Slashdot Mirror
Who's Behind the Google-Linux License Ruckus?
jfruhlinger writes "Yesterday, news broke that Android might have a Linux copyright problem, which would be big trouble for Google, already locked in an IP struggle with Oracle over the mobile platform. Blogger Brian Proffitt looks deeper into the alleged violations. He notes that, while it's possible that Google's on shaky ground, the motivations behind the news release are murky: the lawyer who outlined the violation is an ex-Microsoft hand, and the news was widely propagated by gadfly Florian Mueller, who's tangled with Google over patent issues in the past. Moreover, the alleged violations are in header files, and it's not clear that those are copyrightable; if they are, no actual copyright holders have come forward to complain."
If the copyright holders don't complain, who cares?
The fearful, the uncertain, and the doubtful
Do they have a case?
This is just more FUD being generated by Microsoft's shills.
Files created so programmers can write code using the "header files" as
information about how to write the code. What was "header file" owner's intent
in releasing a header file?
This should be prima facie tossed.
Ed
The Brian Proffitt blog spells it out nicely. The bionic library has standard header files. That's the API definition, not copyrightable sorry. So, even though glibc has very similar header files, using the same names and everything, Bionic did not steal anything from glibc. They simply implement the same API, so they must, by definition, have the essentially the same header files.
Nothing to see here, move along. But before you do, read the blog. I'd score it a 5 if it were on slashdot.
Header files can most definitely be copyrighted. You can copyright just about anything.
What a troll. Anti app developer, anti-google, pro microsoft, pro wp7, pro iphone and not an ounce of substance.... Hi Florian
This is not about userspace API headers (which are partially defined by POSIX spec, but partially Linux specific, by the way).
This is about kernel headers. Their content is not defined by any standard.
And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives. They think "If Google is having this much trouble, we'll get sued in to bankruptcy!"
There may be no specific complains yet, but Linus has been quite explicit and unambiguous in the past about how he thinks the GPL applies to Linux kernel headers:
In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program. ...
BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES.
Of course, Linus is not a lawyer, and his interpretation of GPL may not be correct. But the gist of the original story was that it was legal analysis made by an IP lawyer, and he essentially agreed with Linus.
Oh, I know, I know! Linus is a paid Microsoft shill! Right?
And that is what is in the headers after purging Kernel specific macros.
All that are left is the list of definitions needed to interface usermode with the kernel.
This is the same old FUD MS has been spewing for years.
Florian and the lawyer pointing this out are Microsoft paid shills. They are attempting to sell WP7. This makes whatever point they were making pretty much irrelevant. If it was a big issue, the kernel devs would be making noise, not these whores.
For details about Florian, just Google...
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
And, ISTM, it wasn't that long ago that everyone around here was up in arms, saying headers couldn't be copyrighted, when SCO tried to claim infringement by Linux header files - saying there was copyrighted content taken from UNIX. <confused>Which is it, or does it depend on who's ox is getting gored?</confused>
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
All 3 Windows 7 phones have no malware (yet).
This is just more FUD being generated by Microsoft's shills.
And though it's intended effect is to tarnish Google's image/brand consumers really don't give a shit. They're going to buy an Android phone if they want one despite any copyright issues or what could turn out to be platform propaganda.
I think this is W7P's first shot across Android bow.
Who says header files can't be copyrighted?
Duh. viablos has at least five other accounts.
His hypocrisy is amazing: in one article saying OSS sucks, in this one he says Android should be 'more open' (while claiming WP7 is better... lol), at one time he says he's not a shill, yet in the next article he makes his fifteenth first post promoting Microsoft.
So what if it's an ex-Microsoft hand pointing it out? He still seems to be correct.. Even if he would have something in mind when pointing it out, it doesn't change the fact.
True, and if the ex-Microsoft exaggerates the issue then it is still a troll. Note that the best trolls always contain some grain of truth. I finally got around to reading the brownrudnick whitepaper-looking-thingy on this issue. It smacks of troll. It fails to convince me that Google's kernel header sanitizing process is different in nature from what is done to create libc kernel headers, without which userspace applications would have a tough time interfacing to the kernel.
On the other hand, I am convinced that Google did itself and our community a disservice by failing to do the obvious thing and consult with the kernel community on this question beforehand. Simply posting a link to the sanitized kernel headers to lkml would have done wonders. Google displays more than a small amount of arrogance in its handling of this and other important community issues. I do not think that is a good idea.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives. They think "If Google is having this much trouble, we'll get sued in to bankruptcy!"
Not quite. Replace "Open Source" with "GPL". There is no such fear among users of BSD and comparable licenses. I'm not saying the GPL is bad, I am just saying that there are costs associated with everything. If your license is viral, restrictive or ideological then its adoption will be impeded to some degree despite any idealistic motivations.
Google's kind of cool, so it's important to play down copyright violations. Now if it were Microsoft or Oracle, it would be a completely different thing. The facts would be the same, but it would be a completely different situation. Google is so cool.
