Re: more files with licenses that aren't GPL-compatible
From: Flavio Stanchina
Date: Thu Jun 17 2004 - 15:46:50 EST
Kyle Moffett wrote:
If someone distributes _on_their_own_ (site, CDs, whatever) copies
of Linux with their copyrighted code in it, or contributes copyrighted
code _that_they_own_, they are giving someone a license to use
against them. That is actually one of the difficulties SCO is facing
right now in court; _they_ distributed copies of Linux _including_ any
code that they may claim is copyrighted. Since they have the right to
license such code, any license that appears to be associated with it
when they distribute it becomes valid even if it was not before. If you
distribute a copy of Linux under the GPL that contains code you
claim is violating your copyright, then I don't believe you have a leg
to stand on, legally.
Your argument applies to the SCO case because their code (if there is
any, which nobody but SCO still believes is the case) did *not* have a
license attached to it that didn't allow modification, redistribution or
whatever else the GPL requires; otherwise they wouldn't have trouble
demonstrating which code it is they're talking about. So any sane person
would understand that they knowingly released it under the GPL: if
they'll try to argue that they didn't know the kernel was covered by the
GPL, I don't think the judge will go for much less than capital
punishment when he stops laughing.
In this case, if I followed the discussion correctly, there are files
and binary blobs in the kernel whose license explicitly disallows some
of the freedoms the GPL grants. So they *have* to get out of the kernel
proper *now*, period. There is no other choice, legally.
Once those files and stuff are out of the kernel, we can think of a
solution that works from both a technical and a legal perspective, such
as loading firmware from external files (which users will have to
download themselves from vendors' sites -- we can't distribute them in
any form if they don't change the license). Modules under a non-GPL
license are a different can of worms: many people believe they are
violating the GPL even if they remain outside of the kernel proper
because they are obviously a derivative work of the kernel. So far AFAIK
nobody sued NVidia, ATI or anyone else for distributing non-GPL modules,
but they can _not_ stay in the kernel. I wonder how and why they were
accepted in the first place.
--
Ciao, Flavio
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/