Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: ath5k, license is GPLv2 The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at least private industry does not come to the table with hey, let's cooperate - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly. However, when a linux developer comes to us and say hey lets cooperate usually there is a thought of this is a kindred spirit who understands what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back. My concern is that this situation will change if this is not rectified. I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back. -Bob
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that is OK. When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard. Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed, and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds? Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I ask? Why Luis puts the phrase legal hell next to entirely free software? [0] Why is he trying to go against the BSD community, which gave him the entire HAL framework for the driver in question? Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: ath5k, license is GPLv2 The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at least private industry does not come to the table with hey, let's cooperate - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly. However, when a linux developer comes to us and say hey lets cooperate usually there is a thought of this is a kindred spirit who understands what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back. My concern is that this situation will change if this is not rectified. I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back. Theo explicitely accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one licence for dual licenced code was advising people to break the law. I hope you agree when talking about cooperation [...] based on morals and trust that such accusations should either be proven correct or the moral position of the person who made such accusations becomes quiet weak. -Bob cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
