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."

Comments

He's still right in pointing it out

[viablos]

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.

It seems Android is going through lots of different violations. App developers violate GPL, Google violates licenses itself, malware is spreading via app market and the devices are still locked (and android should be open) and hardware and resolution and software that works on specific devices changes dramatically. It looks like iPhone and Windows Phone 7 are more mature and professional.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[dclozier]

The headers files are standards defined!

Can such standards defined files be copyrighted? IBM argued in its case against SCO that the Unix and Linux header files couldnâ(TM)t be copyrighted because of these issues. In the event, it was proved that Novell, and not SCO, owned Unixâ(TM)s copyrights and that issue, to the best of my knowledge, was never settled. Still, speaking for myself, it seems unlikely thereâ(TM)s any danger to Android or Android programmers from Linux header file copyrights.

Do they have a case?

This is just more FUD being generated by Microsoft's shills.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

What a troll. Anti app developer, anti-google, pro microsoft, pro wp7, pro iphone and not an ounce of substance.... Hi Florian

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[HBI]

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...

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[msauve]

The headers files are standards defined!

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>

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[WrongSizeGlass]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Daniel Phillips]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Stumbles]

Your clueless about header files is clear; go read up on their historical use in Unix and Linux land.

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[tomhudson]

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?)

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[The End Of Days]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[shutdown -p now]

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. ~

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[countertrolling]

Read his last statement..

It looks like iPhone and Windows Phone 7 are more mature and professional.

<Begun, the clone wars have>

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, I gave him the benefit of the doubt at first because I personally also think some of Microsoft's products aren't that bad and don't really buy into the "Attack Microsoft about everything, for everything, just because they're Microsoft" mentality.

But one or two of his posts I've read now just make me want to vomit, this post is just the icing on the cake. I have to wonder if as someone else suggested he is in fact Florian or some other equally pointless waste of space.

Either way it's stupid, if Microsoft is paying this shill and it's not just some irrational fanboy who just isn't capable of even the slightest bit of objectivity - i.e. the SuperKendall of the Microsoft world perhaps, then it's one of Microsoft's more stupid moves. They've been making ground in recent years IMO in terms of becoming a slightly less evil tech company, and an action like this would just undo all of that. If it is just a fanboy then I fucking pity him.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Z00L00K]

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?

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[tomhudson]

Sorry that I didn't see this reply before replying to another one of your comments ...

That's one of the problems of a comment system that STILL doesn't let you update comments.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[X0563511]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[h4rr4r]

viablos is a sock puppet use for MS astroturfing, ignore him.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[h4rr4r]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[postbigbang]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Curunir_wolf]

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

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[harlows_monkeys]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[revscat]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[UnknowingFool]

Header files can be considered Scenes a faire and are not subject to copyright.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[shentino]

Devices are not locked. Though it will cost you your warranty, you are able to unlock your bootloader.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[LO0G]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[recoiledsnake]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

One look at the UI and the APIs will tell you that. Android lags a lot, especially with all the OEM skins. iPhone and WP7 are butter smooth. This is in part because of lack of GPU acceleration in Android. It was introduced in 3.0, but still the Xoom lags more than the iPad 1. Why not try it and then bash it?

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[LuYu]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[spitzak]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[HermMunster]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[LO0G]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Had you been around here terribly long...

... says userid 793323 to userid 43916.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Astro-turf much?

Clean your vagina often?

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[BitZtream]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[williamhb]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[mrchaotica]

That's what replies are for.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[X0563511]

The time that I registered (on this account!) has no bearing on how long I've been visiting this site.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

Statistically, yes, it does.
Also, You're an idiot.
Have a nice day

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[symbolset]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[symbolset]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[hairyfeet]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[ZosX]

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..............

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[ZosX]

You must have a hard time talking with Steve Ballmer's cock in your mouth.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[HermMunster]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Dogtanian]

"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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[spitzak]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Daniel Phillips]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[LO0G]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[symbolset]

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?

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[spitzak]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[LO0G]

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?

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[hairyfeet]

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?

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

...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?

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[tomhudson]

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).

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[spitzak]

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".

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Dogtanian]

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.

Re:He's still right in pointing it out

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

If the copyright holders don't complain, who cares?

Re:First Post

[viablos]

That's some shaky ground right there. Even if they don't complain now, they could complain later on. That would also mean that hardware manufacturers and users have to take the risk. They might just choose to use Windows Phone 7 and be sure there's no such problems.

Re:First Post

[BlackSnake112]

If they do not complain then later on they should not be able to sure. The whole process of waiting and launching a lawsuit has gotten out of hand.

Re:First Post

[Belial6]

How is using software from MS any less risky? It isn't like MS products haven't contained illegally copied code in the past.

Re:First Post

[Xtifr]

Even if they don't complain now, they could complain later on

So much for the theory that viablos is FM. I'm pretty sure that Florian knows about doctrine of laches, and won't bother to post such ignorant nonsense.

Re:First Post

[UnknowingFool]

Not according to the law. Failure to bring action against an infringer in a timely manner is a suitable defense. From wikipedia:

"However, a failure to bring a timely infringement suit or action against a known infringer may give the defendant a defense of implied consent or estoppel when suit is finally brought."

Re:First Post

[LuYu]

How is using software from MS any less risky? It isn't like MS products haven't contained illegally copied code in the past.

Worse yet. They may choose to discontinue the product and all support for it or break it with an update -- as they have done repeatedly in the past. If Google discontinues Android, any or all of the companies currently distributing it can continue as before. Google cannot pull the plug on Android. WinPhone7 can be destroyed whenever MS chooses.

And all that is assuming that it will be usable enough for anyone to care. If older versions of Windows Mobile and WinCE are any indication, no one will.

As for illegally copied software in MS products, who could ever know? As they keep their source code secret, you can never know if they are infringing or not or what it will mean if they get caught. This is why all this anti-FOSS stuff is so absurd. FOSS is clean, and anybody can check. No MS software can make that claim because their source code is not available to public scrutiny. They are the true communists -- people supporting a system of autocratic secretive control supported by barely believable lies.

Re:First Post

[Belial6]

When they neglected to take Stacker's copyright notice out of DOS 6.0, it was pretty obvious that they had illegally copied the software even though it was closed source.

Re:First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty sure that viablos is devxo though.. posting pattern is the same: post something vaguely interesting and reasonable early in the discussion and always refer to Microsoft positively even if slightly offtopic. devxo last posted on Monday but karma has nosedived because mods have noticed the pattern, viablos first posted on Wednesday and gains karma because the name is not associated with a shill..

I blame

[Anonymous Coward]

The fearful, the uncertain, and the doubtful

Re:I blame

[Anonymous Coward]

feartain, uncertful, and the doubtain

don't know why i did that.

Header Files

[Anonymous Coward]

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

What copyright holders?

[n2rjt]

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.

Re:What copyright holders?

[harlows_monkeys]

Header files also contain macros and inline functions, which go far beyond mere API.

Copyrighting Header Files

[Anonymous Coward]

Header files can most definitely be copyrighted. You can copyright just about anything.

Re:Copyrighting Header Files

[Stumbles]

You are completely wrong.

What I'd like to see with the GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[dattaway]

Troll.

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[tomhudson]

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.

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[perpenso]

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.

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[h4rr4r]

Please do explain why android could not exist with a GPL v3 kernel. Tivoization is not necessary, nor is it a good thing.

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[dondelelcaro]

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.

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.

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[perpenso]

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.

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.

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[recoiledsnake]

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?

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[dondelelcaro]

For a large project one could create an organization that would hold the copyright of the entire project.

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.)

Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL

[perpenso]

For a large project one could create an organization that would hold the copyright of the entire project. ... 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.

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. :-)

No complaints?

[shutdown -p now]

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?

Re:No complaints?

[Smidge207]

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.

An alarm sounded in the dark, and Linus Torvalds groaned and shuffled under his covers. His wife lay lazily snoring next to him, and the alarm clock bathed their forms in red light as it pulsed.

Before long Linus slapped the snooze button on the alarm, grunted, stretched, and ambled out of bed.

Linus's alarm was was no ordinary one. For starters, it was a 386-based mini-ATX custom rig with 32 MiB that ran Linux 2.6.36.2 in a one-off distro Linus called Alarmix. He used emacs to edit his alarm configuration file every night, and in the morning when alarmd woke up it played a rather loud klaxon. But today it was far earlier than he had set his alarm, and this was a source of worry for Linus.

This klaxon was a special one, run when alarmd was remotely activated by the Git server, meant to alert the core Linux developers that someone was attempting to hack into the Linux kernel code repository. There would likely be a logfile of attempted intrusions displaying on Linus's workstation right now.

Stretching his back and cracking his neck as he wandered slowly to his study, Linus fell lazily into his chair.

"I wonder who it is this time," Linus thought to himself as he jiggled his mouse, temporality blinding himself as his 50" LCD TV came on.

But before Linus's eyes could adjust, he saw stars. Something hard and cold hit him dead-center in the forehead, flipping him backward in his chair onto the floor.

"Hello, Linus," a voice standing over Linus said. "Long time no see, isn't it?" the voice chided.

"What the fuck?" was all Linus could muster as he recovered from the blow.

"In case you're wondering, Linus, that was the butt of my Colt M1991A officer's model," the voice, high and whiny as Linus's ear tuned back in, said. "It's the small-frame six-shot 3-5/8"-barrel version of the classic .45 ACP design."

Linus's heart beat like a jackrabbit fucking on a hot tin roof. A gun? This was a first. His high Finnish forehead was still numb, but he could feel it swelling.

"This baby's small enough to conceal but has excellent stopping power, wouldn't you agree?"

The interloper laughed at his own joke and Linus's ears perked: the narcissistic sense of humor the whiny, nasal voice it finally came together in Linus's addled brain: his assailant was none other than Eric S. Raymond, the ruddy Open Source advocate and Jger-guzzling, gun-toting gas-bag.

"Fuck you, Eric!" Linus shouted. After almost twenty years of tolerating the megalomaniacal bullshit that Raymond served on a regular basis, Linus was more angry than scared. "You can go fuck yourself!"

"I'm glad you brought that up!" Eric said, cheerfully. "That's exactly why I dropped in for a little visit tonight! But I won't be fucking myself"

Linus's moan was muted by the thin, pale, crooked penis covered in a dark brown syrup plunging rudely into his open maw. He gasped through his nose as the skinny, misshapen prick started pumping in and out of his slick mouth.

"Oh yeah" Eric said between breaths. "Ohhh yeah."

The room was silent except for muffled moaning and a wet, fleshy rhythmic pumping sound which reverberated off the dingy, tiled walls.

"Fuck your mouth, Linus!" Eric said. "I want to see cum and Jgermeister all over your pretty little Finnish face!"

Linus was crying, the eye-liner Eric forced him to apply at gunpoint running down his cheeks from his glassy, bloodshot eyes. He gagged and drool poured from his lips.

"I'll need a little lube first, though," Eric said, reaching for his Jger bottle. "Your mouth isn't quite wet enough for old uncle Eric"

Eric uncapped the bottle in one quick motion, not letting his Colt stray from Linus's forehead. Then, something dark and brown started raining on the festivities, covering Li

Re:No complaints?

[mattcasters]

> root privileges on the Git server that maintained the Linux kernel source code

This is a fake story. Linus surely would never give up that easily!

Re:No complaints?

[smbell]

That is from 2003. It certainly doesn't seem to be Linus complaining about Android. And, I think, that is the point. However Google has been behaving itself it has done so with minimal backlash (there has been some for certain actions, but those have generally been resolved peaceably). In fact Linus seems to be pretty OK with Android. http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/02/happy-camper.html

Re:No complaints?

[smbell]

BTW from that same post when asked about the android kernel development: "Linus said... patrick/brabadu: I don't worry about out-of-tree development for odd devices too much. I wish we could merge android, but I also accept it likely being a few years away. We had similar out-of-tree issues with the SGI extreme scalability stuff, and it took quite a while before the standard kernel merged all of that."

Re:No complaints?

[tomhudson]

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?

Okay, now you're definitely trolling, seeing as we've dealt with that question numerous times, and the COPYING file makes it clear that you CAN use kernel headers to make user-land binaries without triggering the "distribution" clause.

What you can't do is make a closed kernel.

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

Linus Torvalds

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

So, since the limitations of the GPL (distribution of source) have been expressly waived for userland programs that only call kernel services, there is NO copyright violation for using the header files in such a fashion, ever.

But keep shilling. It gives more opportunity to refute your arguments.

Re:No complaints?

[tbird20d]

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.

I'll give you a specific example where Linus is dead wrong. errno.h. This header, from the kernel, is included in almost every Linux user-space program, whether open source or not. (glibc's errno.h includes the kernel's errno.h) If you can provide an example of a kernel header file you think would be a problem to include, please specify it.

Re:No complaints?

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize that they have a special set of BSD header files in the kernel which specifically define the interfaces that glibc and other system library implementations use? In fact, they made a very special version called klibc to use for userspace programs that boot really early on during the boot process.

The interfaces exposed to userland are extremely stable, and there would be no need to every regen them. They would type of the matching declarations, and move along. The fact that Android has a process to regenerate them is a fairly clear indication that they are using stuff that isn't normally exposed to userland.

Re:No complaints?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

That is from 2003. It certainly doesn't seem to be Linus complaining about Android. And, I think, that is the point. However Google has been behaving itself it has done so with minimal backlash (there has been some for certain actions, but those have generally been resolved peaceably). In fact Linus seems to be pretty OK with Android. http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/02/happy-camper.html

So from the fact that his statement on the specific issue of misappropriating Linux Kernel header files made in 2003 he doesn't mention Android in particular, and a blog-post saying he owns an Android phone because he uses it as a GPS unit and some games you conclude that Linus would not mind if they actually do what Florian Müller claims they do?

Re:No complaints?

[harlows_monkeys]

The COPYING file you quote makes no mention of kernel headers. It merely says that using the kernel via the mechanism of invoking system calls at runtime is OK.

So, since the limitations of the GPL (distribution of source) have been expressly waived for userland programs that only call kernel services, there is NO copyright violation for using the header files in such a fashion, ever.

That does not follow. There are many possible ways to produce a program that makes system calls into the kernel. The fact that making such system calls is OK does not mean that all ways of producing such a program are OK.

Re:No complaints?

[bodski]

So how do you propose to make system calls directly in your user-land program without including Linux header files? Note that calls via libc are not system calls themselves.

Re:No complaints?

[smbell]

Maybe you missed my reply other reply with a quote from Linus about android. I don't claim to speak for Linus, but I would expect that if he had such a problem with it he might say so when asked directly.
Linus said... patrick/brabadu: I don't worry about out-of-tree development for odd devices too much. I wish we could merge android, but I also accept it likely being a few years away. We had similar out-of-tree issues with the SGI extreme scalability stuff, and it took quite a while before the standard kernel merged all of that.

Re:No complaints?

[Anonymous Coward]

His second post was made before you replied to him the first time. If you'd read Slashdot occasionally you'd know that shutdown -p isn't a shill or a troll (unless he was bought out, but that's dumb). Maybe you should start reading the programming topics or something. *shrug*

Re:No complaints?

[cfulmer]

Let's be careful here.... If using kernel interfaces is a copyright violation, then why doesn't using other interfaces also constitute a copyright violation?

Re:No complaints?

[recoiledsnake]

But keep shilling. It gives more opportunity to refute your arguments.

What's up with this obsession on /. that anyone that says anything that can remotely construed as anti-Linux or pro-MS are paid shills? Can't geeks have an argument in peace without throwing baseless accusations around?

Slashdot did its share of shilling and spreading FUD in the case of Vista DRM etc. and was even publishing results of fake benchmarks against Windows 7.

PS: If anyone from MS reads this, please contact me to pay me for my shilling. Looks like I am missing out on all the actions Thanks. /joke

Re:No complaints?

[shutdown -p now]

The topic of "shilling" etc is, hopefully, settled in the other thread.

However, I don't quite understand the applicability of the note you've quoted. From the wording, it sounds more like an attempt to disambiguate what "linking" is (or, more generally speaking, what a "derived work" is), in the context of userspace vs kernel. While the consensus has always been that apps written for an OS are not works derived from that OS, even though they directly or indirectly use its syscalls - even Stallman agrees on that, last I checked - the entire topic is rather hazy from a strictly legal perspective. After all, FSF says that dynamically linking to libraries does create a derived work for GPL purposes - and that is not fundamentally different from doing syscalls. In both cases, the client binary doesn't have any machine code derived from the source code of the library/kernel, but only calls with matching names & arguments.

  A note like the one you quoted straightens it out: using normal system calls does not make a derived work, even if GPL itself could somehow be interpreted otherwise.

However, the note does not say anything about copyright on the headers. Re-reading the original article (the one before this), it seems that headers in question do actually have the GPL copyright notice in them. In this case, Google stripping that out is definitely wrong, because their process clearly creates a derived work (after all, it does take the original header as input, and applies purely mechanical transformations; I think this is clear cut). As the resulting derived work - the Bionic headers themselves - is not a "userspace binary" (it's not a binary at all!), the exclusion notice in COPYING does not apply to them. However, the notice prevents this from being "viral" - it basically says that userspace apps are not considered derived works by the authors of the kernel at all, regardless of anything else; and thus GPL (or rather copyright itself) simply does not apply.

So it seems to me that "everyone is violating GPL by writing closed-source Android apps" part is FUD, but Google still has some house cleaning to do here to be in the clear - either put the GPL copyright notice back into the headers (with an explanatory note as to why this does not apply to userspace programs including those headers), or else ask the kernel folk to grant them an exception.

Re:No complaints?

[shutdown -p now]

Well, according to the FSF, if you dynamically link to a GPL'd library (and that is strictly "using other interface"), the result is derived work. I don't see how kernel is any different.

The original argument for C/C++ was due to you including the header. When people pointed out that a determined developer could just hand-write all function prototypes and type declarations to match, and that in Java and the likes there are no mechanically included headers, Stallman basically said that, so long as the API is only implemented by a GPL'd library, someone using that API is creating a derived work. This was the gist of the argument where Stallman wanted CLISP to be GPL'd because it was linking (dynamically) to libreadline, which is GPL. Quote:

The FSF position would be that this is still one program, which has only been disguised as two. The reason it is still one program is that the one part clearly shows the intention for incorporation of the other part.

RMS then goes on to say that this is backed by their lawyer. Personally, I have always had my doubts about the validity of that argument - it seems to go against common sense. But then common sense and law don't seem to mix well, especially when it comes to copyright (and intellectual property in general).

(Note though that this all is not applicable to user-mode code calling into kernel using its public API, because there is a separate copyright notice which specifically states that kernel developers will not consider such code a derived work, regardless of anything else.)

Re:No complaints?

[phantomfive]

Copyright doesn't apply to all source code. A lot of programmers don't realize this, but check it out. Specifically it doesn't apply to header files required to interoperate in a normal way with a system, because they are not expressive. Another analysis. Note that in the same conversation you linked to, Linus defended the fact that not all kernel drivers are GPL, and that despite the fact that any kernel module would use kernel header files.

Google only used the header files with constants and struct definitions, which are necessary to interact with the system. They didn't use other portions of the header files, thus they are ok. This is the legal theory they are operating under, and I think it is correct.

As you can see from this link, Google has given thought to the issue, and explains the theory they are working under:

This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel header of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to call into the kernel available to libc. It contains only constants, structures, and macros generated from the original header, and thus, contains no copyrightable information.

Re:No complaints?

[shutdown -p now]

I actually wish Google would win this fight under that argument, because then it would also invalidate FSF/Stallman claims that dynamically linking to a GPL'd library makes the program itself a "derived work". But I'm not a lawyer (and neither are you, right?), so I'm hesitant to conclude one way or another on this.

Ultimately, so long as kernel developers don't raise the issue - and they probably won't, as that way of using the kernel is okay with them regardless of what GPL really means and how it is applicable - I think this won't really be definitely resolved. The FUD will subside eventually.

Re:No complaints?

[phantomfive]

The issue isn't linking dynamically/statically, it's about derivative works. Deciding what exactly is a derivative work and what isn't is difficult, and from a legal standpoint can often only be decided by the judgement of a judge, but whether you link dynamically or statically makes no difference to the issue, as far as I can tell. Linus had some clarifying comments on it:

• -anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_ works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived work.
• -anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around with core code, you're derived, no question about it.

Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray area.

Basically if your program couldn't exist without GPLd code, then it is definitely a derived work, no matter how it is linked. It would be hard to make the case that dynamically linking, or even statically linking if you didn't distribute it, to a GPLd C standard library is a derivative work of that GPLd library.

Re:No complaints?

[NickFortune]

What's up with this obsession on /. that anyone that says anything that can remotely construed as anti-Linux or pro-MS are paid shills? Can't geeks have an argument in peace without throwing baseless accusations around?

I know what you mean. Personally I blame the Microsoft shills. It can be hard to identify honest dissent in among all the opinion-for-hire some days. :)

Slashdot did its share of shilling and spreading FUD in the case of Vista DRM etc. and was even publishing results of fake benchmarks against Windows 7.

Interesting. So are you offering this tid-bit as an example of something which is OK to do as part of our right to hold opinions in good faith? Or are you suggesting that "shutdown -p now" is indeed shilling, but defending his right to do so by suggesting that some linux advocates also represent commercial interests?

You started with a valid point, but rather undermined it by adding "anyway, you do it too, so there!!"

Re:No complaints?

[butlerm]

In this case, Google stripping that out is definitely wrong, because their process clearly creates a derived work (after all, it does take the original header as input, and applies purely mechanical transformations; I think this is clear cut).

Courts have held in the United States that technical interfaces are not copyrightable. That includes structure names, layouts, and so on. See here (pdf).

So if you take a header file and remove all the copyrightable contents (comments and so forth), what you are left with is technical interface meta data that is not protectable by copyright. That is not likely to go so far as legitimizing copies of non-trivial inline functions, but so far as ordinary manifest constants, structure layouts, and function declarations are concerned, if Baystate v. Bentley Systems (1996) means anything, Google appears to be in the clear.

Re:No complaints?

[butlerm]

After all, FSF says that dynamically linking to libraries does create a derived work for GPL purposes - and that is not fundamentally different from doing syscalls. In both cases, the client binary doesn't have any machine code derived from the source code of the library/kernel, but only calls with matching names & arguments.

That is entirely wishful thinking on the part of the FSF. There is no rational argument that can be made that mere compatibility between A and B necessarily makes A "based upon" B or vice versa in a manner protected by copyright law.

Technical interfaces are not copyrightable, and that is a good thing. If it were not the case, merely connecting a network cable between a Linux system and a Windows system could create a prohibited "derived work", and more especially if the Linux system implemented anything compatible with Windows - Wine, Samba, FAT etc.

Do we really want a world where you can't read the contents of a Flash drive on any Linux system? Where opening a Microsoft Office compatible document on anything not licensed by Microsoft is illegal? Where accessing a Windows network share is similarly restricted?

Patent restrictions are bad enough. If Congress or the courts decided to enshrine the FSF's absurd conception of "derived work" into law, most of the software industry would be rendered illegal over night, and Linux in particular would be reduced into a footnote in history. It could never actually boot on virtually anything.

You couldn't even compile a kernel for any commercial microprocessor without violating the manufacturer's copyright. Technical interface you see, and running a kernel on proprietary hardware would be illegal without licenses from hundreds of integrated circuit and printed circuit board manufacturers. Assuming you could get licenses from the every network and router manufacturer on the planet, so you could plug it into the Internet, to say nothing of the electrical grid.

Re:No complaints?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had done any research into this issue instead of just ignorantly assuming Google can do no wrong, you would have found the original claims from IP lawyers mentioned SPECIFIC files.

In fact, there are several Linux kernel header files that consist almost entirely of static inline function, which is generally regarded as copyrightable expression. For instance, the Linux kernel header file consists of an optimized byteswapping function that was included by the Linux kernel developers because it was clever and well-written – the kind of creativity that constitutes copyright protection. (The initial thread from the Linux kernel mailing list that contributes this particular inline function and discusses the performance benefit it supplies is available at http://lkml.org/lkml/2002/11/29/68.) When it created the “clean” Bionic headers, Google kept this inline function.

When are you Google apologists going to see that Google don't give a shit about software licence or about open source?

Re:No complaints?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are shilling? You are the one who apparently can't even read the things you quote. it says NORMAL SYSTEM CALLS. It does not say you can include headers for other kernel functions, or include headers containing inline functions. Those things are strictly prohibited. Yet Google did it anyway. Why are you apologising for Google? Why are you trying to weaken the strength of the GPL? If your argument were true, the GPL would have no legal power to prevent linking.

If there are any shills here, they are the GPL hating Google apologists.

Re:No complaints?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there is no blanket law stating header files are not copyrightable. It is based on a case by case basis. If the headers don't contain any original expression, and are needed for interoperability, then courts have generally found them not copyrightable. But those things don't apply to all the linux kernel headers. Inline functions are copyrightable, and Google have copied those directly. The kernel also contains many headers that are unique expressions, which makes the copyrightable

From the legal analysis:

To pick another example, sys/socket.h is a complex header file that defines socket functions and data structures in UNIX systems. There is a standard specification that defines the functionality that should provide. See http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/sys/socket.h.html. Like all specifications, this one can be implemented in many different ways. The Linux 2.6 implementation (available at http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/include/linux/socket.h?v=linux-2.6) includes an inline function for creating data structures, including the cmsghdr data structure. The Bionic implementation (available at http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/bionic.git;a=blob;f=libc/kernel/common/linux/socket.h;h=b578df94328dd78ef7e 7bc57791bdae8e0192db7;hb=froyo-release) was generated automatically from the Linux 2.6 implementation, and it is substantially identical, even including the inline functions.

Other flavors of UNIX, by contrast, implement the sys/socket.h specification in different ways. Compare FreeBSD (http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/sys/socket.h), NetBSD (http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/sys/socket.h?v=NETBSD), OpenSolaris (http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/common/sys/socket.h?v=OPENSOLARIS), and XNU (Apple’s Darwin kernel) (http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/bsd/sys/socket.h?v=xnu-1456.1.26). When there are so many different ways to express an idea, here the specification, those different expressions are copyrightable. Lexmark, 387 F.3d at 535 (citing Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 840(Fed. Cir. 1992 (“The unique arrangement of computer program expression which generates [the] data stream does not merge with the process so long as alternate expressions are available.”). Consequently, the portions of the Linux 2.6 sys/socket.h header that are included in the Bionic version are almost certainly protected by copyright.

The quote from Google is highly damning, since it does not mention inline functions, yet Google have copied inline functions. So even by their own analysis Google have violated the GPL.

Re:No complaints?

[cfulmer]

The problem is that "derivative work" has a meaning under copyright law -- the FSF doesn't get to say what it means. If dynamically linking to a generic GPL'd library creates a derivative work of that library, then dynamically linking to *any* library creates a derivative work of that library. Let's look closer: what if the library wasn't dynamically linked, but was called via a remote procedure or remote method call? What if there's no RPC mechanism, but just a published packet format? What if it calls system() to run a GPL'd program? Is there any limit where software A exports an interface to software B, where B doesn't become a derivative work of A? In general, a derivative work is any form in which the original work may be "recast, transformed, or adapted." The copyright act includes a bunch of examples -- things like translations, abridgements, musical arrangement, fictionalization, etc.... All of those involve changing some copyrightable portion of the original. In general, that doesn't happen when you just use an exported interface. Note, though, that things like static linking create copies of the original library. And, creating copies outside the bounds of a license is a copyright infringement. Which brings us to the special cases.... It's possible to include code in a header file, through things like macros, inline functions and (like we all learned when starting to program in C) actually inserting functions in the header. If the compiled work actually uses those things, then it may actually contain a copy of them (in compiled form). So, if those things are subject to copyright, then the compiled work may be an infringement of the copyright in the header file. There are, however, several ways that they may not be copyrightable or actionable, such as the merger doctrine, scenes a faire, de minimus usage, and fair use.

Re:No complaints?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. You must be one of those cock smoking Linux shills.

Re:No complaints?

[Unequivocal]

Would somebody with points mod P up? Google is attempting to strip out complex inline functions, comments and all the rest of it, apparently to make an uncopyrightable version of Linux header files. They even allude to this in their bionic readme: how they have an optimizer that figures out when an inline function can be reduced to something simpler and they do the reduction in their output. They seem to have tried to think this through, and specifically to be in-line with Baystate v Bentley.

Re:No complaints?

[tqk]

"Hello, Linus," a voice standing over Linus said. "Long time no see, isn't it?" the voice chided.

"What the fuck?" was all Linus could muster as he recovered from the blow.

In the bedroom, Tove rolls over and mutters, "Ah fsck! It's that Raymond jerk again, damnit!" as she reaches for her son's aluminum baseball bat.

Re:No complaints?

[tomhudson]

Yes, it's settled - you're not a shill, and I apologize for assuming it. I've just seen the same silly arguments repeated over and over, buying into the whole fud. How anyone can accept anything that Florian Mueller writes nowadays without an accompanying wheelbarrow of salt still amazes me.

From a technical standpoint, the FSF isn't always 100% accurate with respect to what constitutes linking, though they're usually more accurate than most on many topics.

Linking involves writing the addresses of called routines directly into your program. This can be done at compile time (static linking) or run time (dynamic linking). Hence why a linker was originally called a link editor. It "edited" the object code to patch it with the correct addresses to the statically linked code (back in the good old days when pretty much everything was statically linked except OS calls you'd make via interrupts).

This is in contrast, for example, to doing one or more register loads and then an interrupt, which involves no linking to the called routine, but can also call the same code. This gives you all the benefits of dynamic linking without the headaches.

One good example where the FSF totally is in the wrong wrt linking is the question of scripts such as php, that call other scripts. There is simply no way that the original script is ever linked. Not even in the runtime, since again, there is simply no patching of the "code" jump addresses - they don't exist. The script is run in the interpreter, which, while it might create an in-memory representation, or even pseudo-code or so-called "byte code" (a really bad name, since it's not really code that can be executed outside an interpreter), is irrelevant. After all, that final code is NOT run directly - it's interpreted, and the interpreter is what calls the supposedly "linked to" routine. The calling code simply cannot do that by itself. If the calling code can't directly call the "linked-in" code, then it cannot be said to be linked in, can it?

Of course, many people will dispute this, because to them, bytecode is "real code" - even though it can't be executed. Just like, to them, objects are real, even though they're not - they're just an abstraction we use to hide the underlying bits and bytes :-)

Now on to the question of the cleaned-up headers - if there's nothing left in them that is protectable by copyright, then there's no need for a copyright notice, no matter what the source, is there?

Re:No complaints?

[tomhudson]

1. Some of the inline functions aren't copyrightable. There are various exceptions to software copyright. You might want to check that. I've provided links elsewhere in the thread, as have others.

Re:No complaints?

[tomhudson]

We discussed it in more detail, and I apologized for the accusation. I was wrong.

(I know, this is slashdot, nobody's supposed to ever admit they were wrong, or apologize, hand in my geek card, etc ...)

Re:No complaints?

[recoiledsnake]

Well, I was not referring to this specific message, but the general trend on Slashdot to discount opinions and call people shills. I usually feel that most people accused as paid shills either genuinely believe in what they say, are trolls or just like to argue for/against something passionately. I seriously doubt any company would pay people to post on sites like Slashdot.

a list of facts is not copyrightable.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:a list of facts is not copyrightable.

[dltaylor]

IANAL, but that's not true in the USofA (Australia, too, IIRC). Although the facts themselves are not copyrightable, specific aggregates of those facts are.

A 'phone book's copyright is held by the "person" publishing the book. In Australia, the case involved aggregation of TV schedules (the schedule entries were "facts", but the aggregated schedule was a "work"). Various data aggregations are sold by businesses, and a few government agencies, and those aggregations have copyrights.

Re:a list of facts is not copyrightable.

[dondelelcaro]

IANAL, but that's not true in the USofA (Australia, too, IIRC). Although the facts themselves are not copyrightable, specific aggregates of those facts are.

That's incorrect. See FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO for a case which deals with precisely this issue (and is widely quoted when someone brings this up.)

Re:a list of facts is not copyrightable.

[eee_eff]

You should be acquainted with Feist v Rural Telephone. The information in the telephone book is NOT copyrightable. ALL of the information in the aggregation can be freely copied:

[7] Rural sued for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas taking the position that Feist, in compiling its own directory, could not use the information contained in Rural's white pages. As applied to a factual compilation, assuming the absence of original written expression, only the compiler's selection and arrangement may be protected; the raw facts may be copied at will. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art. [20] This Court has long recognized that the fact-expression dichotomy limits severely the scope of protection in fact-based works. More than a century ago, the Court observed: "The very object of publishing a book on science or the useful arts is to communicate to the world the useful knowledge which it contains. But this object would be frustrated if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt of piracy of the book." Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103 (1880). We reiterated this point in Harper & Row: "No author may copyright facts or ideas. The copyright is limited to those aspects of the work -- termed 'expression' -- that display the stamp of the author's originality. “Copyright does not prevent subsequent users from copying from a prior author's work those constituent elements that are not original -- for example . . . facts, or materials in the public domain -- as long as such use does not unfairly appropriate the author's original contributions.” 471 U.S., at 547-548 (citation omitted). [21] This, then, resolves the doctrinal tension: Copyright treats facts and factual compilations in a wholly consistent manner. Facts, whether alone or as part of a compilation, are not original and therefore may not be copyrighted. A factual compilation is eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to [p*351] the particular selection or arrangement. In no event may copyright extend to the facts themselves.

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

All 3 Windows 7 phones have no malware (yet).

Re:I agree

[recoiledsnake]

Those 3 people have 10,000 apps to use though...growed faster than Android or iOS stores, silly Slashdot with it's anti-MS bias and tunnel vision from reading only the posted news and comments.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/windows-phone-marketplace-fastest-to-hit-10000-app-milestone/5596
http://wpcentral.com/milestone-windows-phone-marketplace-hits-10-000-will-overtake-rim-6-months

Re:I agree

[mijelh]

besides windows 7 itself

(just joking, I do think windows 7 is a good OS)

Re:I agree

[ZosX]

Amazing! WP7 has more apps than users!

Re:I agree

[ZosX]

Actually it is 3 million....

http://www.knowyourcell.com/news/811040/windows_phone_7_sales_soar_in_february.html

Compared to android which is sitting at 67M for 2010 alone and Apple at 46M......

http://www.knowyourcell.com/news/811040/windows_phone_7_sales_soar_in_february.html

The 10,000 apps means nothing. Apple's app store has over 366,000 apps. Android over 250,000.

Which market do you think has developers the most excited?

I didn't even mention the huge blackberry userbase.

Sez who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says header files can't be copyrighted?

Re:Sez who?

[sribe]

Copyright law, and precedent. Header files are often functional descriptions of an API, without any creative element. Take for instance all the noise that SCO made about errno.h--a list of error numbers and names is not copyrightable because there is no creative element, the entire thing is driven by the functional requirement and is no more than data about errors.

This of course doesn't mean that no header files can be protected by copyright, just that the kind of material that is generally found in header files is a kind of material that is often not copyrightable.

Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[perpenso]

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.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[h4rr4r]

Which explains why BSD is so much more popular than Linux, right?

I humbly suggest you go check out netcraft.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[Frnknstn]

I see. And would you characterise your support for BSD licenses as... ideological?

Perhaps you should reread what you replied to:

And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives.

Anything that drives people away from GPL sources also drives people away from Open Source licenses, if you agree that the GPL is an open source license.

I can understand that you might be merely trying to add specificity to that comment, but please read what you are replying to one more time:

And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives.

If you can concede that being able to use a mature existing codebase is one of the main reason people use open source code in their projects, and if you concede that a large amount of open source code is only available under the GPL, then it follows that anyone who wants to develop something related to said GPL-only code, would be dissuaded from developing an open source project at all. If the GPL is FUD-encumbered and there is no non-GPL open source code, the people would likely not develop an open source project.

Okay, please read what you replied to just once more:

And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives.

Pay attention to that part that says 'developing Open Source.' Note how OP DIDN'T say 'using open source code'. For all their benefits, BSD-style licenses do not have INTRINSIC reason to develop derivative projects as open source. In fact, if the code WAS BDS'd, this would not be an issue at all, as Google would have been free to do whatever they wanted with those damnable header files.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[perpenso]

Which explains why BSD is so much more popular than Linux, right? I humbly suggest you go check out netcraft.

That's a straw man. The GP said that issues like these drive people away from open source. I pointed out that not all open source has these issues. My point stands.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[perpenso]

I see. And would you characterise your support for BSD licenses as... ideological?

So pointing out that a legal issue is GPL specific and does not affect open source is general is ideological. That's an interesting perspective.

If you can concede that being able to use a mature existing codebase is one of the main reason people use open source code in their projects ...

BSD offers a mature code base.

... and if you concede that a large amount of open source code is only available under the GPL, then it follows that anyone who wants to develop something related to said GPL-only code, would be dissuaded from developing an open source project at all.

No. The condition that someone wants to develop something related to GPL'd code is fallacious. The original post mentioned open source in general, source code utilizing other licenses can be used. For example while Google chose GPL based code Apple, Sun, etc chose BSD based code.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[BitZtream]

Lets see ... Combine the metrics of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and their forks ... and don't forget to include the big one ... OS X. Yea, BSD is slightly more popular than Linux. I humbly suggest YOU go check out netcraft ...

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[peppepz]

1) Google is being "sued in to bankruptcy" for the Apache Harmony Java VM which has a BSD-like license.
2) If the "fear" that "users of BSD and comparable license" don't have, is of being unable to take code for free without giving their code back, then it's not an "open source" matter. If a company "runs away" from GPL code because they don't want to contribute back code to the community, then they wouldn't contribute back even if the original code was under the BSD license, or under Windows' license agreement.
The open source community won't lose anything for the fact that the company is not adopting the GPL code, because they wouldn't contribute anything back if the code was BSD. Hence for the community there is no "cost associated to GPL" in this case.
3) Stripping license text from source files *is* a violation even of some BSD licenses.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[perpenso]

Google is being "sued in to bankruptcy" for the Apache Harmony Java VM which has a BSD-like license.

That is quite the misrepresentation. This thread is about Google supposedly misusing the Linux kernel headers which are GPL'd, this controversy is over a copyright violation. The Google / Oracle suit is over patent violations, the BSD license is a non issue in this case.

Stripping license text from source files *is* a violation even of some BSD licenses.

Thats a straw man. The issue in the current controversy is that if Google loses then third party app developers might be forced to open their source code per GPL requirements (its not my theory, its what this /. article offers). I don't think this is very likely, but such a situation is not even possible under BSD since there is no requirement to publish source code.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[peppepz]

That is quite the misrepresentation. This thread is about Google supposedly misusing the Linux kernel headers which are GPL'd, this controversy is over a copyright violation. The Google / Oracle suit is over patent violations, the BSD license is a non issue in this case.

I only added more information to the union of your post and the parent, which might be carelessly read together like "oh no, OSS makes you get sued" / "no, it's only the GPL that does".
And by the way, Oracle is also suing Google for *copyright* violations, not only patents. Moreover, had Google used Oracle's GPLed JVM, they would be protected by the patent statement contained in the GPL (and missing in BSD-like licenses).

Stripping license text from source files *is* a violation even of some BSD licenses.

Thats a straw man. The issue in the current controversy is that if Google loses then third party app developers might be forced to open their source code per GPL requirements

I'm not talking about the current controversy, I'm talking about the BSD license not being the deus-ex-machina for all licensing controversies.
If, instead of being GPL, the linux kernel headers were under the Apache license, Google would still be liable because they didn't respect article 4 point C of the license, which would require them not to strip copyright notices from the code they're redistributing.

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[Frnknstn]

So pointing out that a legal issue is GPL specific and does not affect open source is general is ideological

No. However, supporting BSD licences over GPL because the latter are 'viral' is an ideological choice. Choosing a BSD license because one believes it to be more 'free' is an ideological choice. My real point here is that the BSD license is at least as 'ideological' as the GPL, and according to your logic, that 'its adoption will be impeded to some degree', just like the GPL.

BSD offers a mature code base.

I completely agree. But that wasn't my point.

For example while Google chose GPL based code Apple, Sun, etc chose BSD based code.

Absolutely! As a result, I can download Google's Android patches. Where can I get Apple's code? Now that OpenSolaris has been canned, where can I get Oracle's code?

How did the BSD-style licenses help Apple and Oracle develop open-source projects?

Re:Drives people from GPL, not FOSS

[perpenso]

So pointing out that a legal issue is GPL specific and does not affect open source is general is ideological?

No. However, supporting BSD licences over GPL because the latter are 'viral' is an ideological choice. Choosing a BSD license because one believes it to be more 'free' is an ideological choice. My real point here is that the BSD license is at least as 'ideological' as the GPL, and according to your logic, that 'its adoption will be impeded to some degree', just like the GPL.

Actually choosing BSD is practical, completely unencumbered. Saying one is ideological because one rejects an ideology or its restrictions is as logical as saying one is religious because one rejects a religion or its practices.

For example while Google chose GPL based code Apple, Sun, etc chose BSD based code.

How did the BSD-style licenses help Apple and Oracle develop open-source projects?

Apple development or contributions: Darwin, Mach, FreeBSD, Bonjour, WebKit, HFS, ...

Google's kind of cool so ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google's kind of cool so ...

[cyber-vandal]

Nothing to do with Microsoft being uncool and everything to with them being a habitual law-breaker. When Google have a similar shady past then I'm sure they'll take just as much shit as Microsoft deservedly do now.

Re:Google's kind of cool so ...

[smash]

You mean to say google DOESN'T have a shady past at this stage?

Re:Google's kind of cool so ...

[cyber-vandal]

They haven't been convicted of serious monopoly abuse in two of the world's largest markets yet, nor do they have a long history of using illegal means to crush anyone who dares threaten that monopoly.

Re:Google's kind of cool so ...

[smash]

No conviction yet doesn't mean they're not involved in a lot of dubious stuff.

Some headers may be copyrightable

[perpenso]

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.

And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[tbird20d]

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?

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation on the legal standards? Just because no-one has complained/sued about such use of headers before doesn't mean the legal contract doesn't actually cover them. Could make for a nice sleeper clause to force other programs to go GPL at a later time (although the ill will that would bring on... ).

What really gets me about this is Google stripping out the GPL copyright notices from the headers. Headers contain code, which is a copyrightable thing. Google is distributing the code in the headers without the mandated copyright notices. Even if the GPL allows compiling the headers into your own binary without your binary being GPL, it seems to me that Google is violating the express terms.

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[harlows_monkeys]

Perhaps the glibc authors obtained permission?

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[MtHuurne]

What I gathered from the previous articles is that Bionic includes headers that are automatically generated from the Linux kernel headers with a statement added by Google that those generated headers contain no copyrightable material. What glibc does is compile against the unmodified Linux kernel headers, which must be present in some directory on the machine doing the build. So glibc includes the kernel headers by means of the C #include preprocessor directive, not by copying text fragments from them into the library package. I haven't looked at the Bionic sources, so I haven't verified this myself; it is based on statements in the articles.

What I wonder is why Google would not simply compile their libc against the Linux kernel source, like glibc does. That would avoid the legal uncertainty. Is there anyone familiar with the Android internals who can shed some light on this?

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[Anonymous Coward]

The rational is here; basically, kernel headers are typically used in compiling the kernel, so using it to build userspace apps is a typically untested configuration that is prone to breakage. The script (according to the readme) tries to strip the bits that cause problems which they didn't need in the first place. It looks like they just remove all comments, so the removal of the license is a side effect of that.

I don't actually do anything with Android (or have a device), this is just from reading that file.

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[shutdown -p now]

What I gathered from the previous articles is that Bionic includes headers that are automatically generated from the Linux kernel headers with a statement added by Google that those generated headers contain no copyrightable material. What glibc does is compile against the unmodified Linux kernel headers, which must be present in some directory on the machine doing the build. So glibc includes the kernel headers by means of the C #include preprocessor directive, not by copying text fragments from them into the library package.

I don't think it matters whether you #include or redistribute. If it does indeed work as you describe, then it sounds like glibc binary would be GPL'd (or so FSF says). But I've checked the license on the corresponding (binary) package in Fedora, and it's LGPL. Interesting.

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[phantomfive]

The legal analysis is here. The argument is basically that Bionic copied directly from the kernel, like this clever implementation of a byteswap. It's the cleverness that makes it copyrightable, whereas headers that only include defines used for interopt are not copyrightable. The glibc version of the same file is original; it doesn't come from the Linux kernel (at least I can't find it). So the problem is there may be original ideas that come from the linux code that got put into bionic. At the same time, it would be hard to argue that a program linking to a standard C library is a derivative work of that particular implementation. I believe such an argument would get laughed out of court.

Now, this guy is a lawyer, and he understands copyright law more than me, but his understanding of this particular issue is weak. The example given earlier, of the bytewaps, does not apply at all to any developers on ARM because that was x86 specific code.

His second argument is extremely weak. He says the API is also copyrightable (which is sometimes true), and that if it were not, someone could use it to re-implement a closed source version of Linux. Which is true, but it's a rather braindead thing to worry about: getting the API is not the hardest part of that (and indeed, BSD has a linux compatibility layer that responds correctly to the Linux APIs).

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[drinkypoo]

Perhaps the glibc authors obtained permission?

From everyone who ever touched a Linux header file? No, it's more likely that it was declared loudly and widely that if you have an interest you had better speak up. Nobody seems to be speaking up now, either, except trolls and FUDsters.

Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I wonder is why Google would not simply compile their libc against the Linux kernel source, like glibc does. That would avoid the legal uncertainty. Is there anyone familiar with the Android internals who can shed some light on this?

If I read it correctly, the readme inside github for the bionic source indicates that they already tried to simply compile their libc against the kernel headers without __KERNEL__ defined (i.e. the same way glbc does it) and they STILL had problems. So after that, they decided to strip out the problem stuff to give them *clean* headers to compile bionic and for clients of bionic to use.

Why is it so hard to make a pure linux phone?

[awpoopy]

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

Re:Why is it so hard to make a pure linux phone?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called functionality

Linux phone (Android) is as much about Linux, as X is about Linux. It's just a bunch of FUD. Google only needs to license actual kernel patches under GPL.

X is clearly not licensed under GPL.

Re:Why is it so hard to make a pure linux phone?

[WatchMaster]

it is hard because of of the people trying to stop you from doing it. those people being the guys with their in-house systems that can't compete on their own merits.

Re:Why is it so hard to make a pure linux phone?

[tqk]

Not being sarcastic (this time), but is it really that hard to make a Linux phone?

It's reinventing the wheel. Nokia N900

Mobile website

[burisch_research]

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.

It's SCO all over again

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It's SCO all over again

[Penguinisto]

'cept this time it's Android they want to drub up a bit...

After all, WP 7 isn't exactly selling like hotcakes (or even like cold cakes for that matter).

This whole affair tells me a lot more about how bad Microsoft's phone sales numbers really are, than any cock-and-bull show about how many licenses they "sold" (read: stuffed into the channel) since launch.

Re:It's SCO all over again

[Penguinisto]

Aww, did the little Microsoft fanboys get offended (and got mod points to boot)?

Ah well. :p

Re:It's SCO all over again

[Penguinisto]

That's right, little astroturfers... keep wasting the mod points. ;)

poor artticle

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:poor artticle

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, evil people make stupid arguments, and this appears to be one of those times.

Re:poor artticle

[tqk]

It is intellectually dishonest ...

Oh please, you're an AC, ffs!

Often evil people are right and virtuous people are wrong, get used to it.

Allow me to introduce you to the difference between "sins of omission" vs. "sins of commission." Actions and intent are everything.

More noise from Microsoft, obviously

[eee_eff]

Microsoft has been shown to be behind the SCO lawsuit rather convincingly by groklaw. This is just more noise, and I am not surprised to see Florain Mueller, paid Microsoft stooge, jumped very quickly on this astroturfed bandwagon. See that Ed Naughton's bio used to list all of the work he had done for Microsoft and now it is suddenly revised. Microsoft is one of the most deeply immoral companies ever with no respect for the idea of truth, let alone integrity. As covered at Groklaw news picks:

"Edward J. Naughton bio gets revised [PJ: Edward J. Naughton, the attorney Huffington Post just published claiming Android may be in violation of the GPL has done work for Microsoft. Surprised much? His article states this at the end: "The views expressed are my own individual views and should not be attributed to any clients." Nevertheless, at least one of them may be delighted. His bio has changed recently. The link above is to its current state, where you will not find any mention of Microsoft. It's been changed to a "Fortune 50 software company". Here's what used to be on it, still in Google cache, a snapshot taken recently, on March 8]: - Co-counsel defending Microsoft against a putative consumer class action alleging that it had violated wiretapping statutes and common law privacy rights by designing Windows to permit third parties to place cookies on computers. Obtained dismissal of complaint.... - Represented Microsoft in several dozen lawsuits against resellers and corporate end-users of counterfeit, infringing, and unlicensed software. - Brown Rudnick bio page for Naughton

Re:More noise from Microsoft, obviously

[gutnor]

Correlation is not causation. The reason they are all connected to Microsoft can also be that they are just a bunch of greedy bastards that try to whore some attention/prestige with the least effort possible, i.e. using their old turf as starting point. For the SCO case, people would like to think that Microsoft coerced SCO to go against Linux. I'm more convinced that SCO got the idea itself and begged Microsoft for cash.

It is not defending Microsoft btw - there is enough *direct* evidence that they deserve their reputation - just point out that they can save their money for big time lobbying - the low level astroturfing like this one is covered by volunteers.

Others pointing fingers...

[novar21]

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.

Florian Mueller?

[Trufagus]

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?

Re:Florian Mueller?

[Anonymous Coward]

Florian Mueller actually shows up in the comments in TFA and mentions that he has rebutted those "debunkings", and posts this link:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-device-makers-distribute-oracle.html

The author of TFA, who also said his claims had been debunked, had to change it from saying "proven wrong" to "being disputed".

Re:Florian Mueller?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and Mueller was basically schooled by the author.

Mueller in those remarks basically displays his ignorance with every post. You almost feel bad for him; he's out of his depth.

Re:Florian Mueller?

[lakeland]

That's going a bit far.

1) He is honest about who he is - no anonymous astroturfing. He posts something and defends his views on the public internet. Someone with no credibility would not do so. PJ accused him of being paid by MS and he did not (admit or) deny this.

2) His arguments have changed over time, and I agree that he tends to be more and less vocal in ways that imply someone is directing his energy rather than personal passion reacting to events. However his arguments make moderate sense - I think he believes what he is saying. Even if you go back say ten years, you'll find very few posts by him that contradict the views he's publishing now. I would describe it as the difference between an evangelist and a shill.

3) If you break down his arguments they tend to make some sense. Simplifying: he tried to defeat software patents and lost, from which he learned that IP is going to win and the best we can do is hide in our basements and minimise the risk the nasty lawyers will come after us next. I can understand why MS would want to pay someone to espouse this view, but I still think he is saying things he believes.

Compare him to real shills, like was it Maureen O'Gara and Rob Ealande (spelling from memory), where I'm pretty sure they knew what they were posting was false or that with only a few minutes of investigative journalism they could find the flaws in it - effectively they knew they were deceiving their readers deliberately and I don't think that applies to Mueller.

I'm not saying it's necessarily worth your time listening to him, but I think he's still got some credibility and he does present interesting counter-arguments.

Re:Florian Mueller?

[lakeland]

Yes, that's the feeling I get too. He believes something but does not have the depth of understanding to either argue about it effectively or for me to trust that he has avoided mistakes in coming to his beliefs.

Incidentally, why did you post anonymously?

Re:Florian Mueller?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod this up, it's informative and shows the longer-term view.

s/Rob Ealande/Rob Enderle/. You could also mention Kenneth Brown from the Alexis de Tocqeville institute who wrote that book that "surely just a dumb student like Linus Torvalds couldn't really have written Linux so it's all stolen and copied", Samizdat.

please ignore this scare tactic...

[dirtyhippie]

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?

Google not pursuing GPL Copyright Violations

[lkcl]

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.

Re:Google not pursuing GPL Copyright Violations

[WATist]

I believe your confusing trademark law with copyright law.

Re:Google not pursuing GPL Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

No you are thinking about patent law. You can choose to be selective if you own the copyright.

Re:Google not pursuing GPL Copyright Violations

[UnknowingFool]

Trademarks require active usage or the are considered abandoned; copyrights and patents are not abandoned. While rights holders do not have to actively police for any infringements, neither trademark nor copyrights allow the holder to simply ignore infringements now and sue later. The defendant can claim implied consent or estoppel.

Re:Google not pursuing GPL Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

They cannot do this, because a third party (ie, Google) is not permitted to file copyright infringement cases.

Re:Google not pursuing GPL Copyright Violations

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right! Mandatory reading material for this is http://projectgus.com/2010/07/open-source-in-android-tablets/ and http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/

What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[harlows_monkeys]

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.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean exactly like Apple did?

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[smash]

Pretty much, yes. Not necessarily implemented the same (Apple run Mach with BSD userland), but the BSD license is the ideal license for what they are trying to do. The BSD license is essentially "do what you want, just credit us". No legal bollocks to trip you up later. Linux vs BSD in terms of technical capabilities is close enough to make any comparison on that basis pretty much moot.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I have been thinking all along. This is the most intelligent response i've seen on this topic.

Vote this guy up!

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree because I vastly prefer the BSD license to the GPL.

I disagree because it would be abused by phone manufacturers. Proprietary kernel changes? Closed drivers? Fuck that.

Right now Android is in a precarious balancing act which actually seems to work. GPLed driver development means any off-the-shelf phones can be ported to run on non-stock kernel builds (assuming the phone is unlocked). BSDed userspace APIs means manufacturers adopt and develop for Android because they can keep their app and library code proprietary.

It isn't pretty but it's better than nothing. IMO Android would be perfect if the kernel was licensed GPLv3. Fuck the lockdown attempts.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[simoncpu was here]

It's the same reason why they chose Java for Android-- it's something that they're familiar with.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

If you have no idea why everybody else is doing something, you should find suspect perhaps they know something you don't.

In this case, there is a huge technical advantage to using Linux over BSD. Where to start? First, Linux has far, far more drivers for the hardware you need on mobile devices. And a lot more people know how to write such drivers, so it's far easier to hire someone to write a new one for you. Second, Linux has enormous resources poured into it from multiple corporations and independent contributors, far far more than any BSD variant. Linux therefore has more features and optimizations.

Note: I'm not hating on BSD. The BSDs are fine OSes, and there are problems for which they are a good solution. For example, if all you need is a super-secure server OS, a BSD might be right for you - it's simpler than Linux, some of the variants focus more on stability and security, and you probably won't run into hardware compatibility there. But for a mobile phone OS, there are very, very good reasons why Google, Palm, Nokia, Intel, etc. have all chosen Linux as the basis for their mobile OSes.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I know this is going to get voted way down as a troll attempt or something

If you were saying something bad about Apple it would be, but these days on slashdot, *nobody* gives a shit about Linux or Android unless the discussion is about how terrible they are compared to Apple's products.

Oh and have you heard about the rumors of the iPhone 5? Fucking AMAZING! It will kill off Android for good.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[hedwards]

Theoretically, that could happen, in practice it's unlikely. The reason why is that if they chose to go that route, they would almost certainly be deprived of the right to claim that they were an Android handset. The software license is hardly the only tool that Google has available to nudge handset manufacturers in the right direction, they could also do like they do now and restrict which phones are allowed to connect to their marketplace.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[peppepz]

Same for all the various router manufacturers, set top box makers, TV makers, and so on that have run into GPL problems.

Who? Linux is used successfully on millions of commercially successful devices, released by manufacturers such as Sony, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung with no problem whatsoever.

The only "problems" I remember were when in the late 90s some router manufacturer was kindly requested to put some tarballs on their FTP site. I think that the burden of having to serve the sources is well paid by having access to a kernel which has more features and drivers, is easier to deploy, has an extremely larger user and developer base, ...

Google's current "problem" is being sued by Oracle for using the Apache Harmony Java VM which was licensed under a BSD-like license.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the GPL over BSD has one interesting aspect: It gives the companies that will join the alliance the belief that noone will take their investment away. Partners cant improve upon the system without contributing back, at least for all the low level part.

I believe thats also why you dont see a big business ecosystem around BSD, theres one around Linux.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking BSD is better than it really is.

Linux by far outperforms every BSD in performance and especially in power management. Linux source code is also much higher quality than BSD and has a lot bigger community and pool of developers.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no license that is more open than GPL. It ensures things stay open, for everyone, forever. With BSD etc. someone can just take without ever giving back. That's not openness, it's exploitation.

There's no real technical advantage to Linux over BSD in this kind of application

Except for the availability of drivers, plus various other things, and the fact that BSD is simply lagging behind because of a much less vibrant community, due to the BSD license itself - why would anyone rational work on their free time to benefit some corporation, without making sure they get something in return?

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Google got toolbox that a tiny bsd bysybox. They use Linux because most hardware run on it and not on bsd.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

AT&T would drop the Google apps (including Market) in a heartbeat if better or equivalent alternatives were developed.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[drinkypoo]

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.

Linux has support for more architectures in the mainline kernel. That is the best reason why they should have gone with Linux, and lo and behold, they did. The second-best reason is that Linux is much more popular than BSD today, and thus there is more talent out there. The third-best reason is that Google uses an awful lot of Linux and already has a lot of that Linux talent in-house.

The only advantage to using BSD in this context would be avoiding the potential license problem.

I have no idea why no one has made something like BusyBox, but built around BSD and similarly licensed software.

I have no idea why nobody has done it with scripts. These days you can do the vast majority of what basic system utilities do with proc and everything else is already in bsdutils or wtfever the most basic BSD userland commands are called.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[harlows_monkeys]

Who? Linux is used successfully on millions of commercially successful devices, released by manufacturers such as Sony, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung with no problem whatsoever.

Maybe we have a different definition of "problem", but I consider the GPL lawsuits filed by the Software Freedom Law Center against Samsung, Westinghouse, Best Buy, JVC, Western Digital, Supermicro, Extreme Networks, Verizon, Cisco, and others to be problems for those companies.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[harlows_monkeys]

Linux has support for more architectures in the mainline kernel. That is the best reason why they should have gone with Linux, and lo and behold, they did.

When building the software for an embedded device, why would you care that Linux supports 20 architectures you aren't using, and NetBSD only supports 10 architectures you aren't using?

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[peppepz]

I stand corrected, I had the time frame of the lawsuits completely wrong. But my definition of "problem" is more "hire a team of well-paid engineers to develop, debug and maintain an operating system and its associated userspace" rather than "put the sources of Linux and busybox on your ftp site".

From what I read, Supermicro, Extreme Networks, and Verizon settled out of court in 2008 and now provide the missing source code.
Samsung and Cisco settled out of court in 2009 and now provide the missing source code.
All of them have been shipping Linux in most TV sets and home routers, and in all Android phones, that they've been happily selling since 2006 or so.
So I think that the "problem" of making the sources of busybox available on some ftp site is well worth the advantage of getting for free the high-valued software that powers their devices.

I have no information about Westinghouse/JVC/Best Buy but it is difficult for me to understand why they couldn't respect the terms of the GPL as everyone else is doing.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Vitriol Angst]

You are absolutely right -- but I think it was a psychological reason at Google; they already adopted the Kerberos engine for their web browser. They already found they needed an application store, they already used Apache.

Using BSD would be -- once again, doing the same thing Apple was doing; using BSD.

So they MIGHT as well be using Apple's Open-Source Darwin API and version of BSD that has been optimized for mobile computing.

>> The OTHER problem Google has -- is that their "open-ness" coupled with their "advertiser based revenue" -- means that Chinese coders have already stripped out all their advertising and control for Android and have their own versions.

So Google Android, may not only run into problems ever getting control of their licenses -- but they may be competing against Android-ish platforms. Imagine, that for $2 you could download a completely useable Android clone that stripped out all the spy-ware junk and bandwidth noise that Google adds -- and it worked just as well as the regular Android if not better?

I give you MS-DOS,... yes, past is prologue. Google may well have become the IBM of the smart phone world.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Vitriol Angst]

And so the BSD and Darwin kernel on the iPhone - you'd rather use Symbian or some embedded server driver from Linux?

>> Just what ARE all these great drivers that would give a smart phone an advantage on Linux? Seriously... if Google were making their own platform for a Smart Phone -- WHO ELSE would they be able to grab code from.

Just having a Linux driver, doesn't mean you should be basing a platform on it. It's not like you need to drive printers or sound sound card. MOST of "drivers" you are going to need, are communicating with Telcos and optimizing the antennae.

>> Where would you want to "borrow" drivers from if you were making a smart Phone, and there was ONE top competitor; Nokia or Apple? I'm pretty sure that Google had to write most of their stuff from scratch -- but I'm not an expert here -- I just find your idea that Linux is superior for a mobile phone a bit far-fetched. I'm sure it's on a lot of toasters and embedded in cars however.

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Vitriol Angst]

The third-best reason is that Google uses an awful lot of Linux and already has a lot of that Linux talent in-house.

>> I think that is the ONLY reason they adopted Linux -- and that is something that influences ALL companies -- and it is rarely a very GOOD reason.

We are talking about a "smart phone" that uses Java and browser technologies to make applications. MOST of Android, was probably developed from scratch on top of the kernel. The advantage they got from a development standpoint with Linux was probably marginal.... ... but could someone else weigh in on that who has DEVELOPED on Android? Seems to me, that the networking stack would be all new for cell phones, and the difference between JAVA on either platform would be negligible -- so other than licensing, what's the big difference really?

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[Vitriol Angst]

Um, because maybe all that code you saved from the Ford Focus is really going to come in handy?

The NAS drive I've got at my house -- it uses Linux. Maybe I should put Android on there and see what I can do. I'll make a phone call as soon as I find somewhere I can stick my microphone...

Re:What Google is Really Doing Wrong

[drinkypoo]

When building the software for an embedded device, why would you care that Linux supports 20 architectures you aren't using, and NetBSD only supports 10 architectures you aren't using?

Because with Linux you have essentially unlimited choice. It doesn't matter what the market does; Linux can respond more flexibly. BSD responds slightly less flexibly, because there is less interest. That would be enough to drive my decision.

This confuses me a great deal as well

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

isn't this completely irrelevant anyway?

[kiddygrinder]

Unless the copyright holders actually try and pursue this with legal action it doesn't actually matter what license applies.

Richard Stallman

[nurb432]

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.

Re:Richard Stallman

[John Jamieson]

If you repeat this thought enough times, people will start to believe it. Too bad it is a big lie, what Richard wants is for free to remain free, that is all.

Re:Richard Stallman

[H0p313ss]

If you repeat this thought enough times, people will start to believe it. Too bad it is a big lie, what Richard wants is for free to remain free, that is all.

You and the parent post agree, you just fail to understand his point.

Re:Richard Stallman

[jedidiah]

...except most of the important stuff is not "pure GPL". It's LGPL and that lessens the viral impact of things considerably.

oh noes

[smash]

google vs linux, how can we spin this to not be negative to both????

its not hard, but

[novar21]

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 :)

Re:its not hard, but

[ZosX]

No. This is the correct answer. Also dalvik allows them to compile android for any hardware and it should in theory just run all of the apps anywhere. What's interesting is that a lot of arm chips can run java bytecode natively (my g1's arm6 for example), but since dalvik is its own implementation, this would of course not work. I'm pretty sure you can run native code in android as well. Doesn't the browser run natively as well as flash? At least with ARM specific instructions? My point is that the portability of android is what makes it so appealing and I think over time as the hardware gets even more ridiculously faster and efficient that the performance penalties will be minimized over time.

Re:its not hard, but

[SiMac]

ThumbEE has replaced Jazelle, so the latest ARM CPUs can in theory accelerate Dalvik as well as they could accelerate Java.

Re:its not hard, but

[froggymana]

Mod parents up! That is some great insight you have there on why Google has done what that have done with Android

Please stop spreading FUD ...

[fmachado]

(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.

Re:Please stop spreading FUD ...

[shutdown -p now]

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!!!!

Can you point out where the GPL explicitly says anything about header files or userland software? Here is the text of the license, for the sake of convenience.

(There is a copyright notice distributed with the Linux kernel, but it's an extra on top of GPL, and is kernel specific.)

Isn't it expected when you're successful?

[Corwyn_123]

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.

Re:Isn't it expected when you're successful?

[hedwards]

That's really not analogous. People attacked Apple over the death grip thing because they were claiming that it didn't exist and tried to pawn it off on other issues. On top of that they were outed over not properly testing the device in the first place. Testing a phone's reception while housed in a disguise is hardly what any reasonable person would consider real world testing.

Plus, wasn't RIM the maker with the largest user base during that period?

Google...

[ThisIsNotMyHandel]

Google: Develop and deploy first, ask questions later.

Argumentum ad hominem

[snikulin]

How low can you go?

Re:Argumentum ad hominem

[eee_eff]

Would suggest that you actually acquaint yourself with the definition of ad hominem:

An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the opponent advocating the premise. ... Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem - it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

Pointing out a conflict of interest is not ad hominem. Note that this issue re header files has been discussed many times, and is getting to be a famous red-herring (remember these were mentioned by S.C.O. also, in the lawsuit that they lost against IBM) By the way, it is not I who attempted to hide the conflict of interest by erasing its history 1984-like. If the connections with Microsoft were not something to be ashamed of, why was the resume altered?

Google vs Microsoft is not David vs Goliath

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google vs Microsoft is not David vs Goliath

[Anonymous Coward]

The portrayal of Microsoft as the evil monster does not impress us in India any more.

You don't impress us much either, you towelheaded cow cultists.

if all android apps where GPLed, would anyone care

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"Open" cuts both ways!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why Linux? Why Not?

[brian.swetland]

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).

Teh FSF do get to say what they allow in the licen

[Anonymous Coward]

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..?

Re:Teh FSF do get to say what they allow in the li

[cfulmer]

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.