Android Faces Serious Linux Copyright / Copyleft Issues with GPL

Tweet

Google has been faced with several lawsuits alleging that it infringed on other companies’ patents in developing Android. Further analysis suggests that Google might have misunderstood the concept of GPL in using Linux code in Android without releasing Android under GPL.

In an analysis on the FOSS patents blog, Google is said to have violated the terms of the GNU Public License v2 in repurposing Linux kernel headers for its own use in the Bionic library, which is at the heart of Android. Google used Linux headers, but did not release Android under the same GPL2 license, which is the most basic precept of GPL. (Android is released under the Apache Commercial License.)

Further, some of the Linux headers used in Bionic are likely to be copyrightable, despite Google’s claim otherwise.  US copyright law also stipulates that works in entirety are subject to copyright, which means Google could not have taken part of the code and declared it as non-copyrightable information.

Florian Mueller writes:

Google copied 2.5 megabytes of code from more than 700 Linux kernel header files with a homemade program that drops source code comments and some other elements, and daringly claims (in a notice at the start of each generated file) that the extracted material constitutes ‘no copyrightable information.

This issue has serious implications not only on Google, but the entire Android ecosystem. For one, contributors to the Linux kernel might be able to sue Google–and application developers–for infringement of intellectual property. Second, application developers might lose their business model, since developing applications supposedly under GPL will mean the developer is required to release the application and source code under the same (usually free) license. Third, mobile manufacturers will not be able to differentiate their products by incorporating proprietary add-ons to Android.

It is suggested that Google can take two take drastic steps in resolving this intellectual property issue. First, it can release Android in its entirety in GPL. This will mean Google will lose control over the Android ecosystem and development. Or, Google can simply replace Bionic with another library, such as glibc, which will require much effort, due to architectural differences. This will also require application developers to rewrite their software. Using glibc will also mean legacy applications will not work on a glibc version of Android.

Mueller says that the glibc approach would be the more industry-standard approach, noting that MeeGo and webOS–both Android competitors–use glibc. While this is a daunting task, Android’s current state might be easy to attack by just about any Linux kernel copyright holder.