Linux Drivers Part of Kernel for GPL?

The conversation was about GPS sat nav units, but I was thinking about my own Sony clone of the ROKU box. It has both an EULA and a GPL notice. The GPL notice is buried deep in the menu structure and the EULA comes up when you try to access any of the online channels.

I'm actually going to return my Sony unit I believe. I don't have a problem in general with EULAs unless they use the "I" word, indemnify. I just have a bug up my ass about the idea that a multi-billion dollar company expects me to reimburse them for "any losses" they incur "related" to my use of the box.

I'm more worried about the fact that it won't work on my wi-fi.

I recently got rid of a Garmin unit because of this very reason.

I still don't follow.

???? I don't understand the question. What does "same" mean? What is the same as what?

The problem is that knowledge gained from reading the driver source is fragile. It tells you _what_ is done, but it doesn't tell you _why_ it's done in that way and the multiple conceptual relationships between the various registers and data structures are probably not even fully clear.

That means that if you change something slightly, things might break and you may have a hard time finding out why.

I agree the wifi situation is _really_ bad but it's not the only example.

For just one example of a simple commodity device, ever tried getting _full_ datasheets for the PL2303 devices ?

Simon.

It depends upon whether they constitute a derivative work of the kernel. That's a question for the lawyers (and if push comes to shove, the courts). If something isn't a derivative work, then it doesn't matter what the GPL has to say.

However: when it comes to loadable modules, the kernel has a mechanism whereby certain symbols are only visible to modules which contain a copyright notice stating that they are licensed under the GPL.

Essentially, symbols forming part of the "public" API are available to all modules, while "internal" symbols are only available to GPL modules. The intent is to declare that modules using the public API are "clients" of the kernel while those using internal symbols are derivative works.

Whether that has any legal significance, I don't know. Also, for an embedded device, there's nothing preventing the developer from simply removing that check so that non-GPL modules can access internal symbols. It's mainly targeted at PC hardware, where a vendor is going to want a driver to work with a "stock" kernel.

I think it *is* to the user that the manufacturer has the obligation to provide the source code. GPL says you have to provide the source to any GPL'ed binaries you ship, on request from a user.

AFAIK the linux maintainers do not bother to enforce this but some projects are much more aggressive, see e.g. the busybox lawsuits that have forced many router manufacturers to publish their code.

The GPL requires that. However, in the event of non-compliance, no-one other than the copyright holder has the legal standing to do anything about it.

Distributing GPL'd works without complying with the terms of the GPL amounts to distributing copyrighted works without permission (the permissions provided by the GPL are conditional upon complying with its terms). Legally, that's a harm against the copyright holder, and no-one else.

The GPL imposes a obligation on the manufacturer, but as I understand it, the user doesn't have legal standing, as the license terms are between the manufacturer and the owner of the copyright of the software, as it is that copyright that creates the ability to enforce the license.

The big issue is that just because the code is listed with a GPL license, the user has no proof that the copyright holder hasn't entered into some other licensing terms with the manufacture allowing them use under different terms. (This is why serious GPL-like open source projects will require contributes to sign legal papers assigning copyright)

Thanks for explaining that. I have never been really interested in GPL etc., but like the rest of the world I had also been fooled into believing it was about open source software. Now I know it is just a... nothing. Well, it is a good PR effort of course - there are hordes of programmers having spent much of their lifetime on GCC because they fell for the piece of cheese in the trap believing they were part of some community which was about sharing etc. bullshit.

Dimiter

True, but it a user request that "triggers" the copyright violation AIUI. The purpose of the GPL was to give freedom to the users of software. The have an "obligation" to the user *if they want to avoid copyright violation*.

Of course the user can *ask* the copyright holder.

Bitter much?

It is a clever legal mechanism to give freedom to end-users, and has been very successful. How many users of DPS are there? How many of linux (hint:billions).

Not bitter at all, just frustrated by a few attempts to get information which some of the billions of users suggested should be available because "it was linux" - and it was not. I imagine it is hard to accept one has spent decades on being part of a group of billions only to discover the group has been one of misguided people. They all think (dream, rather) they are in control of what they are doing when in reality they are not - even only from a software point of view.

OTOH, I am in control with my DPS - which I have never tried to make popular or public, have been busy making products on top of it in order to survive - not as a part of a group of "billions". And no, I am under no illusion of being "completely in control", I do not own a silicon factory yet - but I am in complete control when it comes to software, how may linux users do you know who are that.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff, TGI

------------------------------------------------------