Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel. That makes it a derivative work of the kernel. In theory, one could design a patch format that doesn't include any context data; it wouldn't be very useful or robust, but it could be done. In practice, too. diff --ed does this. Would the patch still be considered a DW? The patch is still representing a DW of the kernel source. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 11:41:11PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel. That makes it a derivative work of the kernel. In theory, one could design a patch format that doesn't include any context data; it wouldn't be very useful or robust, but it could be done. Would the patch still be considered a DW? The patch is still representing a DW of the kernel source. At least by applying the patch you make derivative work. IANAL, but by modifying Linux (to make the patch) you agree with the GPL. I'm not sure it's legal to distribute patches which aren't under de GPL. I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that NeXTStep distributed only the object files which should be linked with gcc by the user to make the Objective-C compiler. IIRC that wasn't legal and they GPL'd the source to comply with the GPL. This is only from my vague memory, so there is a change that this isn't totally correct. :) Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpWhXDsT7WHg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux gpl question
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 13:29:44 +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: I can't find the exact details on the web anymore, but I remember that NeXTStep distributed only the object files It's in Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism by RMS, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html Consider GNU Objective C. NeXT initially wanted to make this front end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way around the GPL's requirements. But our lawyer said that this would not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed. And so they made the Objective C front end free software. Ray -- If we put in English phrases, that makes it readable. That's COBOL. Larry Wall on common fallacies of language design -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable entity. Nope, it's not. But since you don't listen, it's pointless to keep talking to you. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote: On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote: On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote: No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases. Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it; lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it. Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable entity. Does your use of a pseudonym result in an even higher degree of detachment from reality than one normally expects in arcane legal discussions? What the hell does distributing a patch in isolation have to do with the issue at hand? He's distributing *compiled* *binaries*, for God's sake, with no source code being made obviously available -- that's why the question was even /asked/. Any nitpicking about whether a patch distributed in isolation is a derived work is completely and utterly irrelevant to the original question concerning firewall appliances. It's sufficient to say that the MOST someone could do without having to comply with the GPL is distribute their patch in isolation -- in other words, not much that's of any use, and certainly nothing that's of use to someone interested in keeping their changes private. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpIBugqUNrQe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux gpl question
John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all. RMS of course has nothing to do with it, but the authors of Linux, whose work on Linux is all GPL'd, certainly do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all. Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL. It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or pay for violating the license (and that would take a lawsuit brought by the copyright holders). He still has some rights to his derivative work, they aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced license compliance (assuming it chose to). Lynn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote: Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL. It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a court to actually force him to comply with law. In either case, he is violating the law. He still has some rights to his derivative work, they aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced license compliance Not much of a mistake; unless he made clear that it wasn't GPLed, you could reasonably claim that you made the assumption that he was acting legally. Most judges aren't amused with cases where the plaintiff was acting illegally and not in good faith. (assuming it chose to). A judge that doesn't enforce the clear law - and there would be no legal question here - is liable to face impeachment pretty quickly. In a case like this, with few emotional issues or legal questions involved, a judge is probably going to quickly rule against the copyright violator, and go on to a serious case. Assuming that the copyright violator was stupid enough to go that far; all GPL license questions have been settled out of court, because getting hauled into court is an expensive risky proposition. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Friday 26 April 2002 01:45, David Starner wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 01:29:57AM -0500, Lynn Winebarger wrote: Actually he can copy all he wants without complying with the GPL. It would take a court to actually force him to comply with the license and/or That's sort of like saying he can kill all he wants to; it would take a court to actually force him to comply with law. In either case, he is violating the law. In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after him. There's a substantial difference. He still has some rights to his derivative work, they aren't completely held by the original authors, so it would be a mistake to treat the derivative work as GPL'ed and copy it before the court forced license compliance Not much of a mistake; unless he made clear that it wasn't GPLed, you could reasonably claim that you made the assumption that he was acting legally. Most judges aren't amused with cases where the plaintiff was acting illegally and not in good faith. Do you really want to be in the position of having to make such a claim? (assuming it chose to). A judge that doesn't enforce the clear law - and there would be no legal Actually, I wasn't referring to chosing to enforce the law, but determining the penalty. They might make them distribute the patched version under GPL, or they might make them pay monetary damages and order existent copies destroyed. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the full range of a judge's discretion. However, the latter is the usual way to deal with copyright infringement (at least it's in statute itself). They might do something else. Lynn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
