Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[John Bradford]

Many network drivers in the current 2.6 tree include the following
licensing condition/clarification, in addition to being placed under
the GPL:

"This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the
entire operating system is licensed under the GPL".

as
grep -C 1 "only be used when"

in drivers/net will confirm.

*Please*, can we resist the temptation to 'play' with licenses in this
way?  I suspect this extra clause was added just to clarify what the
GPL already says, but in doing so, it just confuses matters, and ends
up causing more work.

For example, it brings up a few issues:

1. How is 'operating system' supposed to be defined in this context?

I assume that if it meant just the kernel, it would say 'kernel'.

If you define 'operating system' as including some userspace
utilities, it's going to cause problems, as some common utilities are
not GPL'ed, (the extra clause doesn't say 'GPL-compatible', it
specifically specifies GPL).

2. Is code licensed under this extra term actually compatible with
code placed under the GPL alone?

3. I haven't tried to trace the history of this code, but if these
drivers were based on, and include, other developer's purely GPL'ed
code, applying this extra condition is presumably not valid, (unless
specific permission was sought to do so).

4. The obvious issue concerning binary modules - does loading a binary
module which is not licensed under the GPL invalidate your license to
use these network drivers?  Note that I personally have no interest
whatsoever in using such binary modules, but whatever ends up being
decided for the GPL'ed parts of the kernel, this extra clause suggests
to me that it specifically isn't OK whilst using these network
drivers.

John.

Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[Krzysztof Halasa]

John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> writes:

> "This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the
> entire operating system is licensed under the GPL".
>
> as
> grep -C 1 "only be used when"
>
> in drivers/net will confirm.
>
> *Please*, can we resist the temptation to 'play' with licenses in this
> way?  I suspect this extra clause was added just to clarify what the
> GPL already says,

I don't think so - GPL doesn't restrict the _use_, only the distribution.

I.e. I'd be breaking law by merely _using_ the epic100 driver, as the
operating system (my experimental Linux-based system) isn't licensed
under GPL - in fact, it isn't licensed under any license, as I don't
distribute it at all.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa, B*FH

Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[John Bradford]

Quote from Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>:
> John Bradford <john@grabjohn.com> writes:
> 
> > "This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the
> > entire operating system is licensed under the GPL".
> >
> > as
> > grep -C 1 "only be used when"
> >
> > in drivers/net will confirm.
> >
> > *Please*, can we resist the temptation to 'play' with licenses in this
> > way?  I suspect this extra clause was added just to clarify what the
> > GPL already says,
> 
> I don't think so - GPL doesn't restrict the _use_, only the distribution.

OK, more accurately what I meant was that I suspect that the original _intent_ of adding that clause was to clarify the GPL, and that the extra clause fails to do that.

John.

RE: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[David Schwartz]

> Many network drivers in the current 2.6 tree include the following
> licensing condition/clarification, in addition to being placed under
> the GPL:
>
> "This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the
> entire operating system is licensed under the GPL".
>
> as
> grep -C 1 "only be used when"
>
> in drivers/net will confirm.

	If this adds any restriction on use that is not part of the GPL, then this
'license' is not compatible with the GPL. If this reflects the author's
understanding of the GPL, then it's grossly incorrect.

> 2. Is code licensed under this extra term actually compatible with
> code placed under the GPL alone?

	Only if the term is meaningless. I suspect that it's legally meaningless
and simply erroneous, but it does create the risk that someone might argue
that it's an additional restriction.

> 3. I haven't tried to trace the history of this code, but if these
> drivers were based on, and include, other developer's purely GPL'ed
> code, applying this extra condition is presumably not valid, (unless
> specific permission was sought to do so).

	Correct. Most likely this is the case, so it reflects license hijacking on
the part of the person who did it. To take someone else's GPL'd code, modify
it, and release the modified code under a license that is more restrictive
than the GPL is despicable conduct.

> 4. The obvious issue concerning binary modules - does loading a binary
> module which is not licensed under the GPL invalidate your license to
> use these network drivers?  Note that I personally have no interest
> whatsoever in using such binary modules, but whatever ends up being
> decided for the GPL'ed parts of the kernel, this extra clause suggests
> to me that it specifically isn't OK whilst using these network
> drivers.

	I think this is just one way of showing that the clause is erroneous.

	DS

Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[Alex Belits]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, John Bradford wrote:

> For example, it brings up a few issues:
>
> 1. How is 'operating system' supposed to be defined in this context?
>
> I assume that if it meant just the kernel, it would say 'kernel'.
>
> If you define 'operating system' as including some userspace
> utilities, it's going to cause problems, as some common utilities are
> not GPL'ed, (the extra clause doesn't say 'GPL-compatible', it
> specifically specifies GPL).

  I guess, it really means, "kernel as distributed".

> 2. Is code licensed under this extra term actually compatible with
> code placed under the GPL alone?

  As I understand it, the statement was only meant to emphasize that the
file is a part of a larger work that is licensed under GPL, and its (and
derivations') distribution as a separate work is still governed by GPL
(in particular, it does not allow incorporation into other products under
other licenses) and the authors are unwilling to re-license it under any
non-GPL terms. The way how it was expressed is unclear and formally
incorrect, but I think, the intent of the statement is merely to re-state
the restrictions that are already in GPL and discourage attempts to obtain
(or assume) other licenses.

> 3. I haven't tried to trace the history of this code, but if these
> drivers were based on, and include, other developer's purely GPL'ed
> code, applying this extra condition is presumably not valid, (unless
> specific permission was sought to do so).
>
> 4. The obvious issue concerning binary modules - does loading a binary
> module which is not licensed under the GPL invalidate your license to
> use these network drivers?  Note that I personally have no interest
> whatsoever in using such binary modules, but whatever ends up being
> decided for the GPL'ed parts of the kernel, this extra clause suggests
> to me that it specifically isn't OK whilst using these network
> drivers.

  The statement is unclear on this, however if you read "operating system"
as "kernel as distributed" and "use" as "distribute" it would make perfect
sense. Otherwise it's meaningless.

-- 
Alex

RE: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[David Schwartz]

	It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to have a short blurb that
could be included in individual files that clarifies that the file is part
of a GPL'd distribution but that's clear that it doesn't impose any
additional restrictions. Here's a stab at such a notice just off the top of
my head:

The contents of this is file are protected by copyright and consist of
portions of the Linux kernel source code. The Linux kernel source code is
distributed and licensed under the terms of the GPL and no permission is
granted to distribute this file, or works derived therefrom, under any other
terms. The full terms of the GPL should have been included with your
distribution in a file called 'COPYING'.

	Note that if you want to use this file (or portions of it) in another
project that's also distributed under the GPL, it's perfectly reasonable to
remove or modify this paragraph. We could also have a version that would
survive even that change, maybe like this:

The contents of this is file are protected by copyright and were distributed
to you as a portion of a work distributed under the terms of the GPL and all
other rights are reserved by the respective authors. No permission is
granted to distribute this file, or works derived therefrom, under any other
terms. The full terms of the GPL should have been included with your
distribution in a file called 'COPYING'.

	DS

Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[Jeremy Maitin-Shepard]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 635 bytes --]

"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:

> 	It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to have a short blurb that
> could be included in individual files that clarifies that the file is part
> of a GPL'd distribution but that's clear that it doesn't impose any
> additional restrictions. Here's a stab at such a notice just off the top of
> my head:

[snip]

I don't understand the desire for a notice that is clearly redundant.
Due to the nature of the GPL (version 1 or 2), licensing an entire work
under it is exactly equivalent to licensing all of the component parts
individually under it.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

RE: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[David Schwartz]

> "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:

> > 	It occurs to me that it might not be a bad idea to have a
> > short blurb that
> > could be included in individual files that clarifies that the
> > file is part
> > of a GPL'd distribution but that's clear that it doesn't impose any
> > additional restrictions. Here's a stab at such a notice just
> > off the top of
> > my head:

> [snip]
>
> I don't understand the desire for a notice that is clearly redundant.
> Due to the nature of the GPL (version 1 or 2), licensing an entire work
> under it is exactly equivalent to licensing all of the component parts
> individually under it.

	It is definitely redundant. The idea is that if a portion of the
distribution ever winds up somewhere, the terms are still clear. For
example, one often finds modified header files or implementation files
available that don't contain a copy of the GPL or, for that matter, any
indication that the files included are covered by the GPL.

	For this reason, I think it makes sense for files to carry some indication
that they are covered by the GPL. Look, for example, at
ftp://ftp.scyld.com/pub/network/tulip.c

	If this file is to be made available for download by itself, it must
contain some notice that it is covered by the GPL. The current notice,
however, is broken:

	This software may be used and distributed according to the terms of
	the GNU General Public License (GPL), incorporated herein by reference.
	Drivers based on or derived from this code fall under the GPL and must
	retain the authorship, copyright and license notice.  This file is not
	a complete program and may only be used when the entire operating
	system is licensed under the GPL.

	So I'm suggesting a fixed notice that could replace the broken notice.

	DS

Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[Shawn Willden]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 07 December 2003 08:51 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> 	It is definitely redundant. The idea is that if a portion of the
> distribution ever winds up somewhere, the terms are still clear. 

The FSF recommends including a notice in every file, also.  The text they 
suggest is:

    This file is part of Foobar.

    Foobar is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    Foobar is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with Foobar; if not, write to the Free Software
    Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA


http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html

For Linux the first paragraph would have to be modified to harmonized with 
Linus' choice of GPL version.

	Shawn.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/1Bz7p1Ep1JptinARAiGVAJ9yQLLS5O03rvIVAl5AI36ykn19qACfR/YX
z9L47JHDCRF5Xt5ovP+Pkr4=
=LXA4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[Matthias Andree]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

[Jeremy]
> > I don't understand the desire for a notice that is clearly redundant.
> > Due to the nature of the GPL (version 1 or 2), licensing an entire work
> > under it is exactly equivalent to licensing all of the component parts
> > individually under it.
> 
> 	It is definitely redundant. The idea is that if a portion of the
> distribution ever winds up somewhere, the terms are still clear. For
> example, one often finds modified header files or implementation files
> available that don't contain a copy of the GPL or, for that matter, any
> indication that the files included are covered by the GPL.

I usually state in header files that are likely to be taken elsewhere
what license applies without copying the full license or excerpts
thereof into the header. That should be sufficient. There is no need and
no desire to have all possible variants of GPL summaries all over the
tree.

> 	For this reason, I think it makes sense for files to carry some indication
> that they are covered by the GPL. Look, for example, at
> ftp://ftp.scyld.com/pub/network/tulip.c

Too long-winded and IMHO too easily misunderstood. The GPL itself
contains a "how to apply..." (this license to your code) section, and I
see no reason for any deviation from the suggestions stated there.

Even a copyright line and "you may only redistribute this file in
concordance with the terms of the GNU General Public License, version
(whatever applies) (optional "or any later version clause") is
sufficient according to the GPL.

If people actually read the full COPYING file, there'd be no reason for
such stupid GPL "clarifications". Such are not necessary. If the file is
meant to be offered under more than one license (say, BSD "no ad clause
version"/GPL is found sometimes), then that is certainly doable without
GPL "clarifications". The GPL is clear.

Note: IANAL.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95

Re: Additional clauses to GPL in network drivers

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

John Bradford wrote:

> "This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the
> entire operating system is licensed under the GPL".

to be more exact, it would have to say:

This file is not a complete program and may only be used when the
entire *derived work* is licensed under the GPL *version XX*

Or if you want be pedantic:

---cut---
   NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
 of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
 Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
 Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
 kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

 Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
 is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
 v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
--end---
where '_this_' is linux/COPYING

BTW, there is in Kernel Janitor TODO list [1] an item to
place a GPL head on all source files.

Maybe, now that Torvalds is boring and waiting for akpm.
He could do this job ;-)

[1] http://alumno.inacap.cl/kj-wiki/bin/view/KJ/ToDo