Calling Windows Phone 7 "mature" is like calling MS-DOS 2.0 mature when compared to the CLI used in any version of Unix at that time. You must have a hard time speaking when setting.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Some headers may be copyrightable. A header that merely contains #defines and prototypes may not be copyrightable, but a header that also contains macros or template definitions that implement logic may be copyrightable.
This is not about userspace API headers (which are partially defined by POSIX spec, but partially Linux specific, by the way).
This is about kernel headers. Their content is not defined by any standard.
You're wrong. This is about a cleaned-up header file that lets user-space programs call kernel services, as permitted by the COPYING file (a non-standard modified version of the GPL that specifically says user-space programs can call kernel services without invoking the "derived works" clause) that comes with the linux kernel source code.
And the content of the cleaned-up file IS stuff defined by POSIX or other standards, structures, etc. This is not about including chunks of the kernel in user-space programs.
Astro-turf much?
(okay, you might have made an honest mistake, but wouldn't it have been easy to check first?)
This whole thing just makes me angry, because it ignores legal standards that have applied to Linux and been accepted by all parties, for years. If Naughton's legal analysis is correct, and use of the Linux header files causes the GPL to apply to the utilizing work, then glibc is in more danger than Bionic is. glibc is LGPL, not GPL, and has been using "full" Linux kernel headers for years. How could Bionic, using a stripped down subset of the same headers, be subject to the GPL, if glibc is not?
Unsubstantiated finger pointing by anonymous cowards doesn't make for an outing in any sense, no matter how morally outraged you may be that your opinion isn't the only one that is allowed to be expressed.
You're wrong. This is about a cleaned-up header file that lets user-space programs call kernel services, as permitted by the COPYING file (a non-standard modified version of the GPL that specifically says user-space programs can call kernel services without invoking the "derived works" clause) that comes with the linux kernel source code.
You're right, and I stand corrected.
Is it the same exception that permits glibc (which necessarily uses those headers) to not require linking apps to be GPL?
okay, you might have made an honest mistake, but wouldn't it have been easy to check first?
You must be... uhhh... nevermind. Off your lawn. ~
Troll.
Read his last statement..
It looks like iPhone and Windows Phone 7 are more mature and professional.
<Begun, the clone wars have>
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Hmm.. someone pointed out that this guy is a troll and I disagreed, but then I looked at another mobile story and saw similarly pro-Microsoft comments from this user.
Then I looked at his comment history. You'll see he consistently praises Microsoft products on articles (Microsoft Access, Visual Studio, Windows Phone). Sure a dedicated customer, but come on, this is Slashdot.. that's not very common.
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
First, the GPL forbids that sort of restriction.
Second, what if some future version of the GPL contains something that makes it less free?
Third, the GPL v3 has some flaws. Android wouldn't be commercially possible if linux were GPL v3.
If you want to call someone an astroturfer, look no further than the OP. It's sad to see someone like shutdown -p being labeled one.
Not being sarcastic (this time), but is it really that hard to make a Linux phone? Something with Debian, Ubuntu, or something similar? OpenMoko looked like it was onto something and then everything seemed to stop. Why wouldn't Google do it with C or Go? (Google's own language) http://code.google.com/edu/languages/#_programming_with_go
I say things which affects my Karma negatively. (and I don't care) For instance; All religion is false.
Probably the easiest/cheapest way is to build a simple site where students register and can then vote using a simple POST form.
I could extend this comment to two sentences, but to be honest that's all that needs to be said.
char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
Great idea, what could possibly go wrong with giving an ideological organization a blank check to do whatever they want with your work.
Want to use GPL 3, go ahead, but you would be wise to delete any "version 3 or any future version" type of language. Wait to see what that future version actually contains and make sure its goals are in line with your goals. Giving blind faith to the FSF seems equivalent to giving blind faith to a church. Do so if you like but at least be aware of your "follower" nature.
The only thing unsubstantiated here is your post. Anyone who has noticed his little /. ritual - posting within a minute of the story hitting the front page, and bringing up Microsoft even when it's unrelated to the topic - can easily associate all of his accounts. His posts are usually correct half the time - which is why people step out to defend him - but they always are (a) defending Microsoft at every turn, (b) criticizing any of Microsoft's competitors, or (c) defending corporate interests (such as anti-piracy movements).
Header files are rather useless by themselves, and claiming copyright infringement only because they are referred to when building your binary is counterproductive.
In that case almost every application written is guilty of copyright infringement.
And is it a copyright infringement if you include stuff that is intended to be included when building a binary?
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
That's one of the problems of a comment system that STILL doesn't let you update comments.
Microsoft did the same thing after the Vista disaster. Throw mud on Linux so no one gets any big ideas about jumping off the MSFT treadmill.
It is intellectually dishonest to criticize the motives and aims of those you disagree with in order to avoid countering their arguments. Often evil people are right and virtuous people are wrong, get used to it.
always makes me suspicious. If you have nothing to gain (financially or otherwise) what is the purpose of making statements that someone may be doing something illegal or that ramifications could be disastrous. The only purpose would be to spread fear, uncertainty, or doubt to benefit another entity. It seems like gossip to me. It is very distasteful, and I try to avoid reading things of that nature. Although I must state that I am an android phone owner and very happy with the device. I will probably buy my wife one this June. If the Linux Kernel writers do not like what has been done, so be it. I can write software. And I am willing to release it under a GPL'ed license. This is not a big deal to me.
Had you been around here terribly long, you'd know that it is intended to be that way. If people could edit comments, they could backtrack and do other trollish things. It supposedly outweighs the detriments.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Florian Mueller has zero credibility left.
Remember? He was the guy who claimed that Android included source stolen from Oracle's Java. After getting enormous publicity the whole thing was debunked:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162
So, why are we still listening to him? There are millions of voices on the Internet, shouldn't we listen to one of the ones that still has credibility?
Well, what bionic does with headers is arguably questionable, but nothing half as questionable as the oracle stuff. But the idea that you can claim copyright on header files is a bit bizarre. Header files are supposed to be a definition of an interface, not an implementation. So if you want anything to work on your system, you'd best not claim copyright over your headers.
But the idea that android app developers have to comply with the GPLv2 because of headers that interface between two and one layers below (the kernel and libc) is laughable on its face, and clearly a scare tactic. I don't see what's special about bionic in this regard - if android app developers must all release gplv2 code, how is it legal for adobe (or anyone else) to make flash (or any other closed source program) for "traditional" linux systems?
viablos is a sock puppet use for MS astroturfing, ignore him.
of much more serious concern - to google - is the fact that they are *knowingly* not pursuing GPL Copyright Infringement cases against Android-Linux GPL violators. if you fail to pursue a Copyright violation, it can be argued that you have "no interest" in protecting the Copyrighted material. as it is not in google's interests to pursue copyright violations because that would reduce the number of google android systems in the world, thus affecting their bottom line by reducing advertising income, they're in a bit of shit.
I didn't believe it at first either. Read these few posts if you want to be convinced otherwise--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2044216&cid=35536518
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2044200&cid=35536052
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2042408&cid=35522050
hairyfeet (I love it when he gets mad) noticed how he sounds like a stereotypical marketing drone the other day.
I am not an AC and I agree with the GP. If android should be more open how is WP7 better?
viablos is at best a troll and at worst a paid shill.
And people wonder why I don't 'out' the paid shills. There are several here. Watch the names and attitudes when an anti-FOSS, Apple, Google or pro-Microsoft post comes out.
They line up, either side of the fence, draw an arrow from the quivver, then take bead on the perceived threat..... and often miss.
I wish I had the time to do a spider on slashdot, sort the topics, rate them, then sort users vs bias, speed of reply, and thread extension. Might make for some interesting results.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Mr. Viablos,
I am a frequent commenter on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, and many other sites frequented by technology opinion leaders. I am also very poor, have no scruples, but with excellent persuasive writing skills.
Can you please put me in touch with some folks looking for people like me to act as insightful and frequent contributors to praise and defend companies and their products? I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Floyd Markian
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Please do explain why android could not exist with a GPL v3 kernel. Tivoization is not necessary, nor is it a good thing.
OK, I know this is going to get voted way down as a troll attempt or something, but seriously--the real thing Google is doing wrong is using Linux. Since they want Android to be licensed as much as possible under more open licenses (they used Apache 2 for nearly all of their original code), they should have went with a BSD kernel. There's no real technical advantage to Linux over BSD in this kind of application, and it would sidestep all risk of this kind of potential license problem.
Same for all the various router manufacturers, set top box makers, TV makers, and so on that have run into GPL problems. I have no idea why no one has made something like BusyBox, but built around BSD and similarly licensed software.
I thought that this is what the whole GPL exception was for?
All this talk about Apache license vs GPL license, and I thought this was all dealt with years ago with the GPL exceptions? As long as what you release is also open source, you get an exception correct?
I don't know. I've been reading Slashdot for nigh on 10 years and I haven't seen an example this obvious. Florian ranks up there, though he used to make some cogent points. Bonch is the only other semi 'obvious' shill imo: just check out his submissions sometime.
If your theory was correct then Google would not have needed to run the files through their de-GPLing process. They could have shipped them as is.
Unless the copyright holders actually try and pursue this with legal action it doesn't actually matter what license applies.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Well, this is the world he wanted to create with the viral nature of the GPL, i hope everyone is happy with it. And no, I'm not flaming him, its what he wanted and its what he got, for better or for worse.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You know, there are two licensing-related problems Google is facing now with Android: the Oracle lawsuit, and now this. Both seem to have at least partially arisen because Google didn't float stuff past people who have interests in the technologies they chose to use. It makes me wonder if there was some development going on behind closed doors back when Schmidt was on Apple's board, but it was kept hush-hush to keep from letting Apple know what they were up to.
google vs linux, how can we spin this to not be negative to both????
