Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:34:17 -0500 | Subject | Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? | From | Andrew Pimlott <> |
| |
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:50:41AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:13:00AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > > It might be true that Sun's misdeed perpetually voids their license > > to XYZ. > > That's a good question, it's not clear what the answer to that is. I reread > the GPL and I don't see where it spells out what happens if you try and cheat.
FWIW, here's what RMS said:
Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to distribute the code at all.
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-05-001-21-OP-LF-KE
> > Your comparisons to the SCO case are far-fetched. In part because > > of what I said above (your idea of "viral" is divorced from > > reality) > > In copyright law, yes. Contract law is a bit different. Linus and > you yanked me back into copyright law and you're right that SCO can't > claim rights to Linux, they don't own it. But isn't it true that if > the Unix license they have with IBM (actually more likely Sequent) is a > contract then that contract could extend to anything that was originally > written in the context of Unix, even if 100% of was written by Sequent > and removed from Unix and ported to Linux?
I guess I can't disagree in principle that a contract could cross almost any boundary. But it seems vanishingly unlikely that anyone (not to speak of IBM) would agree to a contract with such boundary-piercing powers as SCO claims. For this reason, I don't think that even the most bold claims for the GPL's virulence help SCO one bit. On the contrary, any intelligent discussion of boundaries can only undermine SCO's nonsensical case.
I agree with you about the importance of figuring out where the boundaries lie. I also wish the FSF would get more involved in this debate, but I have to say, they seem to be avoiding the hard questions, perhaps because they're afraid to say anything that will restrict them later. The best statement I think I've read from them is
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
which introduces an "arms length" standard.
> And if it is, which I believe to be true, and if you wrote a new widget > that was originally done in the context of that program but now wanted > to put that widget someplace else and the widget removed all references > to the original program, do I still have any contractially based rights > to that widget?
For me, this doesn't pass the giggle test.
> Nothing in law is black and white, it's all sorted out in caselaw > typically. But as far as I can tell there has to be some way to limit > the influence of a contract or a license or otherwise everything that > ran on a GPLed kernel would be GPLed (the HURD is a GPLed kernel, right? > How much you want to bet that the FSF is not going to try and make the > claim that userland has to be GPLed?)
They seem to have waived that claim, at least, by deeming system calls "arms length" communication.
Andrew - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |