[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 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
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.022 / U:28.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site