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
While this advice is reasonable if there are very few contributors to a project, it doesn't work at all for large projects. By chosing only GPL vX, you have basically made it impossible for you to ever select a later version of the GPL unless you can get all contributors to sign off. But then again, some consider that to be a feature.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Header files can be considered Scenes a faire and are not subject to copyright.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
when Google decided to design their new phone, they had some criteria to follow to make it successful. They needed it to be: 1. small, not use tons of storage or memory (allows the phones to be inexpensive) 2. able to run on ARM (RISC) cpu's (low power draw, so bateries last more than an hour) 3. little or no cost to license (allows phone manufacturers more profit) so far linux fits the bill - but 4. have a development platform that is familiar to the maximum number of developers available and is focused on one language Javame would fit the bill, but the cost to license may not fly with the phone manufacturers. So... Google made their own JAVA like language/VM using DALVIK from Apache and the linux kernel You can compile linux apps to run natively on your ARM phone, but you will be missing many libraries. And the more libraries you add the less space you have on your phone. So Google thought the best solution was a java like system that was light weight, open source, and familiar to many developers. It seems to have been the right choice so far. And they have continued to expand Android and enhance it. Not to mention market it quite well. But this is only my opinion, I could be completely wrong. Just ask my wife, she'll tell you that I am wrong all the time :)
Devices are not locked. Though it will cost you your warranty, you are able to unlock your bootloader.
(Or at least do as Florian, get paid for doing it)
Guys, can't you see a bogus claim whenerver you see it? Using header files for developing userland software IS allowed by GPL without being necessary to license the application code as GPL. EXPLICITLY!!!!
Please stop spreading FUD or igniting another BSD x GPL x Proprietary flame war. It is a disservice to us all and a service to the puppet master: Microsoft.
Please read Groklaw (www.groklaw.net) for much more deep and accurate analysis and trust yourself to decide what is wrong or not but AFTER reading about it, not just a comment from a MS paid apologist. Or at least wait for Eben Moglen to talk about it, HE knows GPL more than almost all other living beings.
So please calm down. Just because some stooge screamed FIRE on the theather, look to see if some smoke really appears before creating more havoc than the first stooge started.
If you do want to continue spreading this stuff, at least try to get a job from MS for doing it, make it at least cost them a lot instead of doing their job for free.
Google's going to be attacked by everyone right now, consider the fact that their Android mobile OS is very successful in the marketplace, their market share is up, and current projections are that they'll overtake the competition within just the next few years. All of their competitors are going to try to stop them by whatever means they can, even if that means using the courts, right or wrong, with or without evidence or a solid case against them.
Look at what happened to Apple's iPhone4, with the possible antenna bug if gripped with the "Death Grip", it's the same difference, Apple was showing success with their product, so people attacked them.
As for Google's woe's, only time will tell, but I put my money on Google's legal team to at least have some idea of what they're dealing with, and being able to handle the issues involved.
I seriously doubt that Google's the target here. It's more likely that the developers of apps that use Bionic are the target.
If targetting android means that a developer might lose the rights to the source code to her million dollar game, I think that she would think twice before targetting android.
While this advice is reasonable if there are very few contributors to a project, it doesn't work at all for large projects. By chosing only GPL vX, you have basically made it impossible for you to ever select a later version of the GPL unless you can get all contributors to sign off. But then again, some consider that to be a feature.
For a large project one could create an organization that would hold the copyright of the entire project. Contributors being required to grant non-exlcusive rights to this group. With this project being GPL'd one should be able to incorporate updates made by others to your original contribution in your own personal GPL'd projects. I'm not sure what the downside of such a scheme would be but I'm sure some kind soul out there could enlighten me. It does not seem terribly different from the FSF's suggestion of assigning the copyright of your GPL'd project to them.
What about allowing people to only add text to the comments at the end and then that text gets marked with a timestamp as an edit? You could clarify things about the text above and avoid the problem that you stated.
This space for rent.
You know, there are two licensing-related problems Google is facing now with Android: the Oracle lawsuit, and now this. Both seem to have at least partially arisen because Google didn't float stuff past people who have interests in the technologies they chose to use.
This is unfair to Google. I have plenty of gripes with Android, but these two were not Google's fault. First, nobody considered the header files to be copyrightable material. As one poster above pointed out, people in the FOSS community laughed when SCO made such a claim just a few years ago. If it was not an issue then, how can Google be wrong now? They did not exactly strip out the copyright notices in the kernel source and call it the "Android Kernel®", did they?
In the case of the Java problem, Google could not have anticipated that Sun would be bought by a hostile company that would try to rob them using copyrights. Sun, for all its faults, was pretty reasonable about Java. The new owner, on the other hand, is predatory and crooked. They see an opportunity to hit Google up for some cash, and they are taking it. To blame Google for being a victim of lawyers would be like blaming victims of a natural disaster for living in a place where no natural disasters had struck yet.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
First, the GPL forbids that sort of restriction.
Second, what if some future version of the GPL contains something that makes it less free?
Third, the GPL v3 has some flaws. Android wouldn't be commercially possible if linux were GPL v3.
Is Linux getting any benefit from Android? The public doesn't even know it's based on Linux. Maybe Maemo and Meego give things back because they are like mobile distros but Android and Chrome OS?
This space for rent.
FUD! The developer does not "lose the rights to the source code to her million dollar game".
If this bull (which is what it is) about the header files was true, the developer would be guilty of copyright infringement. The only legal recourse is a monetary damages, paid to the copyright holder, and cease and desist in distributing the infringing content. In no way whatsoever, despite the incessant FUD from Microsoft that it happens, can anybody ever be "forced to release their code". Anybody who says anything like this is liar and their motives are pretty questionable.
