Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 17 Jun 2004 22:51:21 +0200 | From | Flavio Stanchina <> | Subject | Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible |
| |
Kyle Moffett wrote: > If someone distributes _on_their_own_ (site, CDs, whatever) copies > of Linux with their copyrighted code in it, or contributes copyrighted > code _that_they_own_, they are giving someone a license to use > against them. That is actually one of the difficulties SCO is facing > right now in court; _they_ distributed copies of Linux _including_ any > code that they may claim is copyrighted. Since they have the right to > license such code, any license that appears to be associated with it > when they distribute it becomes valid even if it was not before. If you > distribute a copy of Linux under the GPL that contains code you > claim is violating your copyright, then I don't believe you have a leg > to stand on, legally.
Your argument applies to the SCO case because their code (if there is any, which nobody but SCO still believes is the case) did *not* have a license attached to it that didn't allow modification, redistribution or whatever else the GPL requires; otherwise they wouldn't have trouble demonstrating which code it is they're talking about. So any sane person would understand that they knowingly released it under the GPL: if they'll try to argue that they didn't know the kernel was covered by the GPL, I don't think the judge will go for much less than capital punishment when he stops laughing.
In this case, if I followed the discussion correctly, there are files and binary blobs in the kernel whose license explicitly disallows some of the freedoms the GPL grants. So they *have* to get out of the kernel proper *now*, period. There is no other choice, legally.
Once those files and stuff are out of the kernel, we can think of a solution that works from both a technical and a legal perspective, such as loading firmware from external files (which users will have to download themselves from vendors' sites -- we can't distribute them in any form if they don't change the license). Modules under a non-GPL license are a different can of worms: many people believe they are violating the GPL even if they remain outside of the kernel proper because they are obviously a derivative work of the kernel. So far AFAIK nobody sued NVidia, ATI or anyone else for distributing non-GPL modules, but they can _not_ stay in the kernel. I wonder how and why they were accepted in the first place.
-- Ciao, Flavio
- 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/
| |