I have a question... (because I have no clue), but what if after the kernel they are working on is complete, they did a diff, and then created a script/program that simply modified the user's existing, legal kernel?
Hi,
That's a good question. I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand in normal circumstances I believe you should be okay patching your own kernel. However given the history of this project and how things have been released, there are still questions in my mind.
Normally with copywrite law (and again, I'm not a lawyer so this is just what I've come to understand):
1. If you install / use something you know is in violation (for example, if you downloaded an ISO of OS/2 that you don't have a license for) then you are the one who is at fault.
2. If you use software that as far as you know is in compliance and you have a valid license for, but then it is later found to have code that has not been legitimately used, then it is the software provider that is at fault (a good example of this is when Microsoft released MS-DOS 6.0 with compression technology owned and develoeped by Stacker, and Microsoft did not have the license to include it in MS-DOS, but did so anyways).
In this situation with the kernel patch things are a little less clear. Distributing a patched kernel that IBM has not licensed for patched distribution is clearly illegal. Distributing a patch file that you then apply to your own (licensed) kernel normally I'd guess should be okay, however given the history and limited information on this project, questions still arise in my mind of:
1. Who owns the code contained in the patch? Was it fully developed by the folks distributing it (in which case, they are free to do whatever they wish with their own code), or is there also code in it that they didn't develop themselves (in which case, they'd be bound by whatever license came with that code)?
2. If there is code in the "patch" that was not developed by the people distributing the patch, presuming the people who developed this patch have a license to distribute code which mighht not be theirs, what license is it released under? Does it allow for use in commercial settings? Does it allow for use in non-commercial/home settings? Does it allow for further modification and redistribution, or is it a "take it and don't mess with it" type of situation?
Again, I have no clue if this is even an issue - it could very well be that everything in the patch has been developed by the people distributing the patch itself, in which case there shouldn't be any issues that I know of. And normally I wouldn't even ask these questions (the questions have never occurred to me when using a patch such as Patchldr from Daniela Engert for allowing memory recognition above 64 MB. I have no doubt that she wrote the code for Patchldr). However it all seems to be a somewhat grey area right now.
Don't get me wrong though - I would love to see further improvements in the kernel, I love to see bugs fixed and the feature set expanded. However the current practice that just seems to be along the lines of "here's a file, try it out" without any real information on who developed the code and what license it is being released under (other then saying it is "free"), it has led me to ask some of these questions.
Also please note that I'm not trying to advise people one way or another on whether to try out this kernel or not. That's entirely up to you if you want to do that, not for me to say.