http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/halloween.html
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28215,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh
Given the attention of Microsoft, I think it would be prudent if
the Linux kernel was reviewed for compliance with the GPL. Having
read some of the .c files in kernels as recent as 2.1.122, I am
under the impression that not all of the source code in the
distribution is in fact GPL'd and that which isn't would be in
direct conflict of the GPL itself. If I was a legal eagle, I might
have more idea about whether or not that's grounds for a case, and
if so, who would be in a position to take such action.
To give you an example, the first .c file I looked at was kernel/dma.c
which has the following:
/* $Id: dma.c,v 1.7 1994/12/28 03:35:33 root Exp root $
* linux/kernel/dma.c: A DMA channel allocator. Inspired by linux/kernel/irq.c.
*
* Written by Hennus Bergman, 1992.
*
* 1994/12/26: Changes by Alex Nash to fix a minor bug in /proc/dma.
* In the previous version the reported device could end up being wrong,
* if a device requested a DMA channel that was already in use.
* [It also happened to remove the sizeof(char *) == sizeof(int)
* assumption introduced because of those /proc/dma patches. -- Hennus]
*/
To me this implies that "Hennus Bergman" wrote that file and hence owns
the copyright to it and that the file is not in fact placed under GPL.
A quick count reveals 4000+ files in the linux kernel source tree, with
around 1000 actually having the word "GNU" in them. Some 300 or so
have the word "GPL" in them.
Whilst this might be just a "nit", if I were part of Linux and with Linux
coming under the spotlight more and more, I would think it prudent for all
involved if any anonmalies were quickly resolved. I don't think comments
such as the following are particularly "bright":
* This code is heavily based on the code on the old ip_fw.c code; see below for
* copyrights and attributions of the old code. This code is basically GPL.
Reading later down in the file, it clearly contains a different license
to the GPL which is in fact against the license - unless permission has
been granted by the FSF for such to be allowed (in which case it would
probably be prudent to mention that somewhere).
To me, this indicates that all current, distributed, versions of Linux
are in fact in contradiction to the GPL license.
I don't mean to start a flame war, but if I was Microsoft and I was looking
for a way to take Linux out of the picture, this might (somehow) provide
them with the necessary first step. I don't want to see that any more than
anyone else here. I think a new release of 2.0 and 2.1 needs to be made
with at least the required corrections as suggested by the file "COPYING"
in the root Linux kernel source code directory.
Again, I'm not trying to pick a fight, _we_ all know what it meant to mean,
but we're not lawyers and if they can get OJ freed, then perhaps they could
argue Linux (as it is now) contradicts its own license. As for what that
means, who knows ?
Darren
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/