On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Jeremi Piotrowski
<jeremi.piotrow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> They could, but I was under the impression that by using licensed software
> you agree to follow it's terms. And the binding nature of licenses is
> codified in copyright law.
You don't need a license to use software. You need a license to copy software.
>
> Copyright law talks of licenses. Linus' talks about the license under
> which the kernel is licensed. Ergo, seems to me as though his words
> should have some authority,
All law talks of people. I'm a person. Therefore it sounds like my
words should have some authority.
That really is no different an argument. You can't just stick
anything you want under the heading "license agreement" and enforce
it.
> but I won't argue that.
Uh, you just did.
>
>> And none of them say a word about linking creating a derived work.
>
> The FSF says that and who knows if they're actually right, but I believe
> so far everyone generally complies with their interpretation.
Well, you're talking to somebody who doesn't, so "everyone" is a bit
of a strong word.
>
>> And would we really want to live in a world where they did? Do you
>> really want to need permission to use a product in a manner the author
>> didn't originally intend?
>
> Proprietary licenses already say that I can't do that, and it's the free
> licenses that tell me I can do whatever I want as long as I release the
> sources. Sounds reasonable to me.
I see, and because proprietary licenses purport to do all kinds of
horrible things, we ought to emulate them? I don't suggest that those
licenses are any more legal with regard to these specific details.
>
> But again, I'm speaking mostly out of common sense and opinion here.
> Neither one of us is going to go around citing cases and laws as that
> would be a waste of bandwidth.
It wouldn't waste much bandwidth, because there aren't any relevant
laws or cases. That is my whole point. I can't cite them, because
they don't exist. In the absence of law, there is liberty.
The onus is really on you to prove that somebody ISN'T allowed to do
something, not for them to prove that they can.
>
>> All they have to do is have the human-readable license say non-GPL,
>> and have it report GPL to the kernel, and not ship the source. The
>> only recourse anybody has is to sue them, and it is doubtful that a
>> court is going to force them to comply, as they clearly indicated
>> their intent to not release the code as GPL.
>
> On the other hand they would also be clearly indicating to others that
> their code is GPL (if they did in fact add MODULE_LICENSE("GPL")). I may
> be wrong here, but if that is not in the least bit ambiguous then shoot me.
I guess that is why I said that it is a bit ambiguous in the part that
you chose not to quote:
You might be able to get away with redistributing the blob since the
situation is a bit ambiguous, but I doubt the driver manufacturers
care that much if you redistribute their blobs.
Here is the thing, you can use the law as a sword or a shield. You
want to use it as a sword, which puts the onus on you to prove that
the law says what you think it says to take any action at all.
Sure, if you argue the driver is really GPL you might be able to
defend yourself from a copyright claim by the author of the driver.
However, they really don't care if you redistribute it anyway. On the
other hand, if you want to force them to release the source to their
driver you have an uphill battle. Even if they released their driver
under the GPL that STILL doesn't compel them to release the source to
it. It just means that YOU have to give anybody you distribute the
driver to any sources you were given. Licenses are granted to the
recipient of code. They don't affect the copyright holder.
>
> To me it seems like it is not hard to bypass, but it would be *atleast*
> indecent.
>
There is nothing indecent about bypassing the efforts of somebody who
wants to regulate the end-use of software.
--
Rich
