why we have "expert" lawyers in the field of "intellectual property" law.

Because there are edge cases is no reason to claim that the GPL is evil.

Certainly not when this case rests on one un-identified individual sending one email to one distribution.

OSS license zealots biting OSS in the ass

[suv4x4]

It's up to the licensor to jump and do something if his license is violated.

What harm is done in this case, making is easy to install Linux? What a sin, shit we all know it needs to be at least 3 days configuring and recompiling sources, anything less and it's a crime.

So who's the zealot who thought that "out of principle" they gotta ruin the effort? Sure, one might argue that doing anything less will "erode" the license's ideas, but how come they jump on the easy victim and not go after all the commercial software that illegally uses GPL code in their binaries?

If that ain't retarded, I don't know what is.

Re:What?

[harlows_monkeys]

"Just because the kernel can load your module doesn't mean your modules is GPLed."

Yes, that's exactly what it means

If your argument were correct, then it would be a violation of GPL for any distribution to make these drivers available. Yes, the major distributions do make them available for download, and no one, not even the FSF, says they are violation the GPL.

Re:No other options.

[mrsbrisby]

Just out of curiosity, who are the non-suckers? The people who bought video hardware from ... who, exactly?

I use Matrox boards. The Xorg driver works fine with them, and I'm very happy. I bought about 10 of these dual-head G400 boards for 7$USD a piece and I've been using them a lot lately.

Personally I'd say go with NVidia, because they seem markedly less evil and their binary drivers seem to suck less, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

Then don't. Tell them you don't want their permission to give them money and use their hardware. I say if you buy a piece of hardware , you have the right: one-way or another- to make it work and do whatever you want to make it work and do.

Without source code, NVidia and ATI are saying: no, you don't have that right. You need us around so that you can have the privilege of using these cards.

That seems really slimy to me- and I've been burned by it before. I've purchased hardware- and then the company goes out of business and I can't use it anymore. I've purchased software- and it eats my data, and there's nothing I can do about it anymore.

The GPL guarantees that this doesn't happen to me anymore. That's important to me. Meanwhile, some of my hardware magically works again- because of other people who decided they wanted it to work. They figured it all out, and now I've got a driver.

There really aren't any other options for most people.

Sure there are. They can go and firebomb ATI and NVidia- They can say loudly that ATI doesn't own their computer! That they don't want the NVidia teat anymore. If they want to sell their hardware, they have to sell the hardware- not a privilege, and not a permission to use that hardware.

Re:What?

[Tim C]

GCC has an explicit note in its license that says that C source files that GCC (and perhaps only GCC- say using GCCisms) can compile are not automatically under the GPL.

Ignoring the question of GCC-specific code, think about it for a second. If all source that GCC can compile were automatically to fall under the GPL, then all standards-compliant C code would automatically be GPLed. In other words, the mere existence of GCC would force all code written in C to be GPLed.

The note isn't there to grant people any rights, it's there to clear up any possible misunderstanding - just because you use GCC to compile your code doesn't automatically make it GPLed.

Re:There's more restricition in BSD

[mangu]

To be fair, though, that is "more restriction"

Well, that depends. Let's say you are in a country whose constitution states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated". If you are a police officer, you would say that's *more* restriction, if you are an average citizen, you would say that's *less* restriction.

If I were selling software, I would say the GPL licence is more restrictive than BSD, as a software user and developer, I think the GPL is less restrictive than BSD. After all, it's the BSD licence that restricts me from seeing the Nokia OS source code.

Re:One man's "useful" is another man's "treacherou

[DrJimbo]

Alef said:

What if I distribute the kernel with instructions on how to add add proprietary module? Would that be OK?

Fine. No problem.

What if I then distribute the kernel with a helper script that downloads the modules when the user runs it?

Also fine. This is what the distro's I've used do.

What if these modules would reside on the same CD as the kernel, and the script simply copies them from a specific directory instead of copying them from a server?

My understanding is that this would be a violation. Maybe you could squeak by if the module were distributed on a separate cd. I think a separate cd would be fine if the end user compiles the "shim" which combines the Linux code with the closed source bits.

What if I also include a helper script that automatically installs the modules when the user runs it?

This is certainly a violation.

And what if this script is a boot script?

Again, a certain violation.

But, oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like what kororaa does already...?

Yes. That's why there is a problem.

Where did I cross the line?

When you distributed the closed source module along with the GPL'ed kernel on the same medium along with a script to install the module.

Also, in most of the distros I've used, the end user has had to actually do the final compilation of the "shim" which combines the closed source and open source code. I think there would be a problem with distributing a binary "shim" without all of the source but I am not certain.

Re:Whaaa?

[mrsbrisby]

You are wrong. I'll only speak in regards to Nvidia, though I believe ATI is the same. There are two parts to the Nvidia driver. One is the actual binary driver and one si the kernel interface. Nvidia provides source for the interface and that is wht gets compiled. Nvidia also ditributes precompiled interfaces for serveral distro's kernels. If there is a GPL violation, then Nvidia has been violating copyright for a long time.

You do not know what you are talking about.

NVidia cannot produce a GPL violation because NVidia is not redistributing NVidia's software. They are the copyright older. If you give someone else NVidia's software then you are redistributing it.

GPL only applies to redistribution.

The interface you can treat as LGPL.

You're confused. GPL and LGPL are redistribution licenses. They are not usage licenses.

Linus explicitly said that some of the interfaces are stable and do not constitute aggregation. Of those interfaces, all of the syscall-exported interfaces and a few kernel-internal interfaces.

So the question is basically can someone link a closed source binary to a LGPL binary then link the LGPL binary to a GPL binary?

You can link anything you want. Usage cannot be restricted by licenses unless you sign them.

Linking anything to GPL-covered works is GPL (except with certain exceptions). Even if it's LGPL'd- if linked, anyone you distribute the linked binary to must have the right to redistribute it under the GPL (although the LGPL is more permissive). If you cannot guarantee that right, then you cannot distribute it to them.

Hence the reason NVidia doesn't distribute linked code, just "patches".

It's also the reason KORORAA cannot link and apply these "patches" and then redistribute the patched program. That's copyright violation.

This is a rare case where I doubt the FSF would even attempt to pursue as it could very easily lead to a court decision against the GPL.

You are not a lawyer. Or a judge for that matter.

KORORAA doesn't have the right to redistribute Linux. They can assume that right if they meet the FSF's requirements (as outlined the GNU GPL v2). If they do not or cannot meet those requirements, then they do not have any right to redistribute Linux.

Re:Agreed

[goofyheadedpunk]

Today, the PC most needs to become quiet and reliable.

It most needs, or you want most? Besides, have you heard mini-computers these days? They're pretty silent, making no noise except under heavy load.

It needs to lose the moving parts. This would have already happened if we didn't keep adding fluff just because we can.

Interesting reasoning you've got there. So, all of those thousands of people that researched 3D algorithms for the past decade have been doing so to add fluff to PCs. In addition, if those people had not been working to add fluff to PCs they would have instead been working on solid state devices and motorless cooling apparatuses?

We reached attractive usability long ago, and are now adding crud just to be new and shiny.

Actually, in many cases, we're adding new things to find better ways of doing things. Sure, sometimes those ways don't work out or seem really dumb (like Project Looking Glass which you so crankily dismissed) but other times they are really very useful.

An example: I work for the Xiangtangshan Caves Project at the University of Chicago and assemble scans of bits of statues from 12th century China. The software that we use has optional transparency on all of its floating dialogs. Making them completely transparent allows me to see more of the shell scans, meaning I work faster and more accurately. Having 3D drivers is absolutely necessary in this situation and, additionally, transparency is a boon. I submit, trollish sir, that you have a rather narrow, closed view of how 3D computing can be of use. (Actually, it seems you've a narrow mind on many things, considering that you equated anything other than having a wife and job as a waste of time. However, I digress.)

Cold war era tactics.

[droopycom]

The FSF tactic is akin to the cold war era use of atomic weapon: disuasion.

In practice, the FSF is drawing the line. Its enough for the FSF to say they are going to file a lawsuit, and the offending company usually back down.

This is dangerous, they are playing with the "gray area". At some point one stupid company is going to go for a fight to define what the GPL really means, and then the supreme court will decide after 5 years of lawsuit (because I'm pretty sure they would not stop at a lower court)

It would be much better if they were using technical definitions of what you can do with software than philosophicals one.

I'm not a fucking lawyer, for god sake. How am I supposed to know what the GPL means by linking if its not in technical terms ?

Re:The trollish answer here...

[fishbowl]

"...would be to ask why someone would want to use the nvidia drivers for Linux in the first place. In most cases that would mean playing games."

For me, it's because I need their 2D XServer which is the only way I can get the resolution I need at the refresh rate I need. Also bundled with the NVidia X driver was the driver for my sound card and my disc controller.

Re:It wouldn't be Linux anymore.

[ajs318]

Specifications should be disclosed anyway. If you buy a piece of hardware, with your own money, which you earned by your own efforts by hand or by brain, then that hardware belongs to you. And that means that you are privy to any secret it embodies {like those specs you need to write a driver}. This is a Common Law Property Right.

If the authorities would just enforce this existing law, we could all be happy. But nVidia and ATI have both been lying through their teeth about their specifications, and hiding behind bogus "intellectual property" laws {as pointed out above, the owner of a graphics card has the right to know this information. What they don't want to reveal is how you could turn a 50-pound graphics card into a 300-pound graphics card with a quick software change. And, of course, that would open up the market to competition. It's called "busting a cartel" and it's regarded as a good thing by consumers.

Re:There's more restricition in BSD

[Dis*abstraction]

Despite your beliefs, many corporations do in fact go above and beyond the bare minimum legal obligations when incorporating BSD-licensed code into their products, in some cases far beyond. Apple, for example, is under no obligation to distribute the source to Darwin, which borrows heavily from FreeBSD and Mach. The license of neither requires derivative works to be open sourced, yet Apple redistributes its modifications under the APSL.

A modest proposal...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you draw the line between code and data? Other posters have already pointed out that the nvidia binary "driver" is loaded by a GPL'd stub. Under that model, the driver itself is just data. Once you make that conceptual leap, it begs the question: how do you define "source code" for data?

I'll make a brief aside here to remind you that any interpreted "program" is both code and data. To the interpreter, it's just data. The interpreter loads some text (just data), builds the parse tree (still data), and instantiates the various code objects it represents (STILL data). However, once you actually jump to an address and start executing that data, it becomes a program.

So now I'll repeat my previous rhetorical question: how do you define "source code" for data? Here's my modest proposal:

/* bscg -- binary source code generator
  * bscg is Copyright (C) 2006 by PUBLIC DOMAIN.
  * bscg is provided AS-IS and with NO WARRANTY.
  * There are no restrictions on use, modification, copying or distribution
  * of this program; you are permitted to change its license, provided that
  * you do not attempt to remove the ORIGINAL version from the public domain.
  */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
unsigned char buf[1024];
int
main (int argc, char **argv)
{
  int i, got, count = 0;
  FILE *f = (argc < 2 || !strncmp (argv[1], "-", 2)) ?
    fdopen (0, "rb") : fopen (argv[1], "rb");
  if (f == NULL)
    {
      perror ("Unable to open file");
      return 1;
    }
  printf ("/* TODO: insert your copyright statement (e.g. GPLv2) */\n");
  printf ("#include <stdio.h>\n");
  printf ("static const char data[] = {");
  while (!feof (f) && (got = fread (buf, 1, sizeof (buf), f)) > 0)
    for (i = 0; i < got; ++i)
      {
        if (count++ % 8 == 0)
          putchar ('\n');
        printf (" '\\x%02x',", 0xff & buf[i]);
      }
  printf ("\n};\n");
  printf ("int\nmain (int argc, char** argv)\n{\n");
  printf (" fwrite (data, 1, sizeof(data), stdout);\n");
  printf (" return 0;\n");
  printf ("}\n\n");
  fclose (f);
  return 0;
}

Just compile this program and feed it the binary you need to "decompile". It will output a C program that you can ship as the "source code" for the binary. If you plan to ship your binary with GPL'd code, be sure to license the newly generated source code under the GPL or a compatable license. Oh yeah, and a word of warning: the source code will probably be significantly larger than the binary, even if you gzip it.

Re:It wouldn't be Linux anymore.

[Arker]

While you're welcome to buy their hardware and reverse engineer it if you wish, it seems to me to be more than they deserve. Free drivers for those cards would boost their sales, and I'd rather see a competitor that does the right thing get them.

On the other hand, there isn't, sadly, much competition on the high end outside these two companies at the moment, so if you really require more than the free software friendly cards can give you, I guess that's what you have to do. And sadly, ATI cards based on the older, well supported chipsets are still getting a lot of free sales despite the way that company is treating us at the moment.

I have a feeling what they're trying to hide here is a practice of degrading performance in software - i.e. selling one card for say $100 and another for $350, with the difference being a few flipped bits somewhere that tell their drivers not to work as well on the cheap one. So, if you do bother to reverse engineer some of these cards, you might get a nice bonus of actually getting the performance you paid for without an 'artifical scarcity tax' added.