Lynn Winebarger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In one case the police will probably come after him (assuming they figure out who it was). Here the copyright holders have to come after him. There's a substantial difference. And what we're talking about is exactly that. Eben Moglen, who is the legal heavy for the FSF, has a nice essay on how easy it is to enforce the GPL. Usually takes only one letter. Actually, I wasn't referring to chosing to enforce the law, but determining the penalty. They might make them distribute the patched version under GPL, or they might make them pay monetary damages and order existent copies destroyed. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know the full range of a judge's discretion. However, the latter is the usual way to deal with copyright infringement (at least it's in statute itself). They might do something else. Generally GPL holders don't ask for anything more than either comply or stop distributing entirely, money damages are not normally requested. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote: On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote: No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases. Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it; lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it. Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable entity. -- Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On 25 Apr 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all. I'm really wondering why you even bothered to point this out. You restate my point rather complicatedly and mostly wrongly, then added a huge assed dose of the obvious. Why? BTW, he is only required to provide the GPL'd stuff when asked: there is no law, clause, or any other thing on God's green earth that is forcing him to give up his rights of authorship in code he wrote (gee, does it sound like I'm repeating myself?). RMS of course has nothing to do with it, but the authors of Linux, whose work on Linux is all GPL'd, certainly do. The license clause that apparently causes the author to have to GPL his separatable work comes from the FSF, not from the authors of the Linux kernel. -- Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. Who is John Galt? [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's who! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 04:53:24PM -0600, John Galt wrote: On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote: A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases. Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it; lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it. Only assuming that you distribute the patched kernel as a unit. It is entirely feasable to distribute the patches as a separately copyrightable entity. Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel. That makes it a derivative work of the kernel. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
also sprach John Galt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.04.27.0106 +0200]: However, his patches are patches *of Linux*, and so if he distributes the patched Linux, he is required to distribute the full source, because Linux is copyable only under the terms of the GPL and that's what the GPL requires. If he doesn't like that, his only option is to refrain from copying the Linux binaries at all. I'm really wondering why you even bothered to point this out. You restate my point rather complicatedly and mostly wrongly, then added a huge assed dose of the obvious. Why? chill hey! gosh, legal issues always make people so belligerent ;^! this is, after all, not always straight forward as in the books. in fact, i claim to have understood most of the license, and your explanations, and i am still confused in certain cases. granted, this one is answered rather easily (now that i know what to consider and where to look), but i still appreciate any form of feedback within the reasonable bounds and as long as nobody purposely acts childish or stupidly. this ain't no offense, john. BTW, he is only required to provide the GPL'd stuff when asked: there is no law, clause, or any other thing on God's green earth that is forcing him to give up his rights of authorship in code he wrote (gee, does it sound like I'm repeating myself?). you still have a wonderful way of explaining, quite understandable, i find... Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. on purpose? -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] dimmi in 10 secondi i nomi dei 7 re di roma, in ordine decrescente di data di morte del figlio secondogenito, in rot13... o faccio fuori la directory /dev !!! pgptb9UyGL1l3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux gpl question
On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 06:40:41PM -0500, David Starner wrote: Not by my understanding. A patch will include generally include pieces of the kernel source, and only make sense in the context of the kernel. That makes it a derivative work of the kernel. In theory, one could design a patch format that doesn't include any context data; it wouldn't be very useful or robust, but it could be done. Would the patch still be considered a DW? The patch is still representing a DW of the kernel source. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
linux gpl question
[please cc me on responses] hey wise people, i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the kernel here and there, and because he added userland stuff. now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches for the kernel, right? in this case, does he have to let people know exactly which patches are applied? or, can he simply make the kernel source available, but ship it in binary only form with his patches applied? i'd love to hear your thoughts... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] windoze 3.1 - the best $89 solitaire game you can buy. pgpKedDRcFPyF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: linux gpl question
On Thu, 2002-04-25 at 07:15, martin f krafft wrote: [please cc me on responses] hey wise people, i have a question that's stunning us over here. there's someone selling a complete firewall appliance atop a linux kernel. he advertises it as hardened and as super-secure because he patched the kernel here and there, and because he added userland stuff. now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches for the kernel, right? in this case, does he have to let people know exactly which patches are applied? I think he needs to provide the exact patched source code. Quoting from the GPL: 2...a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. and 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, Section 3. c) does not apply, since he is the upstream for this particular modification. Together, these two sections mean that the complete source code must be provided, and that the modified sections must be marked as such. Unless he can come up with binary-only patches from nothing, his product is a derivative of the Linux kernel source, and therefore must be shipped with *complete* source code. or, can he simply make the kernel source available, but ship it in binary only form with his patches applied? Binaries are fine, but the complete source used to generate those binaries is the source that must be supplied, per 3a) or 3b). IANAL, TINLA, etc. -- Stephen RyanDebian GNU/Linux Technology Coordinator Center for Educational Outcomes at Dartmouth College -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 01:15:23PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: now my question: the kernel's gpl, so everything using the kernel source must be gpl. that does force this guy to make the source of all his kernel tree patches available, unless he provides binary patches for the kernel, right? in this case, does he have to let people know exactly which patches are applied? He has to provide source if you get the kernel. (Binary modules are okay; binary patches aren't.) He doesn't have to let people know which patches are applied; he can just give you the kernel source and let you figure it out. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: linux gpl question
On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:35:44PM -0600, John Galt wrote: No, he doesn't have to do anything at all with his patches. They aren't the FSF's to define the license for. For ONLY the work he authored or has the rights of authorship in, he may do whatever he wishes with it. A patch to a program is a derivative work of the program, in most cases. Hence, you need permission of the copyright owner to distribute it; lacking direct permission (rather painful for the kernel), you have to distribute it under the GPL if you distribute it. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. If you don't have it you're on the other side. - K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