It is possible for a copyright violator to agree to something in order to avoid monetary damages. However both parties have to agree on it. The copyright violator cannot just release the source code and somehow that is a "get out of jail free" card to avoid damages. It is meaningless, they are still liable for the previous copyright violation. Otherwise it would be trivial to violate the GPL by just waiting until the code is worthless and then releasing it.
You have to be kidding everyone. Go look at the headers. You sound ridiculous. There's no case here, and having this FUD spread by ex-microsoft guys with someone else assisting that's been at war with Google for some time shows you shouldn't put any stock in them. And, if someone wants to challenge Google over copyright over some headers then let them. It's hardly an issue. It is hardly a challenge.
My goodness you should like chicken little.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
How low can you go?
Do you have references to court cases where there's been a GPL infringement (by including GPL code in a closed source project) where the infringing product was simply forced to pay monetary damages and wasn't also required to also publish their source code? All of the GPL infringement cases I've heard about have ended up with the infringing party being forced to release their modifications to the code.
I know of several IP lawyers who believe that simply using GPL'ed headers in a project can cause the entire project to be covered by the GPL. The root issue lies in the language of section 2b of the GPL: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." What constitutes a "derivative work"? How much code do you need to include for it to be derivative? Is it 500 lines of code? 50 lines of code? 1 line of code? I don't know and neither do you.
The next paragraph of the GPL attempts to clarify section 2b: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
So what constitutes an independant and separate work? For instance if the application depends on functionality embodied in the headers and cannot be implemented on Android *without* the headers, it's possible that it could be considered to be a dependant work and thus not an independent and separate work. Neither your or I can tell the answer to that, that's up to the courts to decide.
In copyright infringement cases, the only thing that matters is actual case law, and there have been very few cases involving GPL infringement that have actually been ajudicated in a court of law.
And because there is very little case law involving the GPL (at least in the US, I know there's at least one German court), it's not clear what constitutes "infringement". And until that is adjudicated in a court of law, it's just a matter of what lawyers think. There's plenty of FUD on both sides.
Had you been around here terribly long...
... says userid 793323 to userid 43916.
I am not an AC and I agree with the GP. If android should be more open how is WP7 better?
'open' is not the only measurement that determines better?
I prefer OSS, but its pretty far down on my list of reasons for choosing a product since its unlikely I'm going to do any source hacking, regardless of the fact that I can and do by profession.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Google is as big as Microsoft. They are the one's who are making truckloads of money in all these copyright disputes. Obviously they are stealing legally or illegally.
It is Google which cashes in on people's privacy and data.
The portrayal of Microsoft as the evil monster does not impress us in India any more.
It seems to me that people mostly buy phone apps for convenience. Lots of phone apps provide a limited subset of an existing, free, web interface. But people like standalone apps because they involve a lot less zooming than surfing the web over the phone. If the android app store had a matching source repository, I'm sure that a few people would build and install their own .apks, but I can't imagine it would have any measurable effect on sales.
And though it's intended effect is to tarnish Google's image/brand consumers really don't give a shit. They're going to buy an Android phone if they want one despite any copyright issues or what could turn out to be platform propaganda.
"Going to buy an Android phone" doesn't mean "don't give a shit". I'm a Google and Android customer (and a very nice phone it is too) and it irks me when I hear that Google isn't "playing nice" precisely because I am a customer. I'm much more annoyed when I hear that a company that has my support is misbehaving than one I don't do much business with anyway. In this case, there's FUD in that I don't think it affects the apps the way the article claims, but if Google have been stripping the licences off header files and replacing them with different licences the authors did not sign up to then whether or not it's illegal, it's going to make some people grumpy. (Especially academic techies like myself who are prone to grumpiness at the best of times!) If they believe it is not copyrightable, then there's an argument for no licence for those files but applying a different licence suggests to me that they think they have some copyright ownership over those header files to be able to assert the change.
Yes. The issue is that now you are putting faith in an organization to "do the right thing", an organization which has far more power to alter licensing terms than the FSF does. (After all, the FSF is unable to take away rights granted by a previous version of the GPL, whereas the copyright holder can.)
http://www.donarmstrong.com
That's what replies are for.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The time that I registered (on this account!) has no bearing on how long I've been visiting this site.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Yes. The issue is that now you are putting faith in an organization to "do the right thing", an organization which has far more power to alter licensing terms than the FSF does. (After all, the FSF is unable to take away rights granted by a previous version of the GPL, whereas the copyright holder can.)
Thanks. I knew there was something wrong with my off-the-cuff solution. :-)
Statistically, yes, it does.
Also, You're an idiot.
Have a nice day
Please, stop selling BSD/Apache licenses as "more open" than GPL. BSD is more open to the developer of derivative works, insofar as it allows them to make proprietary software derived of the original (or GPLed software as well). GPL is more open insofar it gives users access to all the derivates ov the original.
I have big respect for both camps and am very suspicious of any trying to pitch both approaches against each other.
