Re: [ANNOUNCE] DSFS Network Forensic File System for Linux Patches

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Arjan van de Ven wrote:

The GPL terms that require GPL conversion of any code that runs on Linux is not supported by US Law. Many would disagree, but that's OK. In short, it's just like any other proprietary app running on Linux. If it uses no Linux code (which
it does not), then the GPL does not apply to it .

except for section 2 which states that if parts are related (or at least
not independent, for example when they are designed to exclusively work
togethern), and one part is GPL, then both parts need to be, or you
should not distribute the GPL part. This is not "your other code becomes
gpl", it is "you can't distribute the GPL parts".

The key word here is "designed to EXCLUSIVELY work together" as opposed to
"INCLUSIVE". DSFS is not exclusive to Linux nor is it designed to run exclusively
on Linux.

There's also a more fundamental problem with the GPL language. The GPL stated it
confers "RIGHT TO COPY".  This is not the same as "RIGHT TO GRANT
LICENSES TO DISTRIBUTE." Under US copyright law, if you confer to any person the "right to copy" in a license which states the software is FREE, you have in essense affected a copyright transfer to each and every person who receives the code. This is esspecially true since the GPL says that the software if "FREE".
One could argue that the GPL requires reciprocal consdieration by requiring
conversion of ownsership of protected IP into a GPL licensing scheme, but this violates several acts of Congress regarding anit-trust legislation. There is also the argument of the doctrine of esstoppel. This doctrine bascially says if you've been using it for some period of time, and no one brings a claim, then it's become yours. Linux and GPL has also become an "essential facility" of the US Internet. Under the Doctrine of essential facility anything that by it's nature has become such an integrated part of a class of activities affecting commerce, then the general public has a right to use it
without claims of IP infingement or licensing restrictions.

So, in short, the GPL language was and remains defective in this area. If someone takes and uses GPL code which is claimed to be FREE, and runs proprietary applications on Linux, particularly given Linus statements publically and those of others that Linux applications are not affected, then those appplications, provided they use published interfaces, and do not incorporate GPL code, are not subject to the GPL and it's terms. The modified portions of Linux, are however, subject to the GPL, and they have been disclosed as required.

I do agree that the GPL has this language, but the balancing test in a Court of law would be whether or not the program was designed to be "exclusively work together" based upon the plain language
of the license.

This is not the case here. Folks may try to argue that the VFS interface in Linux is "exclusive", however, it ais a public interface, just like an ethernet adapter is a public interface. The real solution is to remove the "right to copy" language from the GPL, and substitute, "right to grant sub-licenses to distribute", then
your arguments would be more solid in US District Court.

Jeff






-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux