Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawyer Continues Android v. GPL Crusade

Posted by timothy on from the pound-on-the-table dept.

jfruhlinger writes "Edward Naughton has been insisting for months that Android violates the GPL because Google created a new set of Linux kernel headers that it hasn't released the source code for, despite the fact that it incorporates open source code. While numerous commentators, including those who helped write the kernel headers, claimed this code isn't copyrightable, Naughton in persisting in his crusade, saying that the questions need to be resolved in court for the good of the open source movement."

39 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. No legal standing by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only the copyright holders have legal standing - and they've already said its all good. Naughton should know that, but that never stopped anyone who wants to do damage by creating FUD.

    1. Re:No legal standing by Noughmad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But is that the correct thing to do? So we should just ignore Google's blatant violation of GPL?

      The correct thing to do is respect the opinion of the people who have the copyright. If they say it's OK, then it's OK. It's as much a violation as entering a house after its owner allows you in.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    2. Re:No legal standing by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      The authors can let anyone use it any way they like, their word is god. If they say "Google can use them" then by definition, Google isn't in violation of the GPL.

    3. Re:No legal standing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi, Edward J. Naughton, nice of you to join Slashdot.

      So, who's paying you to bring forth all this FUD? Microsoft? Apple? I'm fairly certain you're not doing this due to your altruistic nature.

    4. Re:No legal standing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Much of the code (type definitions, macros, and function prototypes) contained in those headers are essentially in the public domain as a result of being part of either the ANSI C standard or the POSIX/SUS standards, or both. There could be a violation beyond that, but Naughton nor Miller seems to be bothered enough to post actual snippets of infringing code. Instead they adapt the Darl McBride/SCO approach: I tell you, megabytes of my client's intellectual property have been dumped into Android without the appropriate license. Only it probably wasn't their client's IP, since it belongs to the FSF and the glibc or kernel developers. Oh well.

    5. Re:No legal standing by SharkLaser · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, I'm not ok with it. And I have contributed patches to Linux kernel, and those are my copyrights. I don't think it's good for everyone that Google blatantly violates every copyright law and most importantly, every privacy law.

    6. Re:No legal standing by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The headers are non-copywritable, the plaintiff is a lawyer with too much free time on his hands and no client. If you are worried about setting a bad precedent, I would be more concerned with the idea of lawyers suing for issues that even the supposedly wronged are upset with. Ambulance chaser style lawyers that convince people they are wronged before they think so themselves are bad enough, now we are going to get a bunch of lawyers suing without consent of the clients? What happens next, woman trips in store, says everything is OK, lawyer sues store for unsafe floors? Current problem we have, despite the stupid high number of frivelous lawsuits, even if we pretend they aren't a huge problem, all lawyers except patent lawyers are currently overpopulated to the point where there are more of them then jobs to do. Larger problem, now they are starting to make lawsuits without needing to be hired?

    7. Re:No legal standing by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      don't forget that naughton has worked with microsoft, to boot. His credibility is not only in question, but it's basically inaccurate. This is just banging the same old fud drum that naughton raised before.

    8. Re:No legal standing by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hold copyrights on the headers? If not it really doesn't matter what you think.

    9. Re:No legal standing by maroberts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I'm not ok with it. And I have contributed patches to Linux kernel, and those are my copyrights. I don't think it's good for everyone that Google blatantly violates every copyright law and most importantly, every privacy law.

      Well if they've used one of your files, then go ahead and start a suit. If not, then STFU.IIRC copyright in Linux vests with the original author of any patch, so you'd have standing if any of your files were really involved. I strongly suspect that if you really had contributed significant patches to Linux, instead of trolling, you'd have a lower Slashdot ID.

      Its possible that Google do play a little fast and loose with some of their code, but since they've promised to release the source to Ice Cream Sandwich fairly soon that event will bring them into strict compliance with the GPL before someone can mutter copytright violation in court.....

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    10. Re:No legal standing by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Most headers are non-copyrightable. There may be some headers that have logic in them that might qualify for copyright. From what I know, the ones in question are mainly #include statements with a few #ifdef. As such they fall under scènes à faire exclusion outlined by Gates v Bando and Computer Associates v Altai.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:No legal standing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shut-up and go on with life?

