On 1/20/06, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > My dossier is rapidly growing.
And growing. Here's more evidence that notwithstanding what the FSF says to the judge in Indiana, the FSF's own director and lead counsel in fact (and in "all good faith") doesn't really understand the licensing terms relevant to the use of Linux. http://lwn.net/Articles/147070/ LWN: A while back, you said something about getting an answer from Linus on the Linux kernel license. Since there is a COPYING file that makes it clear that the kernel is governed under the GPL, where's the uncertainty? Eben: If the kernel is pure GPL, then I think we would all agree that non-GPL, non-free loadable kernel modules represent GPL violations. Nonetheless, we all know that there are a large number of such modules and their existence is tolerated or even to some degree encouraged by the kernel maintainers, and I take that to mean that as an indication that there is some exception for those modules. The kernel also maintains a technical mechanism, namely the GPL-only symbols and tainting structure, which seems to suggest an API for the connection of non-GPL'ed code to the kernel, which also seems to me a strong indication of the presence of an exception. The difficulty as a lawyer, even a lawyer that is reasonably knowledgeable about these matters, is that I don't understand what the terms of that exception are. So, say I want to audit a system, say an embedded product, in which I find non-GPL loadable kernel modules present, how do I know whether that fits within an exception which is legitimately available to third parties and when it is not? [...] So then there are parties in the world who think they are in legal trouble on one side with the regulators if they do release source code for loadable kernel modules that drive their software- controlled radios, and they don't know if they're in legal trouble on the other side if they don't release source code. For those parties, in particular, it would be very helpful if the kernel developers had decided to formalize the nature of their exceptions, and the Free Software Foundation and I have made a few attempts to discuss that matter with kernel developers. I had conversations with Ted Ts'o, I talked to Linus about it and I understood there were some reluctances to clarify, in a full and complete way, what was going on. There may have even been disagreements among kernel developers about that, I wouldn't know. But I continue to think that it would be useful, for a whole variety of people who are trying in good faith to do the very best they can, and who may be navigating some dodgy legal territory, for them to be able to refer to something beyond the COPYING file which -- with all due respect -- I think probably doesn't contain all the terms that are relevant to the use of the kernel. LWN: So, if the kernel is covered solely by the GPL, you would see proprietary modules as an infringement? Eben: Yes. I think we would all accept that. I think that the degree of interpenetration between kernel modules and the remainder of the kernel is very great, I think it's clear that a kernel with some modules loaded is a "a work" and because any module that is dynamically loaded could be statically linked into the kernel, and because I'm sure that the mere method of linkage is not what determines what violates the GPL, I think it would be very clear analytically that non-GPL loadable kernel modules would violate the license if it's pure GPL. ----- Now the most charming piece of Moglen's proclamations regarding GNU legal system (from another article): ----- As to the definition of "derivative work," the uncertainty is experienced by those who would like to make proprietary uses of GPL'd code, and are unsure whether a particular way of making a proprietary enhancement to a free work will certainly or only arguably infringe the free developer's copyright. The correct answer, of course, is that those who want to take advantage of the enormous quantity of freely distributable "best of breed" software now available should do so in a fashion that respects the principle of freedom in which it was created. All doubt can be eliminated, for Mr. Michaelson and all other seekers after wisdom, if they remember what they learned in kindergarten: share and share alike. IBM, HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded businesses have no problem with this, nor should Mr. Michaelson's readers. ----- Well, "HP, Novell, and other very large and very profit-minded" aside for a moment, http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/linux390/october2005_recommended.html#RETocos20051014 (OCO modules for the "October 2005 stream") It doesn't seem to match with Moglen's alternative reality. regards, alexander.