The proper way to include other people's headers in your project is by reference. You include the kernel source in your search path and
#include <errno.h>
Somewhere in the docs is the comment: // Requires kernel headers in the search path.
This is the proper way because it makes your app more portable, but it does include the risk that your reference may become undefined or the headers may - in some bizarre case - become incompatible with your project. It's still the right way, and the wrong way is to fold the headers into your project. This is what Linus was saying, and Linus is right. Linus is almost always right. That doesn't mean Linus is going to come after you with lawyers if you don't do it his way. That's pretty much the antithesis of how Linus works. Linus has an Android phone, and he likes it.
Headers are... headers. They don't contain code. They're a set of factual definitions, the copyrighting of which is proscribed. Nobody except SCO is going to get pissy about headers. Headers are API. They're meant to be used to interface with the code, and only an idiot would object to them being used for that. To object to that would be to eliminate the utility of your library. There is nobody trying to get pissy about headers except SCO and they're now bankrupt to the point of being irrelevant, and other Microsoft proxies. I suppose Oracle could get in this game if they want to be bankrupt too.
But yes, header files by reference rather than folding them in is the preferred way.
I'm in this thread against my better judgement. "Florian" and/or "Meuller" pretty much set me off as much as the terms "Enderle" and "O'Gara" do. We know these people are marketing mouthpieces for a corporate entity that doesn't care for facts or reality, but only for altering how people think to suit them. The editors of the fools who quote them need to be educated. I would be thankful if you would educate them now.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Headers are... headers. They don't contain code.
Well, that depends on the headers. Macros often expand into code, and then there are inline functions. In C++ land, you have massive header-only libraries (usually stuff having to do with templates, like Boost).
I don't know enough about Linux kernel headers to tell where they fall. Bionic README referenced by TFA mentions that there are a few inline functions in what they output, though those could be something really trivial.
They're meant to be used to interface with the code, and only an idiot would object to them being used for that.
Or lawyers. Or FSF.
What the guy is saying (not Mueller, the other one) is not that a lawsuit is imminent, but rather that there is a potential for it. If push comes to shove, it'll be up to lawyers to interpret what's copyrightable and what's not, and how a derived work is defined - and lawyers are notoriously bad at grasping technical common sense and established standards.
On the other hand, as another reply has pointed out, kernel specifically has a note in it which states that user-space programs are not considered derived works regardless of any issues with the headers, and that note has legal force. Thus, even in the worst case, it's only Google's problem (due to stripping GPL copyright out of headers), and most certainly not something that should concern Android app developers - they're legally in the clear.
Oh, God you're a 'tard. Macros don't "expand into" code, except by reference, which is allowed. Inline functions aren't in these headers, nor would they be in any good code.
By promoting this FUD you've destroyed any credibility you had here. You know that, right? This is your sharp knees moment. It's sad to see you go in this way. You were good at this once upon a time. You had promise. I'll miss you. Gather your stuff before you go home today, ok? Otherwise you might not ever see it again.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Oh Please! It is NOT FUD if there is a serious problem and the fact that Google is tossing copyright header files is in fact a serious problem as anyone with half a brain knows that USA copyright law is murky as hell when it comes to notices, EULAs, and altering the copyrights of someone else without permission which is what Google is doing.
Now will this cause someone problems down the road? Who knows, which is the whole point of the story as like tax laws you are lucky to get two different answers from three copyright attorneys when it comes to areas such as this. So it is NOT FUD if copyright lawyers are unsure if this is a "gotcha" or not which is what I took away from the articles.
Of course what I find funny as hell is there is already a serious gotcha in Android that FOSS advocates are either ignoring on purpose to spread Android or are simply ignorant of, either way it isn't good if you write FOSS code. What is the gotcha? Let me put it this way: notice anything...funny...about Android? Like how Google has gone out of their way to avoid GPL V3 and have made it clear there will be NO GPL V3 in any code Google touches? Why do you think that is?
I'll tell you why, it is so they can TiVo trick your rights away by using hardware lockdowns, that's why. try updating to the latest Android on Motorola phones, see what happens. Don't work does it? The simple fact is GPL V2 is now completely useless thanks to the TiVo trick making it so corporations can take away your freedoms while helping themselves to your code. Now I may be primarily a Windows guy but I do respect RMS's right to have his own license, and developers right to choose a license that agrees with their beliefs. Thanks to TiVo finding that loophole The GPL V2 is completely worthless because ANY corp can simply ignore it by putting code signing or other trivial tricks to lock down your machine!
So if these articles start the FOSS community taking a closer look at Google and their practices I'm ALL for it, because just because a corp uses some GPL code does NOT make them your friend nor a friend of the community. And if you are a coder use GPL V3 ONLY and push everyone around you releasing code to do the same. Because without the four freedoms you may as well just release as PD or BSD for all the freedom you'll have thanks to TiVo tricking. After all what good is Linux running on every cell if you can't actually modify, update, or change it in ANY way without being given explicit permission by the corps first? Hell you may as well just stick with Apple or MSFT if that is the case.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This is kind of my thought on the matter. We would it most certainly be hearing from torvalds and co if they had issue with what google is doing. I would imagine that google's contributions to the kernel would easily negate any bad feelings about them perhaps changing some headers. I don't know much about the standards of this sort of thing in respect to the gpl, but it seems that nothing all that bad is going on here, especially since all this stuff is happening in userspace and outside of the kernel anyways. But what do I know? I just read slashdot. This story has made it through several large news organizations already now (boy is slashdot getting behind the times) and I don't know why the fud keeps getting passed around. There is a lot of stuff that is downright disinformation going on right now, and it is becoming increasingly hard to sort out what is real and not, especially when all sorts of people are posing as "experts" just to fucking perpetuate the disinfo. Now we have the US government doing it, and things are going to start getting pretty distorted. Its interesting to read the world news and to realize how much americans have been looking at the world through rose colored shades. Can't articles on slashdot get downvoted once they are published? It would seem like a good way to cut out a lot of the crap. Of course it would be a lot harder for them to keep up the slashvertisments..............
zosxavius photography
You must have a hard time talking with Steve Ballmer's cock in your mouth.
zosxavius photography
Oh, give me a break. You don't know what you are talking about. You sound just as much a shill as those postulating the original argument. You are here because you want to make the GPL look bad (if it wasn't for the GPL this or GPL that then we'd not have this or that problem--give me a break--the GPL is a good license and is just that).
If it is a matter of leaving out the copyright message they need only put it back to remedy.
Much of what I've read that supports this FUD is bunk. Please, let's all move on.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
"Going to buy an Android phone" doesn't mean "don't give a shit". I'm a Google and Android customer (and a very nice phone it is too) and it irks me when I hear that Google isn't "playing nice" precisely because I am a customer.
Well, it's pretty likely that there are going to be some exceptions who do care, but you're only one person, mistakenly thinking- as happens a lot on Slashdot- that you're representative of the mass market when you're not.
As the OP implies, it *is* pretty likely that the vast majority of consumers- most of which will *not* be tech nerds, let alone Slashdot types, but merely people who want a cheap phone- will not care. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Violating the GPL means you are doing copyright infringement. It might be unclear whether or not you are violating the GPL, but if you are you are doing copyright infringement. Read up on it someday. Obeying a license after the fact does not get you out of the infringement, so there is no way what soever that disobeying the GPL "forces you to release your source code". You are in a civil liability suit.
It is possible to agree with the copyright holders to avoid the suit. Maybe you agree to release your source code. Maybe you agree to wash their floors for a year. So should I say "using GPL code forces you to wash the floors of the copyright holders"? No, that is nonsense. But saying "it forces you to release your source code" actually is exactly the same thing.
You know, there are two licensing-related problems Google is facing now with Android: the Oracle lawsuit, and now this.
There is no connection between these whatsoever. Oracle is entirely at fault in launching is Java suit, which is stupid and self defeating beyond imagination even for a loose cannon like Ellison.
On the other hand, Google is stupid for not moving faster to support fully native applications on Android. So there is stupidity on both sides of the fence on this one, but evil is only on one side.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Macros don't "expand into" code, except by reference, which is allowed.
You know how C preprocessor works, right? Ever seen the output of cpp?
And are you a lawyer to confidently say that it "is allowed"? Or have a solid reference?
Inline functions aren't in these headers, nor would they be in any good code.
Then why does google itself say there are inline functions there?
Is Boost 'bad code'?
By promoting this FUD you've destroyed any credibility you had here. You know that, right? This is your sharp knees moment. It's sad to see you go in this way. You were good at this once upon a time. You had promise. I'll miss you. Gather your stuff before you go home today, ok? Otherwise you might not ever see it again.
You should try thinking less abou personalities and opinions, and more about arguments and logic. Trying to verbally offend your opponent in a dispute with emotional arguments is not a good way to win one. I suggest you re-read this thread from the start and see who of us sounds more like an asshole by the end of it.
The GPL text I quoted says that if your work derives from GPL'ed text, it needs to be licenced under the GPL.
Licensing a work under the GPL means that you need to distribute the source code.
Or are you arguing that the whole "copyleft" thing in the GPL is irrelevant? I think the FSF might feel differently.
You know how C preprocessor works, right? Ever seen the output of cpp?
I've written one. Of course I know how they work. What I don't know is why you think this has any bearing.
What the guy is saying (not Mueller, the other one) is not that a lawsuit is imminent, but rather that there is a potential for it. If push comes to shove, it'll be up to lawyers to interpret what's copyrightable and what's not, and how a derived work is defined - and lawyers are notoriously bad at grasping technical common sense and established standards.
We are beset by lawyers on every front. They know no reason, no logic, no law. They sue everything that moves, every thing that is profitable. When the revolution comes, The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
But what fool would set his course or his hopes on some lawyer-proof plan? There is no such thing. Anybody claiming he can steer you safely through a minefield of lawyers is a charlatan looking to fleece you - and probably a lawyer himself as well.
Your objections are BS. Now what's your motivation?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I have often thought we would have avoided a lot of headaches if we started with NetBSD instead of Linux....
The reality is that in 2005, Linux had the most momentum with the silicon vendors, the largest base of developers (if you're looking to hire systems folks with experience with the kernel), and was easier to explain to carriers, OEMs, silicon vendors, investors, etc. The hardware platform was no longer highly constrained: at Danger in 2000, we started with a 24MHz ARM7, with no MMU, 8K unified cache, 16MB ram, 4MB flash -- at Android in 2005, a 200MHz 64MB ARM9 based system was the baseline -- we had a MMU! luxury! -- Linux no longer seemed like overkill for the hardware at hand.
Linux also draws a bright line between kernel and userspace with the explicit carve-out in the COPYING file declaring that userspace code need to be GPL to interface with the kernel. Explaining that "kernel is GPLv2, userspace is Apache2/BSD/MIT" is pretty straightforward. Explaining that everyone benefits from having a better kernel but the kernel is seldom what makes one product win or lose in the market is also pretty straightforward (seriously -- users only know the kernel exists if it's not working, otherwise it's not what they care about at all).
Yes you need to redistribute your code in order to comply with the GPL license. But it is a license that says "I am going to allow you to violate copyright laws on this material if you do this special thing".
If you don't follow the license, you are VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAWS. You are liable for monetary fines and cease and desist orders. I challenge you to point out the part of US (or any country's) copyright laws that says "oh you can get out of your infringement for free by redistributing your source code".
This really is not that hard. You are NEVER EVER EVER "forced to release your source code". This is the biggest piece of FUD ever to come out of Redmond. I could write a license that says you are required to give me your first-born son if you want to violate the copyright, and if you redistribute without doing that then you are liable for copyright infringement. But you certainly will not be forced to give me your first-born son! Saying so is the most idiotic thing ever.
So why do we never hear of monetary damages for GPL infringements? Why do we only hear of people who release their modifications to the source code?
And you are what I call a "FOSSie" which like a Moonie or any other religious nut goes "la la la!" if you hear something you don't like.
Now since you have reading comprehension issues I suggest you read my post again as I said I support RMS and the GPL but since you obviously don't understand the issue I would suggest you type "TiVoization" into Wikipedia and read what it says, allow me to quote the first line before you go "la la la" again:" TiVoization: a term to describe the creation of a system that incorporates software under the terms of a copyleft software license (like the GPL), but uses hardware restrictions to prevent users from running modified versions of the software on that hardware.
Sound familiar Herman? Why that sounds just like Android right now since whether you have freedoms or not is entirely dependent on the wishes of the corporation and NOT the GPL, and furthermore they can take your freedoms at any time and many already have such as many of the Motorola droids which use code signing.
But go "la la la" all you want Herman, ignore the sound of that zipper behind you as the corps screw you out of your freedoms while you blindly scream 'shill!" at anyone who doesn't suck the koolaid. You support the GPL? Then support GPL V3 which is the ONLY GPL which still gives you freedom. But don't believe me, go look up RMS's reasons for creating GPL V3. Or is he a shill too Herman?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
...but you're only one person, mistakenly thinking- as happens a lot on Slashdot- that you're representative of the mass market when you're not. As the OP implies, it *is* pretty likely that the vast majority of consumers- most of which will *not* be tech nerds, let alone Slashdot types, but merely people who want a cheap phone- will not care. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Whereas you mistakenly think - as also happens a lot on Slashdot - that *zero* datapoints and stating your opinion *loudly* constitutes much better evidence?
They DO ship the original files as well. However, the original headers aren't compatible with Android (the same as they aren't compatible wth many distros - almost everyone tweaks the headers for their distros. When's the last time you saw a plain vanillla kernel in a distro).
Because, as I've said 4 times now, the people agree to do this to AVOID a lawsuit. There are also several examples where parties agreed to cease distributing the infringing content. So much for being "forced to release their source code".
Whereas you mistakenly think - as also happens a lot on Slashdot - that *zero* datapoints and stating your opinion *loudly* constitutes much better evidence?
Show me where I expressed my opinion "loudly"? Ah... hang on, I didn't.
And yes, what I said was opinion based on what I know of ordinary people in general (yes, I *have* met some of them!) and the complete absence of any indication anywhere that would suggest that this was an issue for most people.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Show me where I expressed my opinion "loudly"? Ah... hang on, I didn't.
The asterisks around *is* and *not* were for added quietness and deemphasis, then?
Teh FSF do get to say what they allow in the licence. So the FSF saying that header includes do not make a derived work in their license is absolutely their call.
Now, I can't remember seeing Microsoft saying that including their headers for defining DirectX calls are not making derived works, nor that their headers for Visual C# calls are not making derived works.
And if the FSF cannot decide what makes use of their licensed code a derived work, neither can Microsoft. Nor AT&T. Or, indeed BSD. You HAVE kept all attribution to the code in your license text, haven't you..?
Read the license. It says "derivative work under copyright law." There's a huge body of case law that discusses what a derivative work is. In any case, it's a copyright license. Copyright gives the author the exclusive right to do certain things with the work. A license allows other people to do those things. Those things are (1) Copying the work, (2) preparing derivative works from the work, and a few other things that don't matter here (like, for example "performing") If you're not copying the GPL work and you're not preparing derivative works from the GPL work, then the GPL is irrelevant.