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."

13 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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();
  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.

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

    I loved him in American History X

  5. 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...

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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.