'GPL encumbrance problems' (jdow)

[David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)]

jdow at earthlink.net wrote:

> From: "Jeff Vian" <jvian10 at charter.net>
>
>> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 21:40 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
>>
>>> jdow wrote:
>>>
>>> > Andy, I am a software developer by trade. I use it to earn my 
>>> daily bread
>>> > and board. If I develop in an environment that involves GPL I 
>>> cannot see a
>>> > model that will continue to feed me and house me unless I take up 
>>> a side
>>> > job asking, "Do you want to supersize that, sir?" or sit at my own 
>>> help
>>> > desk all day instead of developing. GPL contaminates things too 
>>> thoroughly.
>>> > I am not a lawyer. I just read that document and basically stay 
>>> away from
>>> > GPL except for some recreational coding I've done.
>>>
>>> I also design software and hardware... but depending on the field you
>>> work in, GPL stuff can bring an awful lot of firepower to the party 
>>> very
>>> cheaply.  Again depending on the circumstance, the compataibility,
>>> quality, time to market and royalty-free advanatages surrounding that
>>> can overwhelm the possible competitive disadvantage of having to open
>>> some of your stuff.
>>>
>>> The general deal is AIUI if you link with GPL'd stuff -- not LGPL'd,
>>> which will not infect what it links to but only changes to itself -- 
>>> you
>>> will have to open your work.  It seems that we crossed a threshold now
>>> and the signs are that if you generate kernel modules you can expect
>>> that sources will be demanded.
>>>
>> Not necessarily.  Look at the nVidia and ATI video drivers. They are
>> kernel modules and the source is not open. They use proprietary code in
>> the drivers.
>
>
> There are some young hotheads who insist that these drivers inherit
> some GPL headers, at least. Hence they must be themselves GPLed. There
> has been no serious effort to clarify the situation. It is in a rather
> unstable balance situation as best I can determine. Rocking the boat
> could result in no more drivers from manufacturers period. That would
> not be good for Linux any more than opening their code in the intensely
> competitive video board market would be good for nVidia or ATI.
>
> It's these young hotheads and the existing "benign neglect" on the part
> of the majority of kernel developers who COULD bring suit that leaves me
> nervous. Some of what I have done for the show control industry involves
> custom device driver-like gadgets designed to look like MIDI ports to
> applications but in reality do something a little "different" like
> control PLCs. If I give that code away "poof" I'm out of a market.
>
> {o.o}

Up until recently I worked for a company that developed and marketed a 
closed source, Linux based, network monitoring product 
(http://www.vericept.com).  The company lawyers saw no problem with us 
building and selling a closed source product that included calls to a 
variety of GPLed and LGPLed libraries.  As has been extensively 
discussed over at Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net) and elsewhere on the 
'net, headers and interfaces are *not* protectable elements under 
copyright law.  The only way the GPL kicks (via copyright law) in is if 
you actually modify executable GPLed code for your product.  At worst, 
you would then need to make only these changes to the GPLed code 
available as source (there's also nothing that says the maintainer has 
to accept your changes; just publishing them is sufficient).

What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander so the 
GPL zealots can't have it both ways.  Either implementing libraries that 
are compatible with existing Unix(tm) headers and interfaces violates 
someone's (say SCO's) copyrights or using GPLed headers and interfaces 
to GPLed libraries in proprietary code is legal.  That being said, the 
open source folks have a lot more to lose if headers and interfaces are 
suddenly found to be subject to copyright protection.

IANAL and the above is my reading of various discussions on especially 
Groklaw plus putting two and two together to get something that looks a 
lot like four.

Cheers,
Dave