Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Support NVIDIA Tegra-based Ouya game console

From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>, Bob Ham <rah@settrans.net>,
	Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>, Peter Geis <pgwipeout@gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
	Matt Merhar <mattmerhar@protonmail.com>,
	Leonardo Bras <leobras.c@gmail.com>,
	Michael Brougham <jusplainmike@gmail.com>,
	linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Lukas Rusak <lorusak@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Support NVIDIA Tegra-based Ouya game console
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:08:10 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f12c1ad2-d180-8981-c3bf-db8ab6afbbaa@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c8140ea3-8731-8084-47dd-8819b4b4df6a@gmail.com>

On 10/7/20 7:53 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 07.10.2020 16:36, Bob Ham пишет:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Bluetooth controller driver sent to linux-input by Lukas Rusak
>> (CC'd) is a bit of a concern.  Here is the original driver:
>>
>> https://github.com/ouya/ouya_1_1-kernel/blob/master/drivers/hid/hid-ouya.c
>>
>> and you can see that there is no SPDX header, no license information and
>> no MODULE_LICENSE declaration.  I'd previously noticed this as a
>> possible cause for concern in upstreaming the driver.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Lukas's driver is clearly derived from the Ouya Inc. driver
>> and even retains the Ouya Inc. copyright notice line.  However, Lukas's
>> driver now has a MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") declaration added.
>>
>> Lukas, did you get clear permission to license the driver as GPL?
>>
>> Alternatively, kernel developers with greater legal or Ouya knowledge,
>> is this actually a concern or is it nothing to worry about?
> 
> Hello Bob,
> 
> That can't be a problem because:
> 
> 1. Ouya Inc. doesn't exists anymore.
> 
> 2. If code was officially published, then this implies that it can be
> derived.
> 
> 3. Ouya's driver uses kernel symbols that are explicitly marked as
> GPL-only, see hid_open_report for example. Hence Ouya's driver inherents
> the GPL license.
> 
> 4. Lukas's patch doesn't remind the original code at all.
> 
> 5. In practice nobody cares about legal much if money aren't involved.
> Even if it happened that driver was 100% violating some copyrights, then
> it either won't be accepted to upstream or will be removed by request
> from the copyrights holder.

This definitely isn't the correct attitude to copyright.

The facts[1] that Ouya published the code and that it used GPL-only
symbols certainly does imply that they *should* have published under GPL
or a compatible license, but doesn't mean that they definitely did. The
only way to know that for sure is for there to be evidence in the file
content or git history, such as license headers or Signed-off-by lines.

When someone writes Signed-off-by in their code submission, which is
required to contribute to upstream Linux, they are stating/warranting
certain things about the code they're submitting. One aspect is that
they definitely have the rights to submit the code under the given
license. Without evidence to this effect, or having written the code
themselves, nobody can state/warrant this. Take a look at the following
link to see what you're stating/warranting when writing Signed-off-by in
a code submission:

https://developercertificate.org/

[1] I haven't checked the facts.