Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Android Google Open Source Software The Courts Linux

Lawyer Continues Android v. GPL Crusade 155

jfruhlinger writes "Edward Naughton has been insisting for months that Android violates the GPL because Google created a new set of Linux kernel headers that it hasn't released the source code for, despite the fact that it incorporates open source code. While numerous commentators, including those who helped write the kernel headers, claimed this code isn't copyrightable, Naughton in persisting in his crusade, saying that the questions need to be resolved in court for the good of the open source movement."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawyer Continues Android v. GPL Crusade

Comments Filter:
  • Re:No legal standing (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10, 2011 @02:53PM (#38014906)

    Much of the code (type definitions, macros, and function prototypes) contained in those headers are essentially in the public domain as a result of being part of either the ANSI C standard or the POSIX/SUS standards, or both. There could be a violation beyond that, but Naughton nor Miller seems to be bothered enough to post actual snippets of infringing code. Instead they adapt the Darl McBride/SCO approach: I tell you, megabytes of my client's intellectual property have been dumped into Android without the appropriate license. Only it probably wasn't their client's IP, since it belongs to the FSF and the glibc or kernel developers. Oh well.

  • Re:Headers are Facts (Score:4, Informative)

    by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday November 10, 2011 @03:21PM (#38015204)
    Technically SCO v IBM never got to that point. Many of their claims got thrown out due to lack of specificity and the rest was stayed until Novell v SCO was resolved. Since Novell won, the judge in IBM doesn't have to decide if errorno.h violates copyrights--SCO doesn't have standing to ask the judge to decide in the first place.
  • Re:No legal standing (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10, 2011 @03:25PM (#38015260)

    Shut-up and go on with life?

  • by ilguido ( 1704434 ) on Thursday November 10, 2011 @03:30PM (#38015324)
    Yeah, he's got nothing to gain from this crusade. I wonder why he deleted all the references to his microsoft employment from his curriculum [], that's probably because there are no interests connected to him or maybe because he has nothing to gain. Really.... a lawyer who has nothing to gain...
  • by icebike ( 68054 ) on Thursday November 10, 2011 @03:49PM (#38015540)

    But header use alone does not trigger a GPL requirement.

    From the second link:

    Torvalds responded to my inquiry on March 21 and had this to say:

    "It seems totally bogus. We've always made it very clear that the kernel system call interfaces do not in any way result in a derived work as per the GPL, and the kernel details are exported through the kernel headers to all the normal glibc interfaces too.

  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday November 10, 2011 @03:54PM (#38015608)
    Which rulings are you talking about? All I see on groklaw [] is the judge is asking both parties how they would like to proceed on copyright issues of the 37 APIs in question. There is no mention of headers or a ruling.
  • Re:No legal standing (Score:4, Informative)

    by rtfa-troll ( 1340807 ) on Thursday November 10, 2011 @05:16PM (#38016612)

    Actually, more likely the SFLC which exists specifically to take such cases. But let's be much more specific. I also live in Europe and if you can name a decent sized set of lines of original work which Google has copied without license and you are willing to sue them then I'll give you 500Euro to start it off with.

    And please note, there's no reason to go to the US. Google has presence in Europe and if you wrote your code here you can sue them here. Germany is probably quite a good place for that.

    If you (the grandparent) can show that Google copied your orignial work. Which I doubt.

"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll