Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Alexey Min (alexeymin@fosstodon.org)'s status on Saturday, 10-Dec-2022 15:45:13 JST Alexey Min

   https://source.codeaurora.org/quic/la/platform/vendor/qcom/opensource/datarmnet-ext/tree/shs/rmnet_shs_main.c?h=data-kernel.lnx.1.2.r5-rel

   This is how GPL code looks like nowadays I suppose

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 10-Dec-2022 15:45:08 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @alexeymin The listed license is the GPLv2, please don't imply that there's just one version by writing "GPL".
     
     That looks like copyright infringement to me, as it looks like a derivative work of the kernel, Linux, which is licensed under the GPLv2 and the obfuscated mess there is clearly not source code.
     
     Also, it looks like fraud, as the license states that source code will be provided, but I see no written offer for the source code.
   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Saturday, 10-Dec-2022 15:47:39 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • CounterPillow
     @CounterPillow >isn't this the same thing nvidia did ages ago? I vaguely recall them obfuscating their code at some point
     I'm interested in these details so can I document what copyright infringement nvidia has committed.
     
     >before coming up with the GPL condom.
     The GPLv2 cannot be worked around via shimming, too bad the relevant copyright holders are too cowardly to demand all the required source code under the GPLv2 as is required.
   • Embed this notice
     CounterPillow (counterpillow@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 10-Dec-2022 15:47:40 JST CounterPillow

     in reply to

     @alexeymin isn't this the same thing nvidia did ages ago? I vaguely recall them obfuscating their code at some point before coming up with the GPL condom.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 11-Dec-2022 13:42:47 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • CounterPillow
     @CounterPillow >It was apparently the xf86-video-nv Xorg 2d driver, no clue how that interfaces with the kernel though
     I'd need to inspect the driver to come to a conclusion, but if that driver used SYSCALLs only, there is an exception in Linux (written is the most terrible fashion possible) that allows programs that use SYSCALLs to be under whatever license (plus it appears that it would be possible for most developers to have actually agreed to such exception, as it's listed under LICENSES/exceptions, unlike the EXPORT_MODULE() mechanism).
     
     >back before kernel mode setting and might not actually be touching GPL'd code even (Xorg server itself is MIT, Xorg was in charge of bashing around the hardware back then)
     Just because there's some expat licensed "piping" code doesn't make derivative works of a GPLv2'd work not a derivative work.
   • Embed this notice
     CounterPillow (counterpillow@mastodon.social)'s status on Sunday, 11-Dec-2022 13:42:48 JST CounterPillow

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki It was apparently the xf86-video-nv Xorg 2d driver, no clue how that interfaces with the kernel though, since that was a long time ago back before kernel mode setting and might not actually be touching GPL'd code even (Xorg server itself is MIT, Xorg was in charge of bashing around the hardware back then)