Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Who's Behind the Google-Linux License Ruckus?

Posted by Soulskill on from the my-money's-on-the-joker dept.

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."

10 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Re:He's still right in pointing it out by dclozier · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

  2. What copyright holders? by n2rjt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:He's still right in pointing it out by HBI · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Florian and the lawyer pointing this out are Microsoft paid shills. They are attempting to sell WP7. This makes whatever point they were making pretty much irrelevant. If it was a big issue, the kernel devs would be making noise, not these whores.

    For details about Florian, just Google...

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  4. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  5. Re:He's still right in pointing it out by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?)

  6. And Bionic is different from glibc how? by tbird20d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:No complaints? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. More noise from Microsoft, obviously by eee_eff · · Score: 4, Informative
    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

  10. Florian Mueller? by Trufagus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?