Motorola and Tinno are violating the GPL again. We need your help.

Posted by ProgrammingZone@reddit | linux | View on Reddit | 292 comments

Motorola and Tinno are violating the GPL again. We need your help.

Hello everyone in this subreddit. We really need help, because this situation is getting out of control. Tinno and Motorola are **violating the GPL again** \- and they're not even trying to hide it. We requested the full kernel sources and the related modules for the Motorola G15 (lamu), without which it’s impossible to build a working kernel. Here’s the issue: [https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145](https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145?utm_source=chatgpt.com) And what did we get in response? **“Currently, we only have the kernel repository available for open sourcing, while all other paths remain closed.”** So they openly admit they're deliberately keeping critical parts closed. Modules, drivers - everything required for a proper kernel build. This is a direct GPL violation and makes any modification of the device impossible. And this isn’t the first time Tinno/Motorola have disrespected the open-source community. But this time it’s especially absurd: they’re basically saying they *won’t* release the modules simply because *"the paths are closed."* This is not okay. We want to bring attention to this, because on our own we’re just being ignored. Please, help us.

Reply to Post

Reply

292 Comments

[-]

Terellian@reddit

This is not a violation of the GPL, but rather a pathetic creation by Russian kids/teens spamming on GitHub.

Reply

[-]

Amirhan_Greatest_I@reddit

No Way if you are Ukrainian, because it is so funny to Ukrainian to beef with other Ukrainians and calling them as Russians 🤣🎉

Reply

[-]

Terellian@reddit

Fortunately or unfortunately, I’m neither Ukrainian nor Russian. I don't know much about their specific nationalities, and I don't really think it's my business. To me, it's simple: if they write in Russian, I consider them Russian; if they write in Ukrainian, they’re Ukrainian.

Reply

[-]

Amirhan_Greatest_I@reddit

So if you are not enough qualified in such Subject, then why making any Conclusion, huh? Ukrainians use both Russian and Ukrainian. The Ukrainian Language Hype got high after 2022, but still they might consider speaking Russian just because all Post-Soviet People (a. k. a. People living in all Countries that are in CIS/were in the USSR before) speak Russian. OP is an Ukrainian and lives in Ukraine, but uses the Russian Language in Internet just to make wider the Amount of People who will get the Message. So when Language Things come to CIS (or Post-Soviet Lands), it gets not as simple as you described. But I see the Vision "If you can't speak [], you {probably} are not [].".

Reply

[-]

FFroster12@reddit

Okay.

Reply

[-]

omniuni@reddit

Modules are not covered by the GPL. That's why nVidia can have a closed source module.

Reply

[-]

ronaldtrip@reddit

No, that is not the case. The distinction is if the module is a derivative of the kernel or not. The Nvidia module is basically the Windows driver bolted on the Linux kernel. As such you can claim it is kernel derivative. The same goes for ZFS. It is a Solaris filesystem, so not kernel derived. The thing is though that the GPL doesn't allow additional restrictions on shipped code. So motorola using closed modules and shipping it, it results in software with additional restrictions in place. Which is a GPL violation. Consult your lawyer if legal advice is needed.

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

>The thing is though that the GPL doesn't allow additional restrictions on shipped code That is GPLv3. Kernel is GPLv2.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

The GPLv2 also does not allow additional restrictions. The only difference is that the GPLv3 explicitly allows the redistributor to simply remove those restrictions and redistribute the code under the GPLv3, the GPLv2 does not have such wording. But adding the restrictions to begin with does not comply to the GPLv2.

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

GPLv3 was specifically created to prevent something that Stallman called "tivoization" which is placing additional restrictions on running GPL code.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

"Tivoization" is about using hardware mechanisms to restrict the freedom of running the code, usually by not allowing modified versions to be installed or executed. What we are talking about here, though, is placing additional restrictions on redistribution, which is an entirely different issue.

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

There are no additional restrictions on redistribution. Code was released and can be redistributed. It doesn't work because hardware depends on non free additions and this is something that GPLv2 allows.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

What the GPLv2 disallows is not that the hardware does not work without those drivers, but that the drivers are linked into the GPLv2-licensed kernel without themselves being distributed under the terms of the GPLv2, which require distributing the source code and licensing it under the GPLv2.

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

A module is defined as derivative if it links GPL symbols from the kernel. That's why the symbol tagging system exists, `EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()` vs `EXPORT_SYMBOL()`. There's no reason Motorola would need GPL symbols for these drivers. They're not derivative, it's not a GPL violation.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

That is an exception Linus Torvalds made up, which is not covered by the letter of the GPLv2 he is using, and not all contributors to the Linux kernel have consented to adding this exception.

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

How is there no difference between, per your argument "a GPL symbol(making you a derivative)" and "not a GPL symbol(not a derivative)"? Thats literally your entire point? you claim its why the tagging system exists at all? but also that its somehow a "distinction without a difference"? It obviously matters quite a lot if theres no actual difference between a "GPL" and "not GPL" symbol, otherwise whats the point of the "symbol tagging system", why does it exist, what does it accomplish? If per the kernel license all the symbols are GPL because thats what the GPL actually says, then thats obviously relevant if one is sued in court and argues as defense not having followed the license but instead "we only use symbols without `GPL` in the name"?

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

If none of the principal rights holders agree with your argument, your argument is irrelevant.

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

sure, maybe, if you squint, but *many* kernel contributors do in fact agree with the GPL that the GPL applies to the whole work, as the comment you replied to *said*. You have made up a different scenario where all kernel contributors(the relevant rights holders because all individual contributors retain copyright on their code, no CLA) have agreed to this, which does not reflect reality.

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

Sure man, which is why I wished you best of luck in tracking down these many rights holders and putting together a suit.

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

GPL v2 requires that derivative works of the kernel be distributed together with the source code. If a module is required to compile the kernel or for the basic operation of the kernel, it effectively becomes a derivative work.

Reply

[-]

jnwatson@reddit

That kernel modules are derivative works isn't settled law. That the kernel module loader allows linking against different symbols depending on whether the module declares itself GPL is a point in the camp that it is not a derived work, or at least that some kernel developers think so.

Reply

[-]

2rad0@reddit

> or at least that some kernel developers think so. You're right it's not settled yet, but these developers are wrong and provide no sound legal theory to base their beliefs on. If their beliefs were true then we could link GPL libraries to proprietary programs, and there would be no reason for the much less restrictive (L)GPL to exist.

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

You're right that there are developers who are wrong and provide no sound legal theory to base their beliefs on, but wrong on who those developers are. There is in point of fact no reason for the LGPL to exist, its complete nonsense. If a US court ever ruled such that its existence was actually justified, it would devastate the FOSS ecosystem in the US. Just because the GPL says nonsense doesnt mean it holds up. See also: Almost every EULA, which routinely fail to hold up in US courts when challenged. Anything can be written in a legal document. Note I say "in the US" because the EU already has laws, [Directive EC 2009/24 recitals 10 & 15](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/24/oj/eng), that exclude mere interfaces necessary for interoperability from copyright, meaning in the EU linking simply does not make a derivative, the GPL is functionally equivalent to the LPGL, and the question is moot. Its not that "we could link GPL libraries to proprietary programs", its "we can replace proprietary libraries with GPL ones". If mere linking for interoperability can be copyright violation, that gives proprietary software a massive amount of power to claim ABI compatible replacements are violating their copyright. Think Microsoft claiming Wine, which is able to run windows programs by implementing the ABI those windows programs link to in a clean-room fashion, is inherently violating. --- You're also right on another point, which is that nobody, certainly not the GPLv2 the kernel is licensed under and to which contributors agree, have ever said that any symbol or internal interface is excluded from the GPL. Specifically, nothing has ever said `EXPORT_SYMBOL` is excluded from the GPL and `EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL` is not. In other words the existence of `EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL` *in itself* constitutes hundreds of copyright violations against all previous contributors, by attempting to relicense the linux kernel from `GPLv2 + SYSCALL EXCEPTION` to `GPLv2 + SYSCALL EXCEPTION + GPL SYMBOL EXCEPTION`. Nor has anybody ever written down in detail what it means for a symbol to "not be GPL", the license says the whole work is GPL but the kernel acts as if having `GPL` in the name is what decides it. Does this mean almost the entire kernel is not GPL because most files and symbols do not have "GPL" in the name? Most kernel modules?