    12. Re:No legal standing by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2
      There are two points here:
      1. Does Naughton have standing to sue? The answer seems to be no as he does not hold any copyrights.
      2. Can you sue for headers? Generally headers fall under scènes à faire and are not copyrightable. As someone who has copyrights in Linux as you claim, consult with an IP attorney if you feel strongly about it. They will probably tell you the same thing I'm telling you.
      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    13. Re:No legal standing by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation. Even other GPL'd software, since none of those ever include the header files they were built against as part of their source package, so they have all failed to meet the requirement of distributing the "corresponding source code".

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    14. Re:No legal standing by Lisias · · Score: 2

      EFF is your friend.

      Stop whining and go for it.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    15. Re:No legal standing by jbolden · · Score: 2

      OK what lines of the header files do you claim copyright to?

    16. Re:No legal standing by tomhudson · · Score: 2

      No. If he has used Linux he has standing, because his rights may have been violated by Google not showing the headers.

      Where is the -1 WTF mod? Google published the headers in question a while ago, and it was dealt with on slashdot back in March

      "In this email from 2003, Richard Stallman says 'I've talked with our lawyer about one specific issue that you raised: that of using simple material from header files. Someone recently made the claim that including a header file always makes a derivative work. That's not the FSF's view. Our view is that just using structure definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple bodies, etc., is NOT enough to make a derivative work. It would take a substantial amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros with substantial bodies) to do that.'

      This should help end the recent FUD about the Android 'clean headers.

      There was no violation, except of common sense by people who have an anti-Android agenda.

    17. Re:No legal standing by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      And you are not the copyright holder, so your time and money is again, irrelevant.

      What you can do is shut up and stop trying to claim you're being hurt because someone elses work is being used in a way you don't like.

      ITS NOT YOUR CODE, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS WHAT SO EVER OVER IT.

      The fact that its GPL DOES NOT CHANGE THAT AT ALL, that only grants you the right to use someone elses code, not the right to demand how it is used.

      We've established that YOU DID NOT COMMIT ANY OF THE CODE IN QUESTION because THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEIR NAMES ATTACHED TO THE COMMIT LOG SAID IT WAS FINE.

      In short shut the fuck up.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    18. Re:No legal standing by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, more likely the SFLC which exists specifically to take such cases. But let's be much more specific. I also live in Europe and if you can name a decent sized set of lines of original work which Google has copied without license and you are willing to sue them then I'll give you 500Euro to start it off with.

      And please note, there's no reason to go to the US. Google has presence in Europe and if you wrote your code here you can sue them here. Germany is probably quite a good place for that.

      If you (the grandparent) can show that Google copied your orignial work. Which I doubt.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    19. Re:No legal standing by exomondo · · Score: 2

      If this is a violation, then every single piece of software linked against the kernel headers is also a GPL violation.

      No it isn't, a proprietary, BSD, ASL, etc.. -licensed application linking to a GPL-violating (if that were the case here) system library would not be a GPL violation in itself as there is explicit provision in the GPL that states that you can link to system libraries (which includes the kernel) with *any* code proprietary or not without being affected by the GPL in any way, they do not have any obligation to release source code.

    20. Re:No legal standing by mgiuca · · Score: 2

      IIRC copyright in Linux vests with the original author of any patch, so you'd have standing if any of your files were really involved.

      So if we believe that the GP contributed a patch, then he does have standing. If we don't believe him, I'm sure we can find at least a handful of the many thousands of copyright holders who might have an interest in this.

      My point isn't "Google violated copyrights" and I think this issue will be sorted out (with code) before the lawyers get involved. My point is that the whole point of the GPL is that everybody who contributes does so with the understanding that his or her code will not be combined with proprietary code. It isn't sufficient for the project leader to say "nah, it's okay, go ahead and do that." Once you have accepted third-party contributions under the GPL, you give up your ability to make licensing decisions about your project -- the text of the GPL decides what is acceptable, not the project leader. And the Kernel is most certainly in this boat -- so much so that Linus has stated that even if they wanted to, it would be impossible to switch to the GPLv3 because they couldn't get permission from all the copyright holders. Therefore, I find it very hard to believe that they have permission from all the copyright holders to say "it's okay to combine proprietary code with the Kernel."

      if you really had contributed significant patches to Linux, instead of trolling, you'd have a lower Slashdot ID.

      OH BURN, dude with 5-digit Slashdot ID shows everybody else just how awesome he is. You truly deserve the utmost respect for signing up for a service long before others did, and clearly it's the only way to find good developers these days.

  2. It's a lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously he would like to see it being resolved in court... it's a lawyer.

    In a case where neither plaintiff nor accused are interested in this, the lawyer is the only person who could possibly win!

  3. ...unless he has a patch in there by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Only the copyright holders have legal standing - and they've already said its all good.

    Have all of them said it's all good? Linux doesn't use copyright assignments, and I was under the impression that Edward Naughton might represent someone who has had at least one patch accepted.

    1. Re:...unless he has a patch in there by poetmatt · · Score: 2

      Wha? Microsoft had one patch accepted, so yes, he's represented someone who does.

      Nobody has said it's bad, literally. If anyone had, that's not only a: something for the copyright holder to decide what to do (along with the purported violator), and b: something that has nothing to do with court unless a is resolved first.

      Lots of avenues exist outside of going to court. We're not all microsoft and patent trolling for fud, after all.

    2. Re:...unless he has a patch in there by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      If he represents one of the copyright holders, he must file the suit on their behalf with them as the plaintiff. Or have people learned nothing from Righthaven?

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    3. Re:...unless he has a patch in there by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... and you think Microsoft would go to court to "validate" the GPL for us???? ROFL

      I think Microsoft would find it worthwhile to go to court to "validate" that the GPL means that anyone who has ever contributed to non-assignment GPL project has standing to sue over any alleged GPL violation by any distributor of any work derivative of that project (they'd probably like to do the same with assignment-based GPL products under an intended-beneficiary theory, though that's more a stretch legally.) Now, in one sense, that would validate the strength of the GPL as a license for creators who wish to retain strong protection of the openness of their works.

      It would also help validate the perception of GPL works as legally risky propositions for downstream users.

  4. American History X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I loved him in American History X

  5. Headers are Facts by Your+Anus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    SCO tried to cornhole Linux over errno.h being similar to BSD. SCO lost for the same reason and also because they suck. Unless they abused headers to jam in a bunch of functions that might be "creative" (and that would be their content anyway), the headers should just be lists of facts.

    --

    In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
    1. Re:Headers are Facts by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      Technically SCO v IBM never got to that point. Many of their claims got thrown out due to lack of specificity and the rest was stayed until Novell v SCO was resolved. Since Novell won, the judge in IBM doesn't have to decide if errorno.h violates copyrights--SCO doesn't have standing to ask the judge to decide in the first place.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  6. Tilting at windmills? by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Aren't the bionic headers included with the Android source? I wonder who his clients are. I don't think he's wacky but he's certainly chasing a whole lot of nothing.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:Tilting at windmills? by servies · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which rulings concerning copyright in Oracle vs Google? To my knowledge there has not been a ruling yet concerning this subject and I don't recall seeing one on groklaw.

    2. Re:Tilting at windmills? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      Which rulings are you talking about? All I see on groklaw is the judge is asking both parties how they would like to proceed on copyright issues of the 37 APIs in question. There is no mention of headers or a ruling.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Re:donations by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 2

    He's a lawyer. Donating money to a lawyer is like donating blood to a vampire. It makes them stronger and then they hurt more innocent people.

    Try donating your money to someone who deserves it, like these people

  8. Re:Even if he's wrong, he's exercising his rights by ilguido · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, he's got nothing to gain from this crusade. I wonder why he deleted all the references to his microsoft employment from his curriculum, that's probably because there are no interests connected to him or maybe because he has nothing to gain. Really.... a lawyer who has nothing to gain...

  9. Re:Sounds familiar... by Canazza · · Score: 2

    No, this is a different guy.
    this guy was in fight club.

    --
    It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
  10. Re:Header files are like phone books by icebike · · Score: 5, Informative

    But header use alone does not trigger a GPL requirement.

    From the second link:

    Torvalds responded to my inquiry on March 21 and had this to say:

    "It seems totally bogus. We've always made it very clear that the kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived work as per the GPL, and the kernel details are exported through the kernel headers to all the normal glibc interfaces too.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  11. Re:a little knowledge by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or a lawyer who is secretly working for a client with an agenda. Mr. Naughton's former client is Microsoft. While he does not say they are a current client, he has scrubbed his bio to remove all references to them.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  12. Re:Header files are like phone books by smartaleckkill · · Score: 2

    Yeah, that's logical. There's a difference between being qualified to take medicine & being qualified to prescribe it.

  13. Android is proprietary by Cherubim1 · · Score: 2

    Another useless lawyer with an agenda. What else is new ... Anyone with a brain can see that Google is ripping off FOSS and doesn't give a shit about returning anything back to the community. Android IS a proprietary implemantation of the LInux kernel and shouldn't be considered part of the GNU/Linux community.