From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B21571 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 00:19:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com (mail-oi0-f65.google.com [209.85.218.65]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2EF71A3 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2016 00:19:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f65.google.com with SMTP id e80so8082580oig.2 for ; Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:19:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linus971@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20160826235853.GA6898@jra3> References: <20160826193331.GA29084@jra3> <20160826224213.GA1181@jra3> <20160826230236.yky53kd5k4632ftd@thunk.org> <20160826235853.GA6898@jra3> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 17:19:55 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Allison Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] GPL defense issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > Can you describe the conditions you personally would feel justify > filing a lawsuit over GPL non-compliance ? You asked Ted, but I'll answer for one of the conditions for me: that it is not some gray area. It has to be a pretty damn clear violation. Quite frankly, I've seen a lot of people be confused about what the GPLv2 actually says over the years. The most common confusion is the whole thing about "linking". It gets mentioned a lot. Not only is "linking" not something that has any legal meaning, but the GPLv2 doesn't even mention it. Yet people _continually_ talk about linking. I think the confusion actually comes from the FSF itself, and the original LGPL discussions, where the FSF at some point tried to convince people that linking against a GPL library somehow meant that the end result was a "derived work" in a very different way than "mere aggregation". It comes from some GPL maximalist argument, and it's where the whole LGPL came from, after all. So a *lot* of people think that "linking" means that the GPLv2 is automatically in effect. But what the license says - and more importantly, what copyright law itself actually is all about - is not linking, but "derived work". And there's a _lot_ of gray areas there, and no, technical measures does not make something derived or not. In the kernel, we have tried to kind of clarify our thinking with the whole module interface, and the EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() distinction - the argument being one of both intent (which does have some legal weight, although the key word there is "some") and just to clarify that some parts are so clearly "internal Linux implementation" that if you need them, you're clearly not an independent module. But everybody should know that that is not necessarily black and white either. Are GPL'd shim modules that use that EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() and thjen export something else (non-GPL'd) that uses them legal? They certainly fail the _smell_ test. A technical trick doesn't really have any legal meaning. If I were a judge (and I'm not, not even a lawyer), I'd certainly frown on it, but I might not take the initial EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() distinction all that seriously _either_. Anyway, end result is that there's a lot of very murky "what is actually a derived work" issues. I'd not be interested in ever having a lawsuit to "clarify" such an issue. I don't think it would really clarify anything anyway (it will just set one boundary in one case for one specific thing). So it has to be a pretty damn obvious violation. We should not be another crazy Oracle. Those guys are just looking like morons with their crazy legal theories. And I'm not saying that just because they keep losing. And quite frankly, I've seen some crazy legal theories from the people who want to maximize the reach of the GPL. Things that would literally depend on the jury and judge not having a clue. Linus