Reply

[-]

2rad0@reddit

> There is in point of fact no reason for the LGPL to exist, The LGPL exists to weaken the viral nature of the text I quoted, and I mentioned it because it shows the copyright holders of the linux kernel clearly intended the more viral aspects of the GPL should be enforced. >the EU already has laws, Directive EC 2009/24 recitals 10 & 15, that exclude mere interfaces necessary for interoperability from copyright, The symbols in question here are not necessary interfaces (e.g. syscalls) they are symbols that are used internally by the kernel the same way any C program can communicate between each translation unit being compiled. You would have to compile the kernel as one giant source file and only static functions to provide a program with no exposed symbols, so the fact they are visible is because that's the only way each C file can call into another C file, it's out of neccessity not that they are meant to be used by the public for washing out the copyright. Also, linux kernel is designed to function as a static linked program when you change one line in the .config to disable loadable modules so (L)GPL has no bearing whatsoever on this conversation other than to illustrate intent. The linux kernel does not provide a stable internal ABI/API I don't know how it could be considered a necessary interface for interoperability when by it's very nature is not a public interface and the kernel designers have stated repeatedly they will not provide a stable internal API/ABI. >its "we can replace proprietary libraries with GPL ones". If mere linking for interoperability can be copyright violation, that gives proprietary software a massive amount of power to claim ABI compatible replacements are violating their copyright. I'm not claiming the API/ABI is copyrightable at all. I'm saying that every single object file in the kernel is licensed as GPLv2 code and if you write a program that specifically depends on those objects they are subject to the license when you redistribute your work and the kernel objects together as a whole work, e.g. a modified kernel to be used for an android OS. Everyone is certainly free to do a clean reimplement the kernel and distribute it under whatever terms they see fit. tl;dr The API is not in question here it's the code files (and every symbol therein) that are covered under GPLv2 that could possibly be redistributed as a whole work by a bad actor. If the GPL were struck down in such a scenario then we could reverse engineer and (the key here) redistribute and resell windows/macos object files as our own work.

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

> The symbols in question here are not necessary interfaces (e.g. syscalls) I mean, yes they are? Thats their entire point, the `EXPORT_SYMBOL(_GPL)` macros exist explicitly to mark the interface kernel modules should use, thats their entire point. Syscalls are the interface to user-space, unrelated, and *do* have an explicit exception, the [Linux Syscall Note ](https://spdx.org/licenses/Linux-syscall-note.html). It should be noted that *no such exception exists for `EXPORT_SYMBOL`* > You would have to compile the kernel as one giant source file and only static functions to provide a program with no exposed symbols I mean, no? It is possible to control symbol visibility. This is entirely dependent on the linkers involved. The linux kernel module loader is responsible for linking. This is literally how `EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL` works, the kernel module linker refuses to link/make visible symbols marked as `_GPL` to modules that are not marked as being GPL licensed. > so the fact they are visible is because that's the only way each C file can call into another C file, They are visible because they are literally explicitly marked as being visible to modules, code which can and often does live out of tree. > it's out of neccessity not that they are meant to be used by the public for washing out the copyright Again they literally are meant to be used as the interface for kernel modules. Kernel modules should not attempt to link to non-exported symbols. Not out of any technical necessity and in fact not even in reality. > Also, linux kernel is designed to function as a static linked program when you change one line in the .config to disable loadable modules Okay? And? It is also designed to support loading modules, including modules *out of tree*, and provides makefile targets for building the subset of the kernel only needed by external out of tree modules. > The linux kernel does not provide a stable internal ABI/API I don't know how it could be considered a necessary interface for interoperability when it's not a public interface and the kernel designers have stated repeatedly they will not provide a stable internal API/ABI. This is completely irrelevant. Being stable has nothing to do with being an interface. An interface changing, even often, does not make it not an interface. It is expected that all kernel modules be updated when interface change, and if out-of-tree modules break "thats their problem, they should update". > I'm not claiming the API/ABI is copyrightable at all. I'm saying that every single object file in the kernel is licensed as GPLv2 code Sure. *Another* object file, a kernel module, knowing kernel names(symbols) and their ABI(how to communicate with them, which is all linking is) is not.

Reply

[-]

2rad0@reddit

> I mean, no? It is possible to control symbol visibility. Not when other code has to call those functions/symbols, if you hide them then they cannot be called from other object files, and any sane compile-time linker will throw an error. >This is entirely dependent on the linkers involved. The linux kernel module loader is responsible for linking. There are two types of linking, compile-time and run-time. The module loader only handles run-time linking, and like I said in the previous post you can disable modules completely so I consider any weird theoretical tricks that somehow guess symbols names and offsets to be off-topic here. >They are visible because they are literally explicitly marked as being visible to modules, code which can and often does live out of tree. They are visible to the entire GPLv2 kernel, otherwise no other object could be linked to them. >I mean, yes they are? Thats their entire point, the EXPORT_SYMBOL(_GPL) macros exist explicitly to mark the interface kernel modules should use, THIS is irrelevant, there are thousands of copoyright holders to the linux kernel, and one group of dev does not override their collective rights, or somehow magically unravel the license.

Reply

[-]

omniuni@reddit

Derivative works means it's based on the kernel's code. Generally, modules use the headers to compile. Unless your claim is that the module itself is based on the code of a FOSS kernel module, the GPL does not apply to it.

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

>GPL v2 requires that derivative works of the kernel be distributed together with the source code. no it dosent

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

In the context of NVIDIA, they at least release blobs so that everything works.

Reply

[-]

zomzomzam@reddit

FYI Youre way out of pocket and you are definitely in the realms of a TOS violation at GitHub AND Reddit for attempting brigading. Walk away now.

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

they arent required to

Reply

[-]

omniuni@reddit

They don't have to if they don't want to. Sure, it's nice that they do, and data centers have basically made it necessary if they want business. But they don't do it because of the GPL.

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Do you know who are most frustrated beyond the link? Russians) Just wonder why) Is motorola being used so much in your country?

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

I'm actually Ukrainian, and yes, unfortunately, Motorola has been quite popular here lately.

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

I'm ukrainian too, but I don't understand why you, russians, using Motorola in such a numbers) I can see your comments history, you know about it, right?)

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

Тоді чому не державною?

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

І не державною, а рідною, трясця.

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

Я почитав твої коментарі та зрозумів, що з тобою можно й не розмовляти. Мені найбільше соромно за таких українців з фортеці Львів, як ти. Потужнічай далі.

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

We can conclude this conversation. But stop pretend being Ukrainian. You are not. You are speaking unlike ukrainian. Your posts are not like ukrainian. Verbs you using is like standart russian bot. How is the weather in Krasnoyarsk, by the way?)

Reply

[-]

Classic-Exchange6380@reddit

З собой не треба плутати якщо ти з Красноярська це не означає що всі звідси.

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Tell me how much more accounts more do you have? Or do you think typing from 6 different accounts that was long forgotten and Suddenly awaken in this thread is ok?

Reply

[-]

Classic-Exchange6380@reddit

1 цей акаунт, ти просто пишишь як будто ти з РФ і говориш всім що вони з рф

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

А що таке рєфє? А, кацапленд, точно. Мусковія, гниле болото, кацапстан, фашистська федерація) Вибач ,не одразу зрозумів твій капапський акцент)

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

And that counts 4!

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Because I actually know, can speak and understand english. And moreover - everyone Will understand what i'm speaking about. And yes, I'm not using russian for any purpose.

Reply

[-]

MegaFatCock1488@reddit

КОНКРЕТНО В РОССИИ Моторолу не купить, такое говно в РФ просто не поставляется, ты собственно мог об этом догадаться когда писал "who are most frustrated beyond the link?" Забавно как ты наехал на своего соотечественника) тебе бы не хватал фактчекинга Трудно потом воспринимать украинцев в серьёз когда они затыкают рот друг другу

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Aaaaaand here we have another russian, thying to protect russian who is pretending to be ukrainian. Or is it same person beyond different account? No need for excuses, we already know who is using motorola in so large quantities. Lister what russian says and revert it - that will be truth. Question was why)

Reply

[-]

MegaFatCock1488@reddit

Ты сам то не русский случаем?) ты же просто очередной тролль с реддите

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Very poor excuse actually. Now I'm sure it is same account. Stop hiding. I see your curly ears already.😁

Reply

[-]

MegaFatCock1488@reddit

Why do you always write in English? You're from Ukraine, can you communicate in Ukrainian or Russian (the Slavic language that's closer to us?). Apparently, the troll is looking for approval from outside. That's pathetic 😔

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Don't compare russian and ukrainian. It is completely different) To simplify it to slavic with main imperialistic russian is only russian doing. Pathetic is being hiding beyond 3 accounts at least) You are from those man who are not sending girls their actual photos, am I right?)

Reply

[-]

MegaFatCock1488@reddit

Уже трёх, бери выше друг) Слушай, а на сколько вероятно ситуация что украинский блогер по Линуксу сделал этот тред, ты наехал на него что он русский и теперь за твой тред на тебя набросились и русские и украинцы? А не один русский с трёх аккаунтов)

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Naaah, I'm not bying it) I'm not gonna pay a dollar for this show.

Reply

[-]

MegaFatCock1488@reddit

Какая жаль что ты не удосужился сделать минимальный фактчекинг судя по его украинскому акценту он сто процентов русский) продолжая и дальше потужничать прокси украинец https://youtube.com/@diablosat_off?si=LYuZrQ3yOKOgU1bU

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

I don't need that to understand who and what is this person) Type from your original account. No need for hiding.

Reply

[-]

MegaFatCock1488@reddit

Ты не пробиваемый я скинул тебе человека который запостил о нарушении gpl, ты на него наехал с ничего решил что он русский, теперь я русский который проорал с этой ситуации пытаюсь открыть тебе глаза как ты обосрался Разговор окончен ты на основании своих догадок решаешь к какой национальности принадлежит человек и сколько у него аккаунтов Я предоставил тебе канал с 8к подписчиками если ты реально считаешь что из восьми тысяч не найдётся 2 человека по мимо автора которые пояснят тебе где ты обосрался, то я не вижу смысла с тобой разговаривать Иди на свой укр реддит строчи как задефал одного человека с тремя акками)

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

You? Him? Other you? Other him? And all of this same man? I completely confused🤣 You trying to defend him so hard. I mean yourself, sorry. Or another self? I'm twice confused!🤣 Another noname youtube channel with "how to compile core for rookies" videos? Really? Man, that was popular 20 years ago. That's not cool. Now reveal you power! I'm summoning bots from depth of reddit. Arise, dead and forgotten accounts! Go and show me your power! 😁😁

Reply

[-]

Leliana403@reddit

Fun fact, they're not only pretending to be a Ukrainian, they're also a neo-nazi. How very Russian of them. :D > MegaFatCock1488 > 1488

Reply

[-]

Dexximator@reddit

Not surprised at all. 14/88 is a slogan for most neo-nazi organizations in russia. Their idea is clean up everyone except white skin ... you got an idea)

Reply

[-]

tcoder7@reddit

GPL as a protection is like wearing chainmail in a modern warzone. Feels cool, but of no serious use. Unless you have a legal team backing you, these greedy corporations know you can only bark in the wind while they count their dollars. I do release MIT as I have no illusions.

Reply

[-]

FactoryOfShit@reddit

Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this not a violation? The GPL covers the kernel, which they released. If they wrote their own custom modules from scratch - they aren't required to open source them. NVIDIA had closed-source kernel modules for years.

Reply

[-]

AtlanticPortal@reddit

They are required to give the entire source tree of the kernel if they give you the binary kernel. The only way they can get away with providing something is if it’s inside a firmware. Everything linked with the kernel has to be released under the GPLv2.

Reply

[-]

Ok-Bill3318@reddit

They can give it to you on paper tape at your cost.

Reply

[-]

du5tball@reddit

Not really, RedHat tried to make it as unappealing as possible, yet still had to provide tar balls.

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

Red Hat wanted to stop publishing RHEL releases source code and they did that.

Reply

[-]

amedeos@reddit

No red hat is compliant with gpl, red hat develop upstream and for downstream release the source rpm for subscribed users, as required by gpl

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

I never said they aren't compliant with GPL.

Reply

[-]

amedeos@reddit

No red hat is compliant with gpl, red hat develop upstream and for downstream release the source rpm for subscribed users, as required by gpl

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

>Not really, yes really their is no requirement to host it a website for the files ( sony will send the dvds for any gpl stuff )

Reply

[-]

Behrooz0@reddit

There is, actually. Somewhere in the fine print it says the source code has to be shipped the same way as the binaries.

Reply

[-]

mina86ng@reddit

> yes really their is no requirement to host it a website for the files The discussion is about paper tape. DVDs are fine. And reasonable cost of storage and shipping is also fine.

Reply

[-]

Longjumping_Cap_3673@reddit

[GNU General Public License, version 2](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-standalone.html) >You may copy and distribute the Program … provided that you also do one of the following: > >a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code … **on a medium customarily used for software interchange**; or > >b) Accompany it with a written offer … a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code … for software interchange; or, > >c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code …

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

i sadly is for businees

Reply

[-]

freedomlinux@reddit

Paper tape? Not a chance. Magnetic tape (ex: LTO)? Sure.

Reply

[-]

mina86ng@reddit

No. It must be machine-readable format. > §3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under > Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and > 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: > > a) Accompany it with **the complete corresponding machine-readable source > code**, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on > a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > > b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give > any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing > source distribution, **a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding > source code**, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on > a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, > > c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to > distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for > noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code > or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) And in case anyone has any doubts about build scripts, the section continues: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making > modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all > the source code for all modules it contains, **plus any associated interface > definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and > installation of the executable**.

Reply

[-]

Ok-Bill3318@reddit

Paper tape is how original Unix source was distributed. It is machine readable.

Reply

[-]

Liquid_Fire@reddit

You may have missed the "on a medium customarily used for software interchange" part. In 2025, approximately no one ships software on paper tape. Even a DVD is becoming rare.

Reply

[-]

mina86ng@reddit

The past is another country. And in that country it may be considered machine readable. It’s not wherever you are now.

Reply

[-]

Compizfox@reddit

IIRC you can't make the source harder/more cumbersome to obtain than the binaries.

Reply

[-]

zeno0771@reddit

Don't give Big M any ideas, they probably still have the hardware to do exactly that.

Reply

[-]

bliepp@reddit

>Everything linked with the kernel has to be released under the GPLv2. Linking doesn't necessarily require GPL licensing and it also depends on where you reside. Generally speaking, there might be a (probably hypothetical) case where linking qualifies as non-derivative work, while there might be non-linked code that qualifies as derivative work. While linked code infers derived work 99% of the time, it is not the correct measure legally speaking. Also, different courts in different countries might have different measures of what qualifies as derivative work.

Reply

[-]

amedeos@reddit

Technically true, but if your code/module is not open source it can’t reside/interact with lower kernel subsystem, it must interact with the lgpl interface; idk if this is the case for tinno

Reply

[-]

Fupcker_1315@reddit

Afaik the linux kernel is just GPLv2 with syscall exception (which obviously doesn't apply to kernel modules), so nothing is LGPL. Binary modules exist because it a gray area whether LKML are derived work. Even then, linux without binary modules would have been *much* less successful, so I don't really understand the point many people are getting at here even if they generally support Stallman's views for any reason. Don't break what ain't broken (speaking about some linux devs who are openly hostile to non-gpl out-of-tree modules), especially when linux doesn't even have a stable abi for drivers (in 2025!).

Reply

[-]

SoilMassive6850@reddit

The linux kernel has a separation between gpl exported symbols and non gpl exported symbols, so if you stick to behavior exposed by regular non gpl restricted exports you can arguably write kernel modules which are not considered derivative works, at least thats the theory that tends to be followed. https://lwn.net/Articles/154602/

Reply

[-]

MooseBoys@reddit

Which they said they did. External modules are not part of the kernel, even if they are compiled into the same blob.

Reply

[-]

singron@reddit

Nvidia uses a trick. It doesn't directly have a proprietary module linked to the kernel. It has a GPL shim that is actually open source. The shim implements an API used by the driver. The theory is that neither the driver or the shim are derivative of each other and thus can be independently licensed. I don't believe such a sophisticated strategy is being used here.

Reply

[-]

Catenane@reddit

Ahh the ol' GPL condom. Or kernel kondom as I like to call it

Reply

[-]

2rad0@reddit

>The theory is that neither the driver or the shim are derivative of each other and thus can be independently licensed. Thats what they claim, but they always tactfully forget to mention the second part of that sentence in the license. >> If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, >>AND<< can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. Can the nvidia shim be reasonably considered independent and separate from the nvidia blob that requires the shim? I don't think we will find out for sure any time soon if ever, but would love to be proven wrong.

Reply

[-]

singron@reddit

I think it's theoretically possible although I haven't studied the shim deeply enough to know in that specific case. I think the bullet-proof technique is to first design the API between the shim and the driver (e.g. a header file) and license that permissively. Then, you have two independent teams develop the shim and driver against that API, similar to a clean-room design. > can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves If you have to argue minutiae on this point in court with lawyers from a $4 trillion company, you will lose either outright or through attrition. I think in some cases it's an easy argument, but it's really hard in this case where e.g. the driver shares code with the windows driver.

Reply

[-]

waltercool@reddit

Releaese != Open. If they have closedsource stuff and don't want to expose it, then should release the blobs.

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

GPLv2 doesn't require them to release everything needed to build working kernel.

Reply

[-]

waltercool@reddit

They just need to release everything related to Linux kernel compilation, OpenSource or closersource stuff involved. Nothing else

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

No, GPLv2 requires only source code release, it never required releasing everything needed for building working software. That is something that GPLv3 tried to change but kernel is GPLv2.

Reply

[-]

waltercool@reddit

They have to, the kernel must at least compile. Just the source but not providing external dependencies to build the kernel is a clear violation of GPL-2

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

Again no, GPLv2 doesn't require released code to be compilable. This is exactly why GPLv3 was created.

Reply

[-]

waltercool@reddit

That's not the reason. GPL-3 was created with the purpose to enforce any modification must remain opensource, while GPL-2 allows closersource contributions. A Linux Kernel under GPL-3 would make it impossible to introduce firmware (blobs) for example. But even under GPL-2, entire Linux Kernel must be provided, including any precompiled nonfree software. For Android, every manufacturer must provide the entire source-code and be able to compile it. Manufacturers use a firmware partition inside the device to allow boot, but the kernel must compile. Many companies, including myself at work, avoid GPL licenses by the same reason, as you must provide every part of your code GPL patented

Reply

[-]

cyphar@reddit

> GPL-3 was created with the purpose to enforce any modification must remain opensource, while GPL-2 allows closersource contributions. That isn't true, GPLv2 is just as viral from a copy left perspective as GPLv3. If you read what the people who wrote it say (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html, among other articles), the GPLv3 was created for the following reasons: * The implicit protections against software patents in GPLv2 were considered to not be strong enough and the lack of an explicit patent protection scheme made GPLv2 incompatible with Apache-2.0. * The "scripts required to compile and install the executables" requirement was not strong enough to protect against TiVoisation (using firmware signing to block installation of alternative versions of the software). * The GPLv2 violation provisions were too harsh for innocent offenders or distributions which inadvertently violated the GPL. * Requiring people who distribute exact copies of upstream projects to maintain source code distribution was a bit too cumbersome, and so GPLv3 provided a way to just point to upstream and say "we just ship upstream's code" as well as supporting torrents for code distribution. Yes, a lot of companies produce proprietary kernel modules and claim that it is fine because they don't use `EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL` symbols but those aren't a legal definition of what a derived work is and in my view (and in the view of the Software Freedom Conservancy) almost all kernel modules are derived works of the kernel and should be GPLv2 licensed. If the kernel was GPLv3, companies would make the same unfounded arguments that they aren't violating the GPL. Unfortunately, lawsuits are expensive and the big Linux companies clearly prefer having friendly business relations with proprietary ISVs rather than doing GPL enforcement.

Reply

[-]

bobpaul@reddit

Most importantly is he can't. Linus never required copyright assignment, so every contributor owns the copyright for their patch. Changing licenses would require everyone who's ever had a patch accepted in the kernel to ok the new license and there are many past contributors who are no longer alive.

Reply

[-]

cyphar@reddit

From GPLv2 section 3: > The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, **plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.** *[emphasis added]*

Reply

[-]

LeeHide@reddit

They only need to release it to their users, not the public. And it's enough if they do it on request.

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

literally [https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145#issuecomment-3622158956](https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145#issuecomment-3622158956)

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

Yes, that's a clause from the GPL, it has never applied to kernel modules which aren't "the software" in the first place.

Reply

[-]

purpleidea@reddit

> Yes, that's a clause from the GPL, it has never applied to kernel modules which aren't "the software" in the first place. This is categorically not true.

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

If you don't link GPL symbols you're not a derived work. Binary blob modules have a very long history in the kernel, notably Nvidia.

Reply

[-]

krypt3c@reddit

Isn't that why Nvidia drivers don't come bundled with the kernel and traditionally the proprietary drivers have to be installed separately?

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

They're installed separately because they're not maintained by kernel.org, they're not "in-tree" Your distro is free to bundle whatever it likes together.

Reply

[-]

bobpaul@reddit

> Your distro is free to bundle whatever it likes together None do. Nvidia modules are not shipped with the kernel by any distro. Their always a separate package, always built as a module, and the nvidia module IS partially open source. There's a gpl-v2 shim that hard links to a binary blob as well as build scripts necessary to compile. Motorola needs to at least provide the build scripts, shim source code, and any pre-compiled blobs required to build their "closed" modules. And if they're shipping kernel binaries with their drivers compiled into the kernel (rather than a loadable module) then it doesn't matter if they stick to non-GPL symbols. If it's a single kernel binary than it's a derived work and full source code+build scripts is required.

Reply

[-]

not_a_novel_account@reddit

Of course, because that would be weird. It would be weird to ship glibc and TBB in the same package either, even though glibc has a similar relationship to TBB as the kernel does to the Nvidia modules. Not everyone needs the Nvidia module, not everyone needs TBB, shipping them together with their parent component would be strange. Its got nothing to do with it being somehow illegal to package them together.

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

And if you do link them you're still not a derived work, in the EU definitively so and in the US "gray area that everybody including the kernel ignores" https://lwn.net/Articles/603131/ look up European Law (Directive EC 2009/24 recitals 10 & 15). In short, interfaces are not subject to copyright in the first place. This includes the binary interfaces that are linked to.

Reply

[-]

James20k@reddit

This is super interesting, thanks for posting this. There's a lot of misinformation in this thread

Reply

[-]

HMikeeU@reddit

What about it is not true and why?

Reply

[-]

kettal@reddit

The categorical part

Reply

[-]

HMikeeU@reddit

That answers at least half of my question, thanks

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

its not against the GPL

Reply

[-]

purpleidea@reddit

> Someone may correct me if I'm wrong, but why is this a violation? The GPL covers the kernel tree, which they released. If they wrote their own custom modules from scratch - they aren't required to open source them. NVIDIA had closed-source kernel modules for years. Not true. If you link to the Kernel and distribute then it's infringement. Some people have tried to get around it with a "shim" module, but it doesn't hold up.

Reply

[-]

macromorgan@reddit

More complicated than that. If you build stuff that links to the kernel symbols then those need to be released per the GPL. If you build stuff that links to the kernel ioctls then no GPL violation occurs if you refuse to open that code.

Reply

[-]

Fupcker_1315@reddit

You can circumvent EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL if you really want to, but I guess intent matters a lot legally regardless.

Reply

[-]

s0f4r@reddit

Not decompile, just look at linkage tables.

Reply

[-]

Fupcker_1315@reddit

GPL's usage of "derived work" hasn't been tried in court, so no one knows.

