Re: [RFC] vtunerc - virtual DVB device driver

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@linuxtv.org>]

On 06/21/2011 04:35 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em 21-06-2011 11:15, Andreas Oberritter escreveu:
>> On 06/21/2011 03:44 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Andreas Oberritter <obi@linuxtv.org> wrote:
>>>> Mauro and Devin, I think you're missing the point. This is not about
>>>> creating drivers in userspace. This is not about open or closed source.
>>>> The "vtuner" interface, as implemented for the Dreambox, is used to
>>>> access remote tuners: Put x tuners into y boxes and access them from
>>>> another box as if they were local. It's used in conjunction with further
>>>> software to receive the transport stream over a network connection.
>>>> Honza's code does the same thing.
>>>
>>> I'm not missing the point at all.  I realize exactly what Honza is
>>> trying to accomplish (and from a purely technical standpoint, it's not
>>> a bad approach) - but I'm talking about the effects of such a driver
>>> being introduced which changes the kernel/userland licensing boundary
>>> and has very real implications with how the in-kernel code is
>>> accessed.
>>>
>>>> You don't need it in order to create closed source drivers. You can
>>>> already create closed kernel drivers now. Also, you can create tuner
>>>> drivers in userspace using the i2c-dev interface. If you like to connect
>>>> a userspace driver to a DVB API device node, you can distribute a small
>>>> (open or closed) wrapper with it. So what are you arguing about?
>>>> Everything you're feared of can already be done since virtually forever.
>>>
>>> I disagree.  There is currently no API which allows applications to
>>> issue tuning requests into the DVB core, and have those requests
>>> proxied back out to userland where an application can then use i2c-dev
>>> to tune the actual device.  Meaning if somebody wants to write a
>>> closed source userland application which controls the tuner, he/she
>>> can do that (while not conforming to the DVB API).  But if if he wants
>>> to reuse the GPL licensed DVB core, he has to replace the entire DVB
>>> core.
>>>
>>> The introduction of this patch makes it trivial for a third party to
>>> provide closed-source userland support for tuners while reusing all
>>> the existing GPL driver code that makes up the framework.
>>>
>>> I used to work for a vendor that makes tuners, and they do a bunch of
>>> Linux work.  And that work has resulted in a bunch of open source
>>> drivers.  I can tell you though that *every* conversation I've had
>>> regarding a new driver goes something like this:
>>>
>>> ===
>>> "Devin, we need to support tuner X under Linux."
>>>
>>> "Great!  I'll be happy to write a new GPL driver for the
>>> tuner/demodulator/whatever for that device"
>>>
>>> "But to save time/money, we just want to reuse the Windows driver code
>>> (or reference code from the vendor)."
>>>
>>> "Ok.  Well, what is the licensing for that code?  Is it GPL compatible?"
>>>
>>> "Not currently.  So can we just make our driver closed source?"
>>>
>>> "Well, you can't reuse any of the existing DVB core functionality or
>>> any of the other GPL drivers (tuners, bridges, demods), so you would
>>> have rewrite all that from scratch."
>>>
>>> "Oh, that would be a ton of work.   Can we maybe write some userland
>>> stuff that controls the demodulator which we can keep closed source?
>>> Since it's not in the kernel, the GPL won't apply".
>>>
>>> "Well, you can't really do that because there is no way for the DVB
>>> core to call back out to userland when the application makes the
>>> tuning request to the DVB core."
>>>
>>> "Oh, ok then.  I guess we'll have to talk to the vendor and get them
>>> to give us the reference driver code under the GPL."
>>> ===
>>>
>>> I can tell you without a doubt that if this driver were present in the
>>> kernel, that going forward that vendor would have *zero* interest in
>>> doing any GPL driver work.  Why would they?  Why give away the code
>>> which could potentially help their competitors if they can keep it
>>> safe and protected while still being able to reuse everybody else's
>>> contributions?
>>>
>>> Companies don't contribute GPL code out of "good will".  They do it
>>> because they are compelled to by licenses or because there is no
>>> economically viable alternative.
>>>
>>> Mauro, ultimately it is your decision as the maintainer which drivers
>>> get accepted in to the kernel.  I can tell you though that this will
>>> be a very bad thing for the driver ecosystem as a whole - it will
>>> essentially make it trivial for vendors (some of which who are doing
>>> GPL work now) to provide solutions that reuse the GPL'd DVB core
>>> without having to make any of their stuff open source.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I said in my last email that would be my last email on the
>>> topic.  I guess I lied.
>>
>> Yes, and you did lie to your vendor, too, as you did not mention the
>> possibilities to create
>> 1.) closed source modules derived from existing vendor drivers while
>> still being able to use other drivers (c.f. EXPORT_SYMBOL vs.
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL).
> 
> AFAIK, the legal issues on writing a closed source driver using EXPORT_SYMBOL
> are not proofed legally in any court. While EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL explicitly 
> adds a restriction, not using it doesn't necessarily mean that the symbol
> can be used by a closed source driver. 
> 
> If you take a look at Kernel's COPYING file, the only exception to GPL license
> allowed there is:
> 
> 	 NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> 	 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
> 	 of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
> 
> IANAL, but, as EXPORT_SYMBOL is not a "normal system call", my understanding is that
> it is also covered by GPL.

Of course. But as you should know, the GPL only covers derived work.
Whether or not a driver is a derived work of the kernel can only be
decided individually. It is my understanding that a Windows driver
ported to Linux is unlikely to be a derived work of Linux.

> I was told that several lawyers defend the idea that all software inside the
> kernel tree is covered by GPL, even the aggregated ones. That was the rationale 
> used to split the firmware packages from the kernel itself.

However, I wasn't referring to the kernel tree at all.

>> 2.) a simple wrapper that calls userspace, therefore not having to open
>> up any "secrets" at all.
> 
> A wrapper for a closed source driver is illegal, as it is trying to circumvent
> the GPL license.

Is it? First, you are not a lawyer. Second, a wrapper is unlikely to be
illegal by its pure existence and a wrapper does usually not try to do
anything by itself. Third, you can implement a wrapper using normal
system calls (read, write, mmap, ioctl ...). That's what vtuner does,
too, to accomplish a totally different goal. Do you think vtuner is
illegal? I would be very surprised if it was. It perfectly matches the
license exception cited above. And even without the exception, a closed
driver in userspace would only very unlikely be a derived work of the
kernel.

Regards,
Andreas