We're already there, anyway. Proprietary drivers are super common not just in Android, but across embedded devices everywhere.
Some companies just flagrantly violate the GPL, and little ever comes of it.
Others ship minimal shims in the kernel, and put the proprietary bits in userland code or some such. This seems to be more common, where vendors will technically release their kernel fork, but the code will be obfuscated or just generally useless without the proprietary blob that goes with it.
I'd much rather the kernel just have a stable ABI so these kernels could at least be freely updated instead of being stuck with the hacked together fork with its proprietary shims.
If you are aware of a particular Linux kernel violation, please report it to the Software Freedom Conservancy, who recently announced a new strategy for achieving GPL compliance.
> We're already there, anyway. Proprietary drivers are super common not just in Android, but across embedded devices everywhere. Some companies just flagrantly violate the GPL, and little ever comes of it.
Sometimes I wonder if Linus could go back and do it over, if he would license Linux under the BSD license instead of GPL. He's never seemed like a particular stickler for free software ideology, and has welcomed connections between Linux and industry. I don't know that it bothers him that much to see Linux used in proprietary software.
Not trying to start a flame war over licenses here, just speculating. And maybe this could be easily refuted by a link to one of his email rants, who knows.
His own words: "I love the GPL and see it as a defining factor in the success of Linux"
So I very much doubt he would license it under BSD or similar.
Having said that, he has also stated that he is glad he stuck to GPLv2, as he is not a proponent of the TIVO clause, IIRC his words were something to the effect of 'I just want the code contributed back to the kernel'.
My own impression has been that he does not really care one way or the other about tivoization. If that clause had been present in the GPL since the beginning, it would not have stopped him from using it.
However, he sees things like adding it as being a pretty significant change to the GPL, and does not like the fundamentally changing the deal. If GPL v3 consisted only of wording clarifications to ensure it worked properly in more regions and perhaps to allow apache license compatibility, he would presumably have had no objections, but of course, would be unlikely to have been able to relicense the kernel, given the kernel's numerous contributors and lack of "or later version" clause.
Some companies just flagrantly violate the GPL, and little ever comes of it.
Others ship minimal shims in the kernel, and put the proprietary bits in userland code or some such. This seems to be more common, where vendors will technically release their kernel fork, but the code will be obfuscated or just generally useless without the proprietary blob that goes with it.
I'd much rather the kernel just have a stable ABI so these kernels could at least be freely updated instead of being stuck with the hacked together fork with its proprietary shims.