Linux Mint and GPL license Violation

Chat about anything related to Linux Mint
Forum rules
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 6 months after creation.
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

Are people complaining about them including those drivers? Is there controversy over it? We're getting the FUD even without doing it.. so I'm wondering :)
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

No.

Actually linking the blob to the kernel violates the GPL since it states that any code linking to the kernel has to be gpl as well and this is why they are thinking of including a GPL hook in the kernel to prevent these types of binary blobs from being usable. They either hope that it forces ati and nvidia to open source their drivers or they are going to fork a commercial linux kernel fork to allow this.

Right now this is a legal grey area but if they put the hook in the kernel, it will be black and white and unless someone forks the kernel to remove the gpl hook, it will kill desktop linux gaming and any other function where decent 3d video drivers are required. It will also render wireless that only has windows binary blobs to stop working.

I hate to make it sound doom and gloom but unfortunately that is what it is. Linux may just become a strictly server OS after all.
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

Nvidia aren't breaking the law since they aren't the ones that actually do the linking - the end user is. This is why the kernel devs are looking to put a gpl hook in the kernel to prevent this from even being able to take place in the first place.

Do some searching on the kernel mailing list and you will see the discussion on the gpl hook.

Right now, the kernel devs aren't going after the end user for using the blob but in the future they will. Linus prefers to keep it as a grey area as it has been leaving it up to the end user to "taint" the kernel. What do you think the whole "tainted kernel" message is all about?

They are attempting to prevent even the end user from using these blobs in the future preventing tainting the kernel. This is their right but it isn't necessarily a smart move.

This has been discussed and beat with a dead stick all over the place. I suggest you do some searching.
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

Here is a copy of some emails from Linus himself. Modules MUST be GPL since they are considered derivative works. User space stuff doesn't necessarily have to be gpl but kernel modules are clearly not user space. they are in the domain of the kernel code and must know how to interact with the kernel at an intimate and explicit level.


http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/propri ... dules.html
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

Btw, I definitely think Linus is right on this. Distribution and personal use are two different things. Nobody can tell you how you should and should not use what you legally acquired. I don't believe this gpl hook is actually going to be done, and if it is then either we just won't upgrade or we'll use a forked/tweaked kernel. You just don't tell people what to do. People know what they want to do, and they do find ways to do it.. the only power you have is to decide whether you provide that way or not.

I understand the motivation behind that and the frustration of the developers, but they simply don't have the power to do something like that. I wouldn't worry too much about this, Linux is ready for the desktop and it's not going to change.

Clem
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by scorp123 »

Fragadelic wrote:Here is a copy of some emails from Linus himself. Modules MUST be GPL since they are considered derivative works. User space stuff doesn't necessarily have to be gpl but kernel modules are clearly not user space. they are in the domain of the kernel code and must know how to interact with the kernel at an intimate and explicit level.
As far as I know this is Greg Kroah-Hartmann's philosophy ... or should I say "religious belief"? I personally think this is BS, sorry to say so. A module can only be derivative work technically if it actually contains GPL'd kernel code, and this hasn't yet been proven in the case of Nvidia or ATI (and others).

A web browser too needs "intimate and explicit level" of knowledge about the HTTP protocol in order to talk to a web server, and yet nobody would be as daft and call a web browser a "derivative work" of someone's web server software.

What Kroah-Hartmann is trying to do is to brand binary modules "illegal" (he repeats that over and over again on his web page) and to convince everyone that whatever links with the kernel is a "derivative work" ... Again sorry, but I think this is BS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Genera ... d_disputes

Quote from there:
Wikipedia wrote:However, it is not clear whether an executable that dynamically links to a GPL library should be considered a derivative work. The free/open-source software community is split on this issue, with the FSF asserting that such an executable is indeed a derivative work, and other experts disagreeing. This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works.
There you go. It is a legal question ... because technically it is definitely not a question. As long as I don't use GPL'd code I am not creating a "derivative work", regardless what a zealot such as Kroah-Hartmann claims.

All this stupid talk of his will only cause "good citizens" such as Nvidia, ATI and HP (and others) to withdraw their Linux support. Thanks a lot, Greg ... :?

Regards,
Scorp123
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

scorp123 - those are actual emails from Linus. Greg is not the only one that feels that way.

clem - hard to say at this point what will be done. It seems like a large portion of the kernel devs that are on a payroll work for big linux distros and their main focus is servers which is where the money is right now. These binary blobs really only affect the desktop portion of linux and wouldn't even make a dent in server issues and since server OS sales and support are the real money behind linux, this could very well become a reality.
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by scorp123 »

Fragadelic wrote:scorp123 - those are actual emails from Linus. Greg is not the only one that feels that way.
Those e-mails you refer to are from as far back as 1995 methinks? Because here is what Linus recently said on this issue:

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds <at> osdl.org>
Subject: Re: GPL only modules [was Re: [GIT PATCH] more Driver core patches for 2.6.19]
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.kernel
Date: 2006-12-14 04:15:59 GMT (2 weeks, 1 day, 14 hours and 9 minutes ago)

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Greg KH wrote:
>
> Numerous kernel developers feel that loading non-GPL drivers into the
> kernel violates the license of the kernel and their copyright. Because
> of this, a one year notice for everyone to address any non-GPL
> compatible modules has been set.

Btw, I really think this is shortsighted.

It will only result in _exactly_ the crap we were just trying to avoid,
namely stupid "shell game" drivers that don't actually help anything at
all, and move code into user space instead.

What was the point again?

Was the point to alienate people by showing how we're less about the
technology than about licenses?

Was the point to show that we think we can extend our reach past derived
work boundaries by just saying so?

The silly thing is, the people who tend to push most for this are the
exact SAME people who say that the RIAA etc should not be able to tell
people what to do with the music copyrights that they own, and that the
DMCA is bad because it puts technical limits over the rights expressly
granted by copyright law.

Doesn't anybody else see that as being hypocritical?


So it's ok when we do it, but bad when other people do it? Somehow I'm not
surprised, but I still think it's sad how you guys are showing a marked
two-facedness about this.

The fact is, the reason I don't think we should force the issue is very
simple: copyright law is simply _better_off_ when you honor the admittedly
gray issue of "derived work".
It's gray. It's not black-and-white. But
being gray is _good_. Putting artificial black-and-white technical
counter-measures is actually bad. It's bad when the RIAA does it, it's bad
when anybody else does it.

If a module arguably isn't a derived work, we simply shouldn't try to say
that its authors have to conform to our worldview.


We should make decisions on TECHNICAL MERIT. And this one is clearly being
pushed on anything but.

I happen to believe that there shouldn't be technical measures that keep
me from watching my DVD or listening to my music on whatever device I damn
well please. Fair use, man. But it should go the other way too: we should
not try to assert _our_ copyright rules on other peoples code that wasn't
derived from ours, or assert _our_ technical measures that keep people
from combining things their way.

If people take our code, they'd better behave according to our rules. But
we shouldn't have to behave according to the RIAA rules just because we
_listen_ to their music. Similarly, nobody should be forced to behave
according to our rules just because they _use_ our system.

There's a big difference between "copy" and "use". It's exatcly the same
issue whether it's music or code. You can't re-distribute other peoples
music (becuase it's _their_ copyright), but they shouldn't put limits on
how you personally _use_ it (because it's _your_ life).

Same goes for code. Copyright is about _distribution_, not about use. We
shouldn't limit how people use the code.

Oh, well. I realize nobody is likely going to listen to me, and everybody
has their opinion set in stone.

That said, I'm going to suggest that you people talk to your COMPANY
LAWYERS on this, and I'm personally not going to merge that particular
code unless you can convince the people you work for to merge it first.

In other words, you guys know my stance. I'll not fight the combined
opinion of other kernel developers, but I sure as hell won't be the first
to merge this, and I sure as hell won't have _my_ tree be the one that
causes this to happen.

So go get it merged in the Ubuntu, (Open)SuSE and RHEL and Fedora trees
first. This is not something where we use my tree as a way to get it to
other trees. This is something where the push had better come from the
other direction.

Because I think it's stupid. So use somebody else than me to push your
political agendas, please.

Linus


This e-mail is on public display, e.g. here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ker ... cus=475824
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

I've read that too but that doesn't change the legal wording of the gpl as it pertains to the kernel.

I'm not the one who developed the kernel or any part of it or the wording of the GPL but we must play by the same rules since this is what was chosen by Linus originally.

For the record - I use and have used the ati and nvidia drivers in Linux and don't agree with what is going on personally but this opinion, like Linus' current one, doesn't change how the kernel was licensed.

You can't license it under a certain license and then verbally make changes to how you want it to be perceived.

Unfortunately I don't think we will ever have a definite answer either way and I think Linus prefers this as it doesn't snub the manufacturers that provide closed source linux drivers and such.

The biggest problem is that nobody will say for sure where the line of kernel module interaction and userspace is.

Taking nvidia for example. The actual kernel module interface is GPL but it uses their binary blob that they also develop for windows. If we consider the GPL'd interface module as the only thing truly touching the kernel code, then we can assume that this is perfectly legal and then it should be distributable since nvidia allows this in their distribution license. If we consider that the GPL'd kernel interface module is merely a "code bridge" then the binary blob must be part of the code that is using the kernel directly and as such must be GLP'd code as the license states. This is the real issue at hand and nobody can definitely answer it either way. Everyone has an opinion but opinions don't mean much legally.

They need to think about all of this very carefully and come to a definitive conclusion one way or another.