Reply

[-]

ancientstephanie@reddit

The GPL doesn't have a linker exception. You commit a GPL violation when you link GPL and GPL-incompatible code into the same binary. You become obligated to disclose source when you distribute the resulting whole. NVIDIA largely got away with it because those modules are distributed separately from the kernel, and it's distribution of the whole that triggers the source-distribution obligations under copyleft. You can distribute something proprietary and keep it separate, and if there is any violation at all, it doesn't occur until linking, which is done by the end user, via a shim they have to compile, at a small scale, thus never triggering the real teeth of the GPL via distribution of the "tainted" whole. On the other hand, because Motorola did apparently distribute the whole thing, compiled modules and all, they agreed to the GPL covering their code by building it into the kernel and THEN distributed the result, thus both licensing the code under GPL AND triggering the obligation to disclose the now GPL'd sources.

Reply

[-]

AshuraBaron@reddit

All the internet copyright lawyers are cracking their knuckles right now.

Reply

[-]

deelowe@reddit

And they're wrong

Reply

[-]

AshuraBaron@reddit

What else is new?

Reply

[-]

Blunt552@reddit

Pretty big win i my book, congrats on making more sources available.

Reply

[-]

razieltakato@reddit

One thing I never understood is: if someone copy GPL protected code and use it in closed, private code, how we'll know?

Reply

[-]

Steve_orlando70@reddit

Allowed explicitly, until you share it.

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

**EDIT 2 (08/12/25 08:00):** Thank you, everyone! They said they had “encountered problems” with publishing the modules, so we are waiting. [https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145#issuecomment-3625077964](https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145#issuecomment-3625077964)

Reply

[-]

Steve_orlando70@reddit

Theres an old saying “never assume malice when simple incompetence is an adequate explanation“. If you’ve ever worked for a large multinational company you’ll recognize just how hard seemingly simple things can be to get right across country boundaries.

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

Although I don't believe that they couldn't have solved “these problems” in almost half a year. They only started doing the work after they were pressured.

Reply

[-]

FroggyWinky@reddit

You can try contacting the [Software Freedom Conservancy](https://sfconservancy.org/). They take an active role in enforcing Copyleft licenses.

Reply

[-]

SweetBabyAlaska@reddit

yea, im not sure if its a violation or not, but spamming their github with richard stallman memes is only going to make things harder

Reply

[-]

LousyMeatStew@reddit

This is a big mess. The problem here is that 100% of the blame lies with Motorola (probably*), but the spam and memes are directed at someone who appears to work for Tinno. Motorola is the one who is actually distributing GPL2 to the public and they are the ones who should be providing access to the code. However they don't appear to have published any sort of contact info for where GPL2 compliance concerns ought to be escalated to. Tinno is just the ODM. Their only customer is Motorola. They are only in violation if they are withholding source code from Motorola, and that doesn't seem to be the case. So they really need to be left out of all of this. * The one other wrinkle here is that MediaTek is the copyright holder for the repo in question and MediaTek could elect not to enforce their copyright and just allow Motorola to violate GPL2.

Reply

[-]

stoogethebat@reddit

Wait, i thought GPLv2 didn't have copyleft requirements

Reply

[-]

LousyMeatStew@reddit

Why do you think that?

Reply

[-]

stoogethebat@reddit

I thought that's why torvalds prefers it over version 3

Reply

[-]

NiveusLee@reddit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-software_license#Restrictions

Reply

[-]

LousyMeatStew@reddit

No, both are considered strong copyleft licenses. GPLv3 just extends the scope of what the license covers. The one specific example I can recall Linus citing was the requirement to release signing keys, which was part of the Anti-Tivoisation efforts the FSF put into GPLv3. The truth of why Linus prefers the GPLv2 is that he prioritizes Linux being usable over Linux being FOSS. He's said that legal wrangling over GPL compliance is a festering disease and cited Brian Kuhn of the SFC as being the Typhoid Mary. https://www.theregister.com/2016/08/26/linus_torvalds_calls_own_lawyers_nasty_festering_disease/ Source is old and this is still "old school Linus", but I'm not aware of his beliefs having changed in this regard.

Reply

[-]

PM_ME_ALL_YOUR_THING@reddit

I don’t believe the US allows selective copyright enforcement

Reply

[-]

LousyMeatStew@reddit

Actually, it's the opposite. In US copyright law, there is no explicit obligation to enforce and therefore all enforcement actions are selective by definition.

Reply

[-]

FlyingBishop@reddit

Maturity maybe, but the intent is compliance. Which is also the SFC's mantra. We don't want money, we want compliance. And being rude when people don't meet their obligations is a way to demonstrate intent.

Reply

[-]

SweetBabyAlaska@reddit

being rude to the person running the github account (who is very clearly NOT an engineer) gets your point across? I really doubt that spamming the issue with low-tier memes and legal threats is doing anything.

Reply

[-]

FlyingBishop@reddit

It's a legal copyright issue, not a technical issue. The issue seems like an appropriate place for legal threats.

Reply

[-]

monr3d@reddit

Ok, but directed towards someone who has the power to make a decision. Being obnoxious or plain abusive toward an employee with no power is very mature. Like complaining with the cashier that the prices are high. What do you want to accomplish? Make the employee resign or to fight for you and getting fired?

Reply

[-]

FlyingBishop@reddit

Especially the legal threats, it's not really any different from sending a C&D. It's the proper channel, the person reading the stuff, this is their job. If their bosses are doing something illegal they should know what's up.

Reply

[-]

VelvetElvis@reddit

The proper channel would be their legal department, via certified mail or at the very a pdf with electronic signature. Posts to a VCS are not legal documents.

Reply

[-]

monr3d@reddit

Opening an issue with legal threats is fine if someone is doing something illegal, is when the crowds join hands and start a crusade against windmill that is the problem. It would be difficult if people send messages asking for the release of the code to the corporate email and CEO's social account.

Reply

[-]

VelvetElvis@reddit

The thing about the legal system is that it's really hard to get anyone to take you seriously if you don't act within expected social norms. It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, if you don't wear a suit and tie to court, the guy who does wear a suit and tie will be given the benefit of the doubt.

Reply

[-]

Behrooz0@reddit

They can opt out of running the account involved in illegal activity.

Reply

[-]

esto20@reddit

Lmao. "Please protest in the allocated pre-approved protest space"

Reply

[-]

SweetBabyAlaska@reddit

spamming a GitHub issue isn't activism lil bro. It's a childish tantrum. There's a very clear process to handle a license violation, if you genuinely cared for the cause, you would do that first.

Reply

[-]

los0220@reddit

The corpos don't mind spamming some unpaid open-source devs

Reply

[-]

los0220@reddit

Obviously spamming the ceo or management would be a lot better and more effective

Reply

[-]

Helmic@reddit

I don't particularly see the value in handwringing about the poor psyche of an employee having to look at memes. They'll get over it.

Reply

[-]

aidencoder@reddit

I'm not seeing it clearly explained where the violation is. They used GPL source. Released their code. You can't build it. The 2nd part is sort of the important bit no?

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

>They used GPL source. Released their code. You can't build it. The 2nd part is sort of the important bit no? theirs no hard requirement that that the GPL code has to build the final product , what the GPL says that any code that uses GPL has to be opensource

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

Technically the GPLv2 says you must also provide "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable."

Reply

[-]

TheRealBobbyJones@reddit

That is obviously referring to scripts that setups and runs the build. Although honestly idk how their license which is likely based on copyright even have such a requirement.

Reply

[-]

Steve_orlando70@reddit

Having once been involved in GPL issues in a large company, my experience is that the company lawyers will scramble for a 10-foot pole NOT to touch the GPL with — NOT to be the company that goes to court to “settle once and for all whether x (for some value of x) is covered by the GPL”. It’ll be expensive and \*someone\* will hate you no matter the outcome. Contact the legal dept directly and offer to help them stay out of court and they’ll likely help you more than Engineering would, and their recommendations tend to be taken seriously by upper management.

Reply

[-]

on_a_quest_for_glory@reddit

why is Ryan Gosling in everything?

Reply

[-]

Incredible_Violent@reddit

Like, the OP tried to paint Motorola and Tinno in bad light, but absolute chad in a background was giving me mixed feelings xD

Reply

[-]

themrdemonized@reddit

His pictures aren't GPL, no problem there

Reply

[-]

SeaOfS1n@reddit

he's literally me.

Reply

[-]

abyr-valg@reddit

In Russian internet this particular picture is shared as a reaction meme, usually with "Да мне поебать" (IDGAF) caption.

