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

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.

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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>

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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: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.

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?)

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?

[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?

[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: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: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: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).

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: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.

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]

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

[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:He's still right in pointing it out

[UnknowingFool]

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

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: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

[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

[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

[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.