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 F286747F for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gloria.sntech.de (gloria.sntech.de [95.129.55.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F374136 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:21:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:21:24 +0200 Message-ID: <3889421.xHYd3fi1mh@diego> In-Reply-To: <1438264121.2229.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> References: <20436.1438090619@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1438243737.26511.114.camel@infradead.org> <1438264121.2229.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Cc: James Bottomley , mcgrof@gmail.com, jkkm@jkkm.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Firmware signing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Am Donnerstag, 30. Juli 2015, 06:48:41 schrieb James Bottomley: > On Thu, 2015-07-30 at 09:08 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 16:39 -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 18:32 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > ... as well as contradicting its explicit statement that its in= tention > > > > is to "control the distribution of derivative OR COLLECTIVE WOR= KS". > > >=20 > > > That quote loses the last important piece; that paragraph, which = I'll > > > quote in full > > >=20 > > > Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim right= s or > > > contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rath= er, the > > > intent is to exercise the right to control the distributi= on of > > > derivative or collective works based on the Program. > > >=20 > > > says that no additional rights over pieces that were written by a= nother > > > (in this case a firmware provider) and are not based on the Progr= am are > > > claimed. That rather supports the idea that the extent of the li= cense > > > attachment is limited to derivation. > >=20 > > The more conventional interpretation of that paragraph =E2=80=94 th= e > > interpretation which *doesn't* require us to believe that the GPL > > wasted all those words *explicitly* talking about things which are = "not > > derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independ= ent > > and separate works in themselves", only to contradict itself and sa= y > > "haha just joking; *ALL* aggregation is fine" =E2=80=94 is that thi= s is the GPL > > clarifying how it operates within the constraints of copyright law.= > >=20 > > There is a common =E2=80=94 though bogus =E2=80=94 complaint about = the 'infectious' > > nature of the GPL, which goes along the lines of "how can they requ= ire > > that I publish the source code to the bits that *I* wrote. Copyrigh= t > > law gives them no rights over *my* code". > >=20 > > The paragraph you cite above is more reasonably interpreted as a > > clarification that the GPL isn't claiming any *rights* over your ow= n > > separate works, and that it merely operates by withholding permissi= on > > to use the *GPL'd* part in that context. > >=20 > > But again, I'm not requiring that you publicly accept this point of= > > view. There is plenty of scope for debate, and it's not impossible = that > > a court *could* uphold your interpretation and effectively just del= ete > > the paragraphs of the GPL that you don't like. > >=20 > > All I'm asking is that you stop making the bogus claim that yours i= s > > the *only* possible interpretation. It isn't even the sanest one. >=20 > OK, let us suppose for the sake of argument that this is correct and = the > GPL does manage to get extended to non derived included projects. Ev= en > in that case, we're not causing any corporate legal jeopardy because = of > the principle of estoppel. Estoppel says we cannot accuse someone of > breaching our licence for something we also did. So if we ship the > firmware with the kernel, anyone else also shipping firmware with the= > kernel is automatically innoculated against accusations of license > breach for that action. Which may or may not be true in all jurisdictions. Aka in germany gpl=20= violation suits most of the time take up device vendors, not the non-eu= ropean=20 soc vendor who violated the license originally. Also what about the termination clause? According to [0] =C2=A74 says s= omething=20 along the lines of "Under v2, violators forfeit their rights to redistr= ibute=20 and modify the GPL=E2=80=99d software until those rights are explicitly= reinstated by=20 the copyright holder." So while they may not be sued, they probably still also don't get the=20= redistribution and modification rights? [0] https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.html