Reply

[-]

Ankur4015@reddit

Poor guy got dragged into this 😢

Reply

[-]

Scary_Fee8492@reddit

Because he's cool

Reply

[-]

Scary_Fee8492@reddit

inside

Reply

[-]

Parking-Road-1379@reddit

Because he is cool

Reply

[-]

james_pic@reddit

Historically, the biggest obstacle to GPL enforcement in the kernel has been finding someone with standing who's willing to initiate legal action. Someone whose code is in the kernel (and of course in the infringing device - they probably don't include drivers for hardware they don't ship) needs to do so. Perhaps surprisingly, a big chunk of the GPL enforcement over the years has been from BusyBox or GNU, rather than the kernel, because those projects had developers who were willing to go to court. This is also why kernel GPL violations are so common, and why questionable stuff like the grsecurity patches hasn't been tested in court.

Reply

[-]

Jristz@reddit

Let's hope we not ended having a case of "invalidating the license" because the actual owner of the Linux never enforced it.

Reply

[-]

holdenk@reddit

not a lawyer but that's generally not really a thing for copyright, more of a concern for trademark.

Reply

[-]

billyhatcher312@reddit

im not shocked a big corpro is violating the license they dont give a damn about it

Reply

[-]

AnonymousPersonYT@reddit

you guys are really making the FOSS community look good, spamming the same childish shit all over their issue..

Reply

[-]

AnonymousPersonYT@reddit

Oh look, I got downvoted for pointing out something I disagree with

Reply

[-]

11fdriver@reddit

Interesting. Have you tried contacting the EFF?

Reply

[-]

AshuraBaron@reddit

I can't wait for them to send a strongly worded letter to convince them.

Reply

[-]

VelvetElvis@reddit

Legally binding letters providing required documentation in case it needs to be esculated.

Reply

[-]

billyalt@reddit

What can we do that EFF can't?

Reply

[-]

BoiTentacle@reddit

we can send 2 strongly worded letters

Reply

[-]

bunkoRtist@reddit

Smart! The first letter will distract them while the second one sneaks through.

Reply

[-]

ch4lox@reddit

You have fists don't ya?

Reply

[-]

Neither-Ad-8914@reddit

Unfortunately I don't have hand's

Reply

[-]

ExtremeCreamTeam@reddit

hands* Apostrophes don't pluralise.

Reply

[-]

emprahsFury@reddit

i've got shooes for hands

Reply

[-]

FalselyHidden@reddit

Throw Nokia phones at them. If they won't open source their code we'll open source their heads!

Reply

[-]

LY_throwaway@reddit

Nothing EFF is useless

Reply

[-]

RAMChYLD@reddit

You sure about that? They were pretty seminal in fighting back when Malaysia wanted to put up a great firewall “to fight school bullying” last year (we all know the real reason is because the home minister is a blue nosed baboon and hates the LGBTQIA+ community and wants to block websites advocating their rights while the information minister at the time was a yes-man of his), the country even blocked DoH and DoT on insistence it’s for the sake of “national security”. A strong warning from the EFF was one of the main factors that made them “U-Turn” in 48 hours, though hundreds of companies threatening to move out of the country may have also be a driving force.

Reply

[-]

SteveHamlin1@reddit

"A strong warning from the EFF was one of the main factors that made them “U-Turn” in 48 hours, though hundreds of companies threatening to move out of the country may have also be a driving force." It was definitely the threat of significant financial damage to their economy. A letter from EFf wasn't a main factor in Malaysia doing anything.

Reply

[-]

inemsn@reddit

does the EFF care about that? Surely this would be something you talk to the FSF about (and yes I know, we all have our grievances with the FSF, but they *are* the ones who position themselves as in charge of things like this)

Reply

[-]

Helmic@reddit

Yeah, EFF cares about this sort of thing and will platform complaints. You can talk to two different groups at once, obviously the FSF will be getting involved.

Reply

[-]

necrophcodr@reddit

The issue is getting closed on Monday due to excessive spam from this being posted around and people posting in the issue with no regard to taking the issue seriously. It is a waste of time. Contact FSC if anything, or talk about it on reddit. GitHub issues being closed doesn't help anyone.

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

And it helped, can you believe it? Only after all that pressure did they FINALLY RELEASE THE MODULES.

Reply

[-]

nicman24@reddit

oh no :'( the github got issue got closed because the company is stealing code. create a damn new issue and spam them to hell

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

You are very mistaken. Thanks to spam on GitHub, we were able to obtain working modules and a script for penangf.

Reply

[-]

Ketterer-The-Quester@reddit

Please don't just link in GitHub, why,/how is this violating gpl if the kernel modules are separate?

Reply

[-]

zomzomzam@reddit

OP is stirring shit up and doesn’t understand GPL. But op knows they can get those free karma points pulling on the common reddit rage bait points.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

This comment has been removed due to receiving too many reports from users. The mods have been notified and will re-approve if this removal was inappropriate, or leave it removed. This is most likely because: * Your post belongs in r/linuxquestions or r/linux4noobs * Your post belongs in r/linuxmemes * Your post is considered "fluff" - things like a Tux plushie or old Linux CDs are an example and, while they may be popular vote wise, they are not considered on topic * Your post is otherwise deemed not appropriate for the subreddit *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linux) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

[-]

deelowe@reddit

You either don't understand gpl or are karma farming. This sort of behavior wastes everyone's time. How exactly does this violate gpl? There are plenty of closed source drivers that dont violate. Why is this any different?

Reply

[-]

Bestwebhost@reddit

The GPL matters. If companies ignore it, they undermine the core idea of software freedom. Awareness and enforcement are key to accountability.

Reply

[-]

EuphoricNeckbeard@reddit

That spamming of the GitHub issue is really embarrassing, Christ

Reply

[-]

ChaosRifle@reddit

How the hell is this not the most upvoted comment.

Reply

[-]

Kiroto50@reddit

Man, now it's the phone brand I like...

Reply

[-]

EternallyMiffed@reddit

What are you going to do about it, they are a Chinese company now, you can do diddly squat.

Reply

[-]

kryptobolt200528@reddit

Vivo and some other companies have been blatantly doing it and have not faced any consequences whatsoever.

Reply

[-]

AntimatterEntity@reddit

Even Xiaomi and OnePlus is doing the same now, android modding is completely doomed

Reply

[-]

RealSharpNinja@reddit

Isn't this what Stahlman set himself up as emperor of the GNU World to take care of?

Reply

[-]

AdventurousFly4909@reddit

A harassment campaign is not the way...

Reply

[-]

Silent-Worm@reddit

I am pretty sure harassment campaign is the main point of this post.

Reply

[-]

Parking-Road-1379@reddit

Sosirui

Reply

[-]

EsEnZeT@reddit

Ching Chong Closed source bong

Reply

[-]

InformalGear9638@reddit

I will hunt them down with my trusty water pistol! Pew pew they're wet now! 🤪

Reply

[-]

leansipperchonker69@reddit

Why would they use that license and not actually follow it?

Reply

[-]

Hour_Bit_5183@reddit

Why am I not surprised?

Reply

[-]

electromage@reddit

Oh, this is about **Motorola Mobility**.

Reply

[-]

EventMassive1658@reddit

What is the GPL?

Reply

[-]

Euphoric-Bunch1378@reddit

I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea whether they're in the right or not, but, my good, the brigading and unfunny meme spam in the GitHub comments makes me want to side with them.

Reply

[-]

RobinsAviary@reddit

Free Software Foundation would probably be interested in this

Reply

[-]

Original-Rush139@reddit

Sorry but modules aren’t covered under the gpl. You’ll fuck free software with the idea that interop necessitates open sourcing your code.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

According to the FSF (who wrote the GPL), modules are covered under the GPL because they are linked into the kernel.

Reply

[-]

Original-Rush139@reddit

And that’s always been bullshit. They argued the ippisite when sun wanted to protect the Java api.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

What they argued is that the API as an interface should not be copyrightable, which is a different issue. It means that the API can be reimplemented, and then one can develop an application against that implementation without having to care about the license of the original implementation. The FSF also follows this interpretation for itself, e.g., for readline, i.e., they have not tried to go after editline or GPL-incompatible software linking to that.