For me, I will continue to use the nvidia and ati drivers and whatever else I need to make my PC work how it should.
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by scorp123 »

Fragadelic wrote:For me, I will continue to use the nvidia and ati drivers and whatever else I need to make my PC work how it should.
Exactly. Same here. :D
User avatar
hairy_Palms
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 292
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:46 am

Post by hairy_Palms »

to me, its much, much better left as a grey area,

first im going to state a fact

1, people currently need the binary drivers

2, linux doesnt have the desktop market share to boss nvidia and ati around

so lets look at what would happen if this was defined as black or white either way,

lets assume that its made entirely illegal for binary drivers, nvidia and ati will pull out of linux rather than gpl their code , leaving linux without decent graphics support and a lot of people wont be able to use it as they would like.

lets assume its made entirely legal thenm if so nvidia and ati never even consider changing their drivers to open source meaning everyone must use proprietory drivers forever more.

neither of these are a good situation.

then theres the third option, leave it as the grey area, in this case nvidia and ati make binary drivers, but they are never sure if its legal or not, so people use binary drivers and linux grows etc,

until one day in the future. linux is widespread on the desktop...the grey area is stated as illegal by the kernel development team and the non-gpl hook is implemented, nvidia/ati has a choice now, it can
1,lose a LOT of customers, or
2, open source its drivers,
and we all know a company will choose the one that gains it the most money.

unfortunately right now we dont have the clout to enforce that kind of ultimatum.
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by scorp123 »

SabayonLinux does something interesting (if my information is correct): they ship the ATI and Nvidia drivers on their install and Live DVD's / CD's in a non-linked form; the linking happens during boot at runtime, and thus they on one hand redistribute the Linux kernel under the GPL on their media AND the closed source drivers but at the same time they do not violate the GPL because the closed source drivers are not (yet) in a state that you could regard them as being linked against the kernel. This step happens during boot, as I said.

I am not 100% sure if the information is accurate though, and I really wonder how they do this during boot time, if this is even true and all that.

But the concept would be interesting ...
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

This is sad.
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by scorp123 »

clem wrote:This is sad.
I agree with that part. It's really sad that one has to come up with such bizarre techniques just to get things working the way a user would expect and to keep the GPL zealots satisfied ... But then again, maybe I am wrong and the Sabayon guys are indeed shipping their stuff in a binary + linked form? After all we're talking about Italian guys ... Just try to force an Italian to anything ... You soon get phone calls and "offers you cannot refuse" 8)
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

What about Greek guys? With them you get an offer you cannot understand :lol: :lol:

npap: I'm only kidding of course :)
Clem,
any volunteer to make a bad joke about the French ? :)
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by scorp123 »

clem wrote:any volunteer to make a bad joke about the French ? :)
Pictures say more than 1000 words ... :lol:
http://www.freakingnews.com/French-Riot ... s__832.asp

Classic one:
Image
User avatar
kenetics
Level 5
Level 5
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 9:57 pm
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida
Contact:

Post by kenetics »

Here is something to offend everyone. :D Remember, it's all in fun!
Bet you could come up with some good ones for Americans.

World Wide Terrorism Alerts

The British have reacted to the recent terrorism alerts by raising their security
level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels
may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross."
Londoners have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940, when tea
supplies all but ran out. Terrorists have been re categorized from "Tiresome"
to a "Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody
Nuisance" warning level was during the great fire of 1666.

The French Government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level
from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are
"Surrender" and "Collaborate." The rise was precipitated by
a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing
the country's military capability.

It's not only the English and French that are on a heightened level of alert.
Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly"
to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective
Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance"
to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two Higher
levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."

And finally, the Irish as well have raised their alert status from "What The
Hell Is Going On" to "I Think I Need Another Drink". The NATO authorities
have agreed that the terrorist situation must be neutralized before the Irish manage
to escalate to "Come On Lads, Someone Needs A Beating" or God forbid,
"Where's My Pants" .

Cheers,
Ken
User avatar
Fragadelic
Level 4
Level 4
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by Fragadelic »

lol - I'm still chuckling. Hopefully everyone takes it as what it is - a joke.
scorp123
Level 8
Level 8
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:19 pm
Location: Switzerland

Post by scorp123 »

clem wrote:What about Greek guys? With them you get an offer you cannot understand
I don't know if I get this right (I am doing a memory dump here ...)

Heaven is where the philosophers are Greek, the police British, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French ... and it is all organized and financed by the Swiss.

Hell is where the philosophers are French, the police German, chefs British, the mechanics Greek, the lovers Swiss ... and it is all organized and financed by the Italians.
:lol:
User avatar
clem
Level 12
Level 12
Posts: 4303
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:34 am
Contact:

Post by clem »

--> "it's all Greek to me" (that's why) :)
Locked

Return to “Chat about Linux Mint”