[Celinux-dev] How to protect intellectual property while maximizing open source usage?

[Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri]

On 9/6/06, Shawn Kwon <ksoonson at samsung.com> wrote:
>
> How to protect intellectual property while maximizing open source usage?

these are mostly defined already, search for Greg KH (novell, ex-suse,
ex-ibm) mails on this topic.


> 1. Should linux kernel module be released under GPL? (Simple question. J)

They must be GPL otherwise you'd break the rules. non-GPL modules were
never accepted, but some time ago developers just ignore the fact to
attract more interest on Linux, however it was never encouraged. Now
that we have already gained some momentum, hardly anyone will accept
it and you could be sued.

Another point is that more and more Linux interfaces and modules are
being defined as GPL-only, that is, if your module is not GPL, you
will not be able to use them... and in future you'll be alone in the
dark

Since I've mentioned "alone in the dark", if you still opt to follow
non-GPL path, then you'll have to follow Linux fast development and
(sometimes) quick changing API on your own. If your module is inside
public tree, then if one change the API, he should go and fix
everything he'd broken.... that's the open source working for you,
otherwise you'll have no benefit, just pain :-(

Again, look for Greg KH texts, he also talked about that in his last
keynot at OLS (Ottawa Linux Symposium)


> 2. If the kernel module should be GPL, then how can I differentiate the
> operating system-related part of my product?

I don't get what you mean here.



> 3. How can I legally develop my application using GPL'd library with keeping
> my application code proprietary?

Again, you can't.

You first need to understand what is free software and the moto behind
GPL. It's all about _SOFTWARE_ freedom, not our (developer). Then,
it's not free as in beer, it's not gratis... it does have its price,
and the price is collaboration. When I do write code under GPL, I do
expect to get code in return. If I were a regular
commercial-proprietary company, then I'd fix a price in dollars, but
no, I want to fix a price in terms of code back. You don't need to be
afraid, as you cannot take over my piece of software, others (possible
competing companies) cannot take yours...

This may look like a anti-commercial/company policy, but if you
understand it right, you'll see it's, actually, something that help
companies to well-behave... That's why so many companies are moving to
free software. But yes, it takes some time to get managers and
non-technical people to agree with that :-)

HOWEVER, there are some ways to get around GPL. Basically GPL defines
its behaviour in scope of one process and linkage time. If you write a
IPC (Inter Process Comm.) around the library and this library itself
is GPL or LGPL, the other process may not be GPL. You can use corba,
dbus, dcop, tcp or other way to communicate two processes. Example:
You can use a non-GPL browser (ie: Internet Explorer) to access a GPL
web-server.

But try to avoid these things when possible, the problem here is just
to understand the rules and play them... Trying to play soccer using
basketball rules will led you nowhere ;-)


For future reference, please check moves from major players, like
Nokia's maemo.org platform, Intel's release of open source video
drivers, ...

-- 
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
--------------------------------------
Jabber: barbieri at gmail.com
   MSN: barbieri at gmail.com
  ICQ#: 17249123
 Skype: gsbarbieri
Mobile: +55 (81) 9927 0010
 Phone:  +1 (347) 624 6296; 08122692 at sip.stanaphone.com
   GPG: 0xB640E1A2 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net