Lisensing questions

Lisensing questions

[iris Christian Klemke]

Hi,

I have a question regarding the GPL implications in a somewhat special case.
What I would like to do is to take the JFFS2 source code and port it to a closed-source real-time kernel named VDK (by Analog Devices), by a combination of source code modifications and/or provision of an emulation layer for the relevant Linux subsystems (like MTD).
My understanding of the GPL is that I would be this would usually oblige me to publish the resulting source codes under the GPL as well. So far, so good. However, I suspect the implications of the GPL license might not stop there because the VDK is not a full operating system on which our application runs. Instead, it is a kernel which gets linked with the application code into one monolithic firmware image. So in case of the VDK the separation between operating system and application, which would usually also be a "barrier" for the GPL, does not exist. Nonetheless a separation would exist in architectural terms, because the JFFS2 integration would be coded against the VDK filesystem driver interface while the application would not call any JFFS2-related code directly but only rely on the standard C file API that is offered by the VDK and its C-runtime library.
So, the big question is: would a JFFS2 integration as outlined above require the publication of the whole application source code under the GPL along with the VDK-integration part in this scenario ? Or would the GPL obligations be limited to the code related to the integration of JFFS2 into VDK ?
A related question is: what if I create an independent implementation of JFFS2 by implementing its concepts/functionality from scratch writing my own code ? Would the GPL still apply ?

Thank you for any kind of enlightenment.
Kind regards,

Christian Klemke
Developer
iris-GmbH, Berlin/Germany

Tel. +49 30 58 58 14 261
Fax +49 30 58 58 14 999
christian.klemke@irisgmbh.de
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
iris-GmbH
infrared & intelligent sensors
Ostendstraße 1-14 | 12459 Berlin
Geschäftsführer
A. Thun | R. Bönick 
Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg
HRB 41 448 | USt-ID-Nr. DE 137228225
www.irisgmbh.de

Re: Lisensing questions

[Richard Weinberger]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:47 PM, iris Christian Klemke
<Christian.Klemke@irisgmbh.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question regarding the GPL implications in a somewhat special case.
> What I would like to do is to take the JFFS2 source code and port it to a closed-source real-time kernel named VDK (by Analog Devices), by a combination of source code modifications and/or provision of an emulation layer for the relevant Linux subsystems (like MTD).
> My understanding of the GPL is that I would be this would usually oblige me to publish the resulting source codes under the GPL as well. So far, so good. However, I suspect the implications of the GPL license might not stop there because the VDK is not a full operating system on which our application runs. Instead, it is a kernel which gets linked with the application code into one monolithic firmware image. So in case of the VDK the separation between operating system and application, which would usually also be a "barrier" for the GPL, does not exist. Nonetheless a separation would exist in architectural terms, because the JFFS2 integration would be coded against the VDK filesystem driver interface while the application would not call any JFFS2-related code directly but only rely on the standard C file API that is offered by the VDK and its C-runtime library.
> So, the big question is: would a JFFS2 integration as outlined above require the publication of the whole application source code under the GPL along with the VDK-integration part in this scenario ? Or would the GPL obligations be limited to the code related to the integration of JFFS2 into VDK ?

Please consult a lawyer.
Don't expect anyone of us to help you bypassing the GPL.

> A related question is: what if I create an independent implementation of JFFS2 by implementing its concepts/functionality from scratch writing my own code ? Would the GPL still apply ?

You're free to do with your own code what you want.
If you fear patents, again, consult a lawyer.

-- 
Thanks,
//richard

AW: Lisensing questions

[iris Christian Klemke]

Hi Richard,

thanks for your reply. I think you me wrong regarding my intention. I do not at all plan to bypass the GPL. In fact, the opposite is true: I do respect it and I try to avoid to violate it (either wittingly or unwittingly). Which simply means: if the planned JFFS2 port results in the obligation to publish our complete application code, then it's not an option and I will have to find another solution, eg by buying a license for one of the commercially available flash filesystem implementations on the market. After all, I have to respect the interests of the company I work for which wants to protect its intellectual property and its patented technology which materializes in vital parts of the application code.
The GPL is a great concept and I personally like and support its idea(ls). However, even the GPL leaves the freedom to eg run closed-source application software on top Linux. In my scenario that freedom would be lost if the GPL is actually extended to the application code as well simply because technically the binding between operating system and application differs between Linux and VDK.
However, it seems I will indeed have to find a lawyer specialized in software license questions. In addition, I'm going to post my question to the OSI mailing list; maybe someone there can provide the needed legal advice.

