I kept that "if" in my wording. I disagree with the line of logic. No matter what you think of the premise.
> (since anyone who wanted non-compliance would just binary kernel module everything)
Even if binary modules made you immune to the GPL, there are a lot of things the GPL would still do. It would not be toothless. On top of that, the issue here is binary modules that questionably derive from open source code. If you make a binary module that unambiguously derives from open source code, that would still be an easy question for the courts. That's why this is an edge case that remains an edge case, even in an alternate reality where the courts literally cannot decide on zfs.ko or nvidia.ko
I'm not sure what you mean by that. 'rhetorical device' is a very broad category. Can you explain if you think that's good or bad, and why?
dsp1234 made an argument that X, though not true, would lead to Y bad thing. I agree that X is not true, but object strongly to the idea that it would lead to Y.
Are you pointing out that the X->Y argument is only for effect, because X is false? I am aware of that, and I disagree with the effect, because I don't think X->Y is at all plausible. So I made a comment.
I agree that X is not true, but object strongly to the idea that it would lead to Y.
If the courts threw up their hands and said "It is literally impossible to adjudicate this issue of the binary kernel module", then who is left to enforce the copyright law? If a court said that, and an individual/company wanted to ignore the GPL, then they could put all of their code into binary modules. If a company's proprietary code is in a binary format, there is no one available to enforce licensing rules, and the company knows those two facts, then what reason does that company have to fear from the GPL?
Please provide an answer to both questions independently, so they are both addressed and no assumptions are left invisible. My answers are 'no one' and 'none'. I'd like to hear what you think the answers to those questions are, then I'd also be curious to hear what you think the logical outcome of the binary kernal module license issue being unenforceable would be.
> If the courts threw up their hands and said "It is literally impossible to adjudicate this issue of the binary kernel module", then who is left to enforce the copyright law?
The court would still be able to deal with the vast majority of copyright law, even if they decided that a specific license term was too vague to rule either way.
> If a court said that, and an individual/company wanted to ignore the GPL, then they could put all of their code into binary modules.
That's not true for two reasons. First, there are GPL violations that have nothing to do with binary modules, like a company embedding busybox and not distributing source code. Second, we are talking about binary modules where the question of "do they derive from the kernel" doesn't have a very clear answer. In most cases if a company tried to hide their code in a binary module, it would still blatantly derive. It would take a lot more engineering effort to get into the same gray zone as nvidio.ko and zfs.ko. Also note that right now, today, you can put in significant engineering effort to create a binary module that isn't affected by the GPL. All you have to do is make a non-GPL program that exposes the same API. But nobody goes through all this effort to skirt the GPL. So I doubt in this alternate world people would spend a similar amount of effort, at least not very often.
> If a company's proprietary code is in a binary format, there is no one available to enforce licensing rules, and the company knows those two facts, then what reason does that company have to fear from the GPL?
The courts would still in the general case enforce the rules, so they would fear legal action.
>I'd also be curious to hear what you think the logical outcome of the binary kernal module license issue being unenforceable would be.
The situation at hand is not one of all binary modules being GPL-proof. But even if they were, even if the GPL could do nothing at all about binary modules, it would still have uses. Anytime someone used a GPL module, you would be able to get source code. It would make the GPL act much like the LGPL.
I kept that "if" in my wording. I disagree with the line of logic. No matter what you think of the premise.
> (since anyone who wanted non-compliance would just binary kernel module everything)
Even if binary modules made you immune to the GPL, there are a lot of things the GPL would still do. It would not be toothless. On top of that, the issue here is binary modules that questionably derive from open source code. If you make a binary module that unambiguously derives from open source code, that would still be an easy question for the courts. That's why this is an edge case that remains an edge case, even in an alternate reality where the courts literally cannot decide on zfs.ko or nvidia.ko