Reply

[-]

HTX-713@reddit

You really think a Chinese company gives a damn about GPL?

Reply

[-]

Ok-Bill3318@reddit

Just because you can’t build it without the closed source parts doesn’t mean you’re entitled to them. You can’t build the nvidia driver without the closed source blob either.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

Which just means that NVidia is not honoring their obligations under the GPL either.

Reply

[-]

Leliana403@reddit

Nope. The GPL has no restrictions on free drivers loading non-free firmware. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it a violation.

Reply

[-]

Kevin_Kofler@reddit

Firmware and kernel modules are two completely different things. Firmware is loaded as a data array and sent to some other device on which it runs. Kernel modules are dynamically loaded and dynamically linked into the kernel executable and effectively become part of the kernel once loaded.

Reply

[-]

xrabbit@reddit

What about Onyx Boox? they also violates GPL and nobody cares

Reply

[-]

batvseba@reddit

who cares about licences, they preserve users to get good quality software.

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

If only their software were good... In reality, it's complete rubbish. Ask any Motorola owner, and you'll hear a lot of swearing about their software and user support.

Reply

[-]

rassawyer@reddit

Strongly disagree. Motorola phones are amazing. They are super repairable, very affordable, and I love both their software and hardware. The only company I have is that they did not release the ThinkPhone 2 for the American market. :'(

Reply

[-]

vito0117@reddit

I can agree my last Motorola phone was ass

Reply

[-]

justkdng@reddit

that's the gpl v2 for you

Reply

[-]

Muse_Hunter_Relma@reddit

The GPL is a bunch of magic words with no force backing them which amounts to a polite suggestion.

Reply

[-]

Dang-Kangaroo@reddit

don't buy there shit and they are done ... and who the f..k is Tinno?

Reply

[-]

ProgrammingZone@reddit (OP)

ODM

Reply

[-]

Specialist-Delay-199@reddit

I don't think you understand how the GPL works Unless those drivers are GPLed too, they don't have to give you anything. The kernel's source code is under the GPL, so they do publish it. Drivers may be under other licenses. In which case you follow those licenses. (Hell, you ever wondered why Nvidia is such a pain in the ass?) The kernel does permit linking with incompatible licenses, as long as no GPL-covered symbols are used.

Reply

[-]

torsten_dev@reddit

It *may* be permitted if no GPL symbol is used. GPL_EXPORT just marks the developer intent that a symbol is part of the heart of the work and it's usage is meant to apply the GPL licenses requirements. If you only use non-GPL symbols you *may still* end up with a work that is so *intimately tied to the heart of the* kernel that the combined work is a derivative work requiring licensing. You're more likely to be on the dde side but not off the hook yet. Also See Oracle v. Google for how copying GPL headers verbatim into proprietary code can be fair-use. So even *using GPL exports may not amount to a copyright infringement* that requires licensing in the first place.

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

> GPL_EXPORT just marks the developer intent that a symbol is part of the heart of the work and it's usage is meant to apply the GPL licenses requirements. > > Technically speaking it marks the developer intent to violate the GPLv2. After all, no part of the kernel license has at any point in its history ever said "The GPL applies only to symbols with GPL in the name", and no contributor has agreed to a license saying that the GPLv2, which applies to the codebase as a whole, does *not* apply unless they use `EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL`, and no end-user has ever received such a license. The kernel has never had a document such as [GNU say is required](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface) to exclude certain interfaces from the GPL. If only symbols(what says only symbols? is a file name a symbol?) specially marked as GPL are under the GPL, does that mean almost the entire kernel, almost all of which does not have "GPL" in the name of symbols, is not GPL? Obviously thats ridiculous, but then what says any symbol *isnt* GPL? Nothing, in fact! LWN has had articles about this! https://lwn.net/Articles/603131/ > It is worth noting that nobody has said that symbols exported with plain EXPORT_SYMBOL() can be freely used by proprietary code; indeed, a number of developers claim that all (or nearly all) loadable modules are derived products of the kernel regardless of whether they use GPL-only symbols or not. In general, the kernel community has long worked to maintain a vague and scary ambiguity around the legal status of proprietary modules while being unwilling to attempt to ban such modules outright. In the European Union linking doesnt make a derivative anyway per EU Law (Directive EC 2009/24 recitals 10 & 15), and in the US this is a legal gray area where the kernel itself is in clear violation and modules are iffy. You note Oracle vs Google, which is good but i'll go one further: If a US court were ever to rule that *linking* to GPL code is a violation, it would necessarily undo Oracle vs Google. What use is being able to write an API in source code, but it being a violation the second its compiled and linked to things as an ABI? What would that even *mean*? Is it only a violation if you link a FOSS replacement to something that was compiled specifically using the proprietary library(eg openJDK running a library built on Oracles? wine running windows programs)? Is its mere existence a violation(openJDK/wine existing at all)? For these and many other reasons its extremely unlikely this issue is *ever* brought to US court

Reply

[-]

torsten_dev@reddit

You can copy a header, reimplement it and not violate anything. Whether you can include a header and then link against a work you have no rights to is another question. You would have to show you're not usurping the market of the original work like the duke nukem mod did. I'm not a lawyer but I think you're right about the gray area here. However I think you're wrong about the EU directive you've cited. The EU law provides the Oracle v. Google interop and interface exception textually but I don't think it goes beyond it. It appears entirely consistent with my understanding of US law today.

Reply

[-]

CrazyKilla15@reddit

> However I think you're wrong about the EU directive you've cited. I mean, its pretty clear. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/24/oj/eng It is also consistent with the [European Union Public Licence(EUPL) FAQ](https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/faqs) (under "What makes the EUPL unique?") > The EUPL is not viral: according to the provision of European Law (Directive EC 2009/24 recitals 10 & 15), static and dynamic linking can be implemented with other programs without barriers or conditions. On this specific point, le EUPL works like the LGPL. This ensures better legal security compared to licences that are not always operating under European Law. The EUPL being ["created on the initiative of the European Commission"](https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/introduction-eupl-licence), and the ["European Commission"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission) being "the primary executive branch of the European Union (EU)." I think they know what they're talking about.

Reply

[-]

torsten_dev@reddit

Ah I see. I think we were both mistaken. The interop exception lets you link against programs if they're libraries i.e. their normal operation is to be called into, linked against or made use of. >Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program. So you still can't copy someone's header and dynamically link and `LD_PRELOAD` your code into another copyrighted work willy nilly. For example you probably can't add a mod into a video game that makes paid content available to you, without paying. Now the interesting question is whether `EXPORT_GPL` is entirely meaningless in the EU. The kernel has explicit exports, and an available module system to be made use of. I could be convinced that you can't violate the kernel GPL with out of tree modules in the EI, but man... that would ruffle some feathers.

Reply

[-]

Specialist-Delay-199@reddit

I'm no lawyer, so I'll let this to the guys with the suits. But we do have countless proprietary drivers, so it is definitely common practice. No multibillion dollar company would risk this type of thing.

Reply

[-]

torsten_dev@reddit

Of course. I'm just saying it's a bit messier than "no use GPL_EXPORT == okay, use of GPL_EXPORT == GPL applies". Much as we programmers would like such clear cut rules, that's not how copyright is adjudicated.

Reply

[-]

Specialist-Delay-199@reddit

To be honest that's an argument the FSF is making about the proprietary drivers on Linux but so far nothing has come out of it so I'm not surprised

Reply

[-]

torsten_dev@reddit

They're not copyright holders of the kernel so their opinion is pretty irrelevant. They still think any form of linking makes you a derived work.

Reply

[-]

MooseBoys@reddit

> LMAO at the comments section As Linus has said, programmers make for very poor lawyers.

Reply

[-]

coyo-teh@reddit

Apparently they reused GPL drivers and modified them without releasing the source https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145#issuecomment-3622158956

Reply

[-]

Specialist-Delay-199@reddit

Do we know that or are we just speculating

Reply

[-]

coyo-teh@reddit

I linked the GitHub comment pointing that out with more details It's a GPL module written by Mediatek

Reply

[-]

Specialist-Delay-199@reddit

Nevermind GitHub acting again it works on Chrome

Reply

[-]

Specialist-Delay-199@reddit

Whatever you linked, it's probably broken. It just links me to an image with the GPL terms about redistribution.

