

Enforcing the GPL - Kernel hackers get involved - rabelaisian
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Enforcing-the-GPL-Kernel-hackers-join-the-fight-1586483.html

======
mkup
Linux source tree contains COPYING file which says that GPL viral nature does
not extend beyond kernel/userspace boundary:
<http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.4/COPYING>

So, Linux kernel is basically under LGPL: it's OK to take it, bundle with some
proprietary closed-source userspace code, and include it in binary form to
some TV set top box, router, or other hardware appliance. As long as source
code for the kernel is provided for free download on hardware vendor's
website, GPL is not violated, Linus' exception for GPL works and viral nature
of GPL does not extend to userspace subsystem, which can be kept close-
sourced.

Do I understand it right? Any opposing opinions?

~~~
jmillikin
The Linux COPYING file merely repeats what the GPL already says. The GPL is
not viral, and cannot be viral because it is a copyright license.

The Linux kernel is not LGPL, because you may not statically link it to
proprietary code and then distribute the result.

There is no requirement for a work that merely links to a GPL'd work to itself
be open-source, except under very particular conditions where the linking is
obviously being used to try to evade the law.

~~~
mkup
For LGPL code, you may not statically link it to proprietary code and then
distribute the result too. Only dynamic linking is OK (DLL, libFOO.so, some
other form of combining which permits enduser to upgrade/modify free part).

And GPL adds more to this basic "do not close the source" LGPL level.

~~~
jmillikin
That's not true; the LGPL explicitly supports static linking to proprietary
code. That's the whole point, that's the reason LGPL exists.

~~~
mkup
You are plainly wrong. Go reread LGPL.

LGPL exists to have lesser GPL without viral nature. They both forbid static
linking with proprietary code and distributing solely resulting binary file.

~~~
jmillikin
I have read both the GPL and LGPL extensively. Since you apparently have not,
please see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html> before continuing your
windmill-tilting.

The LGPL permits static linking of an LGPL'd work into a proprietary binary,
as long as there is some way for the user to modify the LGPL'd portion and re-
link. As I said, that is why the LGPL exists. The objective of the LGPL is to
simplify the process of distributing proprietary applications, as a
statically-linked binary is much easier to distribute than a binary which
dynamically links against system libraries.

Both the GPL and LGPL permit proprietary applications to dynamically link
against system libraries. The GPL takes great pains to state this, to try to
reduce misunderstandings propagated by people like you.

Neither the GPL nor LGPL are viral.

~~~
saurik
Your comments about the LGPL are correct, but on the GPL you are mistaken: a
GPL "system library" would infect a proprietary application that linked
against it, whether statically or dynamically. A GPL application can link
against a proprietary system library, but that is quite the opposite
situation.

~~~
jmillikin
If a proprietary application dynamically links against a GPL'd library, and
does not distribute that library, then it is not a derived work of the library
and does not require the permission of the GPL to distribute.

Consider that if copyright could transit over a dynamic linking boundary, that
every single application would need to include copyright clauses for every
BSD/MIT library it dynamically linked with.

------
ibotty
one thing the article does not make clear is that there has been much
enforcement by kernel hackers. but only in another jurisdiction (germany) by
harald welte. see <http://www.gpl-violations.org/> for (sparse) details.

the news is, that now the software freedom conservancy has some kernel and
samba copyright holders, so it can enforce the gpl even when busybox is
replaced for infringing devices.