Cheers,
Christian


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Richard Weinberger [mailto:richard.weinberger@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. August 2015 18:58
An: iris Christian Klemke
Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Betreff: Re: Lisensing questions

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:47 PM, iris Christian Klemke <Christian.Klemke@irisgmbh.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question regarding the GPL implications in a somewhat special case.
> What I would like to do is to take the JFFS2 source code and port it to a closed-source real-time kernel named VDK (by Analog Devices), by a combination of source code modifications and/or provision of an emulation layer for the relevant Linux subsystems (like MTD).
> My understanding of the GPL is that I would be this would usually oblige me to publish the resulting source codes under the GPL as well. So far, so good. However, I suspect the implications of the GPL license might not stop there because the VDK is not a full operating system on which our application runs. Instead, it is a kernel which gets linked with the application code into one monolithic firmware image. So in case of the VDK the separation between operating system and application, which would usually also be a "barrier" for the GPL, does not exist. Nonetheless a separation would exist in architectural terms, because the JFFS2 integration would be coded against the VDK filesystem driver interface while the application would not call any JFFS2-related code directly but only rely on the standard C file API that is offered by the VDK and its C-runtime library.
> So, the big question is: would a JFFS2 integration as outlined above require the publication of the whole application source code under the GPL along with the VDK-integration part in this scenario ? Or would the GPL obligations be limited to the code related to the integration of JFFS2 into VDK ?

Please consult a lawyer.
Don't expect anyone of us to help you bypassing the GPL.

> A related question is: what if I create an independent implementation of JFFS2 by implementing its concepts/functionality from scratch writing my own code ? Would the GPL still apply ?

You're free to do with your own code what you want.
If you fear patents, again, consult a lawyer.

--
Thanks,
//richard

Re: Lisensing questions

[Richard Weinberger]

Christian,

Am 05.08.2015 um 12:38 schrieb iris Christian Klemke:
> Hi Richard,
> 
> thanks for your reply. I think you me wrong regarding my intention. I do not at all plan to bypass the GPL. In fact, the opposite is true: I do respect it and I try to avoid to violate it (either wittingly or unwittingly). Which simply means: if the planned JFFS2 port results in the obligation to publish our complete application code, then it's not an option and I will have to find another solution, eg by buying a license for one of the commercially available flash filesystem implementations on the market. After all, I have to respect the interests of the company I work for which wants to protect its intellectual property and its patented technology which materializes in vital parts of the application code.
> The GPL is a great concept and I personally like and support its idea(ls). However, even the GPL leaves the freedom to eg run closed-source application software on top Linux. In my scenario that freedom would be lost if the GPL is actually extended to the application code as well simply because technically the binding between operating system and application differs between Linux and VDK.
> However, it seems I will indeed have to find a lawyer specialized in software license questions. In addition, I'm going to post my question to the OSI mailing list; maybe someone there can provide the needed legal advice.

I can understand your point but as I said, you can only get a reasonable answer from a lawyer. :-)
We're engineers.

Thanks,
//richard

Re: Lisensing questions

[James Hilliard]

You may want to try contacting licensing@gnu.org for their position on
this particular issue.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Am 05.08.2015 um 12:38 schrieb iris Christian Klemke:
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> thanks for your reply. I think you me wrong regarding my intention. I do not at all plan to bypass the GPL. In fact, the opposite is true: I do respect it and I try to avoid to violate it (either wittingly or unwittingly). Which simply means: if the planned JFFS2 port results in the obligation to publish our complete application code, then it's not an option and I will have to find another solution, eg by buying a license for one of the commercially available flash filesystem implementations on the market. After all, I have to respect the interests of the company I work for which wants to protect its intellectual property and its patented technology which materializes in vital parts of the application code.
>> The GPL is a great concept and I personally like and support its idea(ls). However, even the GPL leaves the freedom to eg run closed-source application software on top Linux. In my scenario that freedom would be lost if the GPL is actually extended to the application code as well simply because technically the binding between operating system and application differs between Linux and VDK.
>> However, it seems I will indeed have to find a lawyer specialized in software license questions. In addition, I'm going to post my question to the OSI mailing list; maybe someone there can provide the needed legal advice.
>
> I can understand your point but as I said, you can only get a reasonable answer from a lawyer. :-)
> We're engineers.
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Linux MTD discussion mailing list
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/