Reply

[-]

dashingThroughSnow12@reddit

That’s my understanding too. They’ve made their kernel fork unusable without some proprietary code (modules) but their proprietary code may not be a derivative work. I’m a programmer, not a lawyer Jim. I’d reckon that would be their argument if push came to shove.

Reply

[-]

TiltiChan@reddit

Because what's the point of one manufacturer releasing even Mediatek's proprietary modules when another doesn't?

Reply

[-]

TiltiChan@reddit

"MOTOROLA" WON'T RELEASE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING SILLY, MAKING US LOOK LIKE FOOLS.

Reply

[-]

TiltiChan@reddit

https://opensource.samsung.com/uploadSearch?searchValue=A346B > A346BXXUBEYI7

Reply

[-]

TiltiChan@reddit

Even proprietary modules of mediatek :/

Reply

[-]

TiltiChan@reddit

Are you guys saying they can't be released? Another manufacturer released them, lol.

Reply

[-]

TiltiChan@reddit

One more detail, guys: Samsung released the source code of modules for the Galaxy A34 5G & A16 they use the Dimensity 1080 & Helio G99 :/

Reply

[-]

Any-Interest-4894@reddit

Motorola Mobility is actually Lenovo with the brand rights from Motorola

Reply

[-]

NavyBOFH@reddit

Correct. Motorola Mobility is Lenovo holding now. Motorola Solutions is what remains of the original Motorola company, which is nothing consumer-based anymore (except the Talkabout FRS radios).

Reply

[-]

aboobus@reddit

ебальник бы им разбить...

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

This comment has been removed due to receiving too many reports from users. The mods have been notified and will re-approve if this removal was inappropriate, or leave it removed. This is most likely because: * Your post belongs in r/linuxquestions or r/linux4noobs * Your post belongs in r/linuxmemes * Your post is considered "fluff" - things like a Tux plushie or old Linux CDs are an example and, while they may be popular vote wise, they are not considered on topic * Your post is otherwise deemed not appropriate for the subreddit *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linux) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

[-]

MooseBoys@reddit

> This is a direct GPL violation That is not accurate. Hundreds of companies write and maintain proprietary kernel modules. This is perfectly legal provided they take no core dependencies on GPL-only exports. There are even macros to designate the difference - `EXPORT_SYMBOL` and `EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL` and their `MODULE` variants. As long as the proprietary module does not use GPL-only symbols, they are in the clear to use whatever license they want. Linus has even confirmed as much.

Reply

[-]

E__F@reddit

Why not add reason to title? If you're informing us of something, why use a clickbait title?

Reply

[-]

zyuzyechka@reddit

ну слушай хуйня сюда моторола как были хуйней так и останутся исходники дают с опозданием, давали неработающий скрипт на сборку ядра и ты ещё говоришь что не надо обижать данную компанию???? ты eblan браузер тотальный, где вместо того чтобы поддерживать ребят которые стараются делать для комунити, говоришь что они не заслуживают либо нахуй надо мудила гной скилл ишуе

Reply

[-]

purpleidea@reddit

Assuming this is true then the steps are: (1) purchase a product which is not complying with the license (2) be a copyright holder of some of the infringed code (randos on the internet have no legal basic to obtain the code) (3) sue them for infringement If it's GPLv3 then this gives them a chance to be un-infringing if they comply right away and correct the mistake. If it's GPLv2 (eg: kernel) then they can lose their rights *permanently* and if they want back in they should pay you some money and promise to never infringe again or get worse penalties. That's all you can do! Besides complain.

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

> If it's GPLv2 (eg: kernel) then they can lose their rights permanently and if they want back in they should pay you some money and promise to never infringe again or get worse penalties. no they cant depending on how its implemented , modules arent subject to the GPL

Reply

[-]

purpleidea@reddit

> no they cant depending on how its implemented , modules arent subject to the GPL if they were nvidia propriety drivers wouldnt be a thing You're confusing user space and kernel space. The Kernel module part needs to be GPLv2.

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

as per the issue Motorola did opensoiurce the kernal part but not teh user space part as per https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-mtk/issues/145#issuecomment-3328418659 they complied to the what any of the GPL required them to

Reply

[-]

nisel11@reddit

Example of MediaTek kernel modules repo: [https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-kernel\_device\_modules-6.6](https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-kernel_device_modules-6.6), it's not made from scratch with some proprietary license, even MediaTek's code have GPL license so the source code must be provided

Reply

[-]

ErraticDragon@reddit

An example of a different company doing things differently doesn't prove Motorola/Lenovo is in the wrong.

Reply

[-]

DefinitionOfLost@reddit

You should take a step back, relax, and learn more about GPL licensing...

Reply

[-]

Leliana403@reddit

Good god, the people spamming that issue contributing absolutely nothing but childish memes have got to be some of the most pathetic embarrassments to the FOSS community I've ever seen. Good job guys. You're really making corporations want to take us seriously and work with us. Well done OP, hope you enjoy the worthless internet points. How does it feel being the coolest kid in the remedial class?

Reply

[-]

AleBaba@reddit

We've been there quite a few times before and it always led to the same conclusions: If a kernel module uses the "correct" symbols the manufacturer doesn't have to open source it. This problem dates back even before I maintained a device in CyanogenMod 15 years ago for which the manufacturer released the kernel tree but they didn't release the WLAN module's source. It's shitty behavior and we all hate it, but as long as they don't link to GPLed symbols all the Reddit lawyers' combined wrath won't help us.

Reply

[-]

nightblackdragon@reddit

I'm not sure where the violation is. GPL covers kernel and they released that, other blobs are most likely not GPL so they don't need to release it.

Reply

[-]

FollowingGlass4190@reddit

Not a violation of GPL

Reply

[-]

jezevec93@reddit

Is it rly a GPL2.0 violation?

Reply

[-]

CyberKiller40@reddit

Sounds to me like one of the cases that GPL3 was made to solve.

Reply

[-]

bob2600@reddit

X. X 3

Reply

[-]

Nassiel@reddit

Im sorry but just by your description and picture, you barely explain the case and so forth no help will be received. You just cannot cry for help, we aren't your mom or dad. Pled your case properly, explain why you believe you are right like if all of us entirely ignore your context. Then, you may get some help or at least guidance but this hate based comment wont reach any point.

Reply

[-]

ComprehensiveYak4399@reddit

you couldve worded that a lot nicer

Reply

[-]

nisel11@reddit

For the dudes who thinks it's not GPL violation: Example of MediaTek kernel modules repo: [https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-kernel\_device\_modules-6.6](https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-kernel_device_modules-6.6), it's not made from scratch with some proprietary license, even MediaTek's code have GPL license, if they made some parts with proprietary license than okay about not providing this parts, but ig all code in Mediatek kernel device modules have GPL-2.0 or GPL-2.0-or-later so the source code must be provided

Reply

[-]

zyuzyechka@reddit

моторолла компания пидорасов.

Reply

[-]

Parking-Road-1379@reddit

Моторола обрыг в яйки

Reply

[-]

aboobus@reddit

согласен

Reply

[-]

granadesnhorseshoes@reddit

The kernel isn't GPLv3. Device drivers they write from scratch against it are still theirs to keep. All they are required to provide, and sounds like what they are providing, is whatever modifications they made to the kernel itself. Are those modifications worthless without the closed source drivers they won't release? Yeah, pretty much. See also; GPU makers binary blobs.

Reply

[-]

nisel11@reddit

Example of MediaTek kernel modules repo: [https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-kernel\_device\_modules-6.6](https://github.com/MotorolaMobilityLLC/kernel-kernel_device_modules-6.6), it's not made from scratch with some proprietary license, even MediaTek's code have GPL license so the source code must be provided

Reply

[-]

Parking-Road-1379@reddit

Kys, moto

Reply

[-]

mrlinkwii@reddit

>So they openly admit they're deliberately keeping critical parts closed. they legally can , go cope

Reply

[-]

2007andrew@reddit

Done, but maybe write a letter to Louis Rosmann?

Reply

[-]

Ok-Maize4086@reddit

fuck this guy

Reply

[-]

volrod64@reddit

I've done my part.

Reply