Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?

Andrew Pimlott
2003-12-08T16:50:57Z

On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:50:41AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 09:13:00AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> > It might be true that Sun's misdeed perpetually voids their license
> > to XYZ.
>
> That's a good question, it's not clear what the answer to that is. I reread
> the GPL and I don't see where it spells out what happens if you try and cheat.

FWIW, here's what RMS said:

Misusing a GPL-covered program permanently forfeits the right to
distribute the code at all.

http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-09-05-001-21-OP-LF-KE

> > Your comparisons to the SCO case are far-fetched. In part because
> > of what I said above (your idea of "viral" is divorced from
> > reality)
>
> In copyright law, yes. Contract law is a bit different. Linus and
> you yanked me back into copyright law and you're right that SCO can't
> claim rights to Linux, they don't own it. But isn't it true that if
> the Unix license they have with IBM (actually more likely Sequent) is a
> contract then that contract could extend to anything that was originally
> written in the context of Unix, even if 100% of was written by Sequent
> and removed from Unix and ported to Linux?

I guess I can't disagree in principle that a contract could cross
almost any boundary. But it seems vanishingly unlikely that anyone
(not to speak of IBM) would agree to a contract with such
boundary-piercing powers as SCO claims. For this reason, I don't
think that even the most bold claims for the GPL's virulence help
SCO one bit. On the contrary, any intelligent discussion of
boundaries can only undermine SCO's nonsensical case.

I agree with you about the importance of figuring out where the
boundaries lie. I also wish the FSF would get more involved in this
debate, but I have to say, they seem to be avoiding the hard
questions, perhaps because they're afraid to say anything that will
restrict them later. The best statement I think I've read from them
is

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

which introduces an "arms length" standard.

> And if it is, which I believe to be true, and if you wrote a new widget
> that was originally done in the context of that program but now wanted
> to put that widget someplace else and the widget removed all references
> to the original program, do I still have any contractially based rights
> to that widget?

For me, this doesn't pass the giggle test.

> Nothing in law is black and white, it's all sorted out in caselaw
> typically. But as far as I can tell there has to be some way to limit
> the influence of a contract or a license or otherwise everything that
> ran on a GPLed kernel would be GPLed (the HURD is a GPLed kernel, right?
> How much you want to bet that the FSF is not going to try and make the
> claim that userland has to be GPLed?)

They seem to have waived that claim, at least, by deeming system
calls "arms length" communication.

Andrew