lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: GPLv3 Position Statement
    From
    Date
    James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com> writes:
    > I'm asserting that producing something (an appliance say, or a PCI
    > card) that runs linux to achieve its function is a "use" (an act of
    > running the program) within the meaning of GPLv2 clause 0. Selling
    > the Box (or card, or whatever) also becomes a distribution.

    The vendor did many acts covered by copyright law (taking US copyright
    law here), and it's important to distinguish the effects of the
    license on each act:

    1. Use: Vendor runs Linux on prototype hardware to see where it fails
    to boot, in order to write new drivers. The GPL places no
    restriction on this act, and probably cannot do so since US
    copyright law doesn't cover running a program.

    2. Prepare a derivative work: Vendor writes drivers for their
    hardware, builds a new Linux kernel. The GPLv2 places no
    restriction on this act. The GPLv3 restricts this act a bit in the
    patent retaliation clause.

    3. Use the derivative work: Vendor tests (runs) the modified Linux.
    There are no restrictions placed by the GPL (v2 or v3). If you can
    make the derivative work (e.g. don't fall foul of the
    patent-retaliation clause in GPLv3), then you can use it how you
    want.

    4. Distribute the derivative work: Vendor sells the hardware with
    embedded Linux. Now the GPL places restrictions. v2 says that if
    you distribute, you must make source code available and (if I
    understand Alan Cox's argument correctly) make the installation
    keys available. v3 tightens the installation-keys requirement.
    But it's not a use restriction.

    > However I claim that, the GPLv3 requirement that you be able to "execute
    > modified versions from source code in the recommended or principal
    > context of use" does constitute an end use restriction on the embedded
    > system because the appliance (or card, or whatever) must be designed in
    > such a way as to allow this.

    Not necessarily. If the vendor makes devices for internal use, they
    are not distributing the kernel, so no GPL requirements (except
    perhaps the GPLv3 patent retaliation clause) are triggered. Only when
    they distribute does the GPL place requirements on what they must do:
    provide source code and installation keys. So it's not the use that
    is restricted (they can do what they like 'at home'), only the
    distribution.

    Regards,
    -Sanjoy

    `Never underestimate the evil of which men of power are capable.'
    --Bertrand Russell, _War Crimes in Vietnam_, chapter 1.
    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-09-29 14:03    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean