The GPL, Google, and Android Bionic last few days has been discussing an issue that affects the "header files" or header files for Linux kernel, GPL
and use of Google makes them to develop Android.
In my opinion this is a rather complex issue and needs to take a tour of all the elements to try to reach a minimally informed opinion on the matter. Of course we appreciate any comments on this subject to the necessary corrections or clarifications.
header files or header files
These files contain common elements for use by several other programs.
In simple terms it would be like having a dictionary of grammar when writing a novel. We can use the content of that third party to understand the story, but not part of this. (The example is the most basic level, sure there are differences)
When someone compile something to run on that system can resort to those header files to verify that the compilation is consistent with that contained in DEFINITIONS the rest of the system without having to always include the same definitions within its own code.
What Google does
The "header files" of the Linux kernel are modified by Google by an automated process that performs a cleaning of the content.
this process the company says it does is remove elements of the "header files" that are not needed and would cause inconsistencies or build problems with elements that are not needed in the Android environment. What makes sense, just
as explained in the readme.txt
And here comes one of the strange things to me all this.
Google claims that removes all of the copyrighted material of the headers, leaving only non-copyrighted material.
The modified headers are published under a BSD license with libc, not under the GPL as the clause would require virus.
Can Google do that?
But I do not understand how that's possible, if we consider the definition of a computer program from a legal standpoint, both
in U.S. law as in English:
"A" computer program "is a set of statements or instructions' to be Used Directly or Indirectly in a computer in order to bring about A Certain result"
"For the purposes of this Act shall mean a computer program any sequence of instructions or data intended to be used, directly or indirectly in a computer system to perform a function or task or to achieve a particular result, whatever its form of expression and recording. "
According
these definitions you can understand that these files are a computer program in legal terms.
But also for GPL v3
a program is:
"The Program" to Any copyrightable referees work licensed under this License.
And for license that occupies the GPL v2
, the definition is similar:
The "Program", BELOW, referees to Any Such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" mens Either the Program or derivative and Stock work under copyright law
Both definitions refer to the account you say intellectual property law, it seems clear that legal definitions are what make the interpretation to be done.
If we start from that premise, the modification of the original headers would be subject to the GPL resulting, according to the definitions in computer programs. This is to modify a copyrighted work is subject to licensing must meet the requirements of this.
understand that logic that the contents of the GPL those "headers" could only be licensed under the GPL viral clause applies.
not know what copyrighted material "can take Google to make it cease to be a program. This could be one of the keys, but I see where this approach.
What are the requirements the GPL?
In this case we speak of the GPL v2 and for the amendments states:
You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the Terms of this License.
This means that modifications are to be distributed or published, as these effects are interested, containing or derived largely from the original program to be licensed under the same license.
not to use or link to the header, but containing or derived from this.
I think what Google is doing just that, not only use but also modify the headers, even to improve them.
Stallman's interpretation
At this point it is interesting to recall
told by Richard Stallman in 2003 on headers, because it would seem that what I have said is inconsistent, but I think not:
Someone recently made the Claim That Including a header file always Makes a derivative work .
That's not the FSF's view. Our view is That Just using structure definitions, typedefs, enumeration constants, macros with simple onesies, etc., Is NOT enough to make a derivative work. Would it take a Substantial Amount of code (coming from inline functions or macros with Substantial bodies) to do That.
What Stallman said, advised by their lawyers, is to use the contents of a header is not making a derivative work , nor does it include a header to always assume a derivative work.
And I fully agree.
Continuing the simple example above, enter the dictionary is not doing a different work and using the grammatical structure given by the dictionary in our novel is not making a derivative work.
However Google does not do this, l or Google does is edit some files (which are considered legal purpose computer programs) and the resulting files change them BSD license by , which in my view violates the GPL content of the original files as stated.
Does this mean that all applications must go to Android GPL?
Not at all, I think that's going to say much more than the content of the GPL.
As discussed, using the definitions of the headers is not modified or incorporated into a program in such terms that require the result that all creation should be GPL. Can not be considered to use some specific expressions constitute a derivative work.
This is done for purposes of interoperability and "estadnarización" language in an environment, but by no means a problem of reuse that involves the capture of a derivative work.
According to our intellectual property law, for example, a derivative work is article 11.5 LPI:
"of transformation of a literary, artistic or scientific."
It is clear that using the unmodified original headers to compile another program is not a modification of the products that result in a derivative work.
Conclusions.
yes I believe Google is doing something apparently contrary to the GPL, which is put in the headers ciruclación modified by herself with a license that is not the GPL.
But to say that everything compiled against a certain headers is a derivative work and therefore must be licensed as GPL does not make much sense.
And what do you think?
[More information about this topic] Slashdot
Florian Mueller Bradley M Kuhn
Love With MPR Image Silvia Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative 3.0 Unported License
.JPG)
