[olug] OT: more Hans goodness

[Will Langford]

On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:40 PM, Bill Brush <bbrush at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think you're on shaky legal ground equating "derivative" and
> "written to work with."


Similarly... the kernel exposes a binary API.  Interpolating with that
API by itself is not 'evil'.  Modules aren't linked against the kernel
and can be built so that they do not include any source code from the
original kernel.  If your wrapper source requires the kernel headers
to compile, you might be able to claim that anything created or linked
by the sources that need those kernel headers are also bound via GPL's
viral nature.  The header of the kernel's COPYING file dictates that
it's only bound by GPL v2, not 2.2 or 3.0.  I'm unsure of the
differences between 2.0 and 2.2.

Reading the file, line of interest would be: ... that is to say, a
work containing the Program or a portion of it ...

Could obviously state that header files are part of it, meaning
anything that #include's the header files would need to be GPL.

Similarly, one wonders how ... deep different system level #include's
also happen to include linux kernel headers deep down.  Worst case
scenario: stdio.h or iostream.h eventually include a kernel header.

Anyhoo, more reading:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

This doesn't mean you have to GPL the other work, you just can't
charge for it.  So free drivers would be okay.  Commercial things not
so much.

Going on:

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Binary + Wrapper source don't supply the kernel headers.  As such, you
might argue that the actual distribution of binary drivers don't
include any of the kernel sauce itself.  It may rely on it, but... you
can probably easily argue they are not derived from it.  And you're
not modifying any individual file of the kernel.    I really do think
that this single paragraph is what makes binary + wrapper non license
breaching.  (a) two sections.  a binary one, and a wrapper source.
(b) the binary identifiable section is not derived and is a reasonably
separate and therefore not covered by the GPL.  (c) distributing same
sections as part of a whole which is based off the Program... is a
possible .. problem.

Following that, you get the 'must supply source clause', assuming your
work is derivative.

---

So.  The question becomes: I distribute a closed binary plus wrapper
source that have an external dependency for header files from a GPL
project.  Although 99.99999% of my project is completely independent,
does the fact that my program needs some definitions for interpolating
... make it a derivative work ?  Could you argue that the data portion
of header file definitions fall under copyright ?

Lets assume that it is assumed a derivative work.  Are you going to be
the one to sue the hardware manufacturer, most likely causing them to
completely drop the support for said operating system ?  As a hardware
manufacture, I would either drop the OS like a hot potato, or start
'reverse engineering' the module interface with each subsequent
kernel<>module interaction change -- and charge an arm and a leg for
users who indeed want to use it on the given OS.  If binary + wrapper
is breaking the license, that's understandable... but do you really
wanna force the issue and end up millions of users with bricked
hardware ?

While allegedly breaking the GPL is bad, they are not selling the
software that breaks the GPL. Granted, the software works only with
the dongle they provide (say, an 8800GTS video card) and you have to
buy the card to make the software work -- without the dongle, there's
no point in the software to begin with.  From a business point of
view, no harm no foul.  Philosophically it may be an issue, but... meh
:).

-Will