Re: Wasting our Freedom
On 10/11/07, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 13.09.2007 at 23:09:51 -0400, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about
> > installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms
> > are quickly eroding away. The rights and recognition of one of our
> > own developers (reyk@) have been molested, and all we've done as a
> > community is to participate in useless flames and blog postings.
> > Theo has thrown himself, once again, against the spears of the Linux
> > community and their legal vultures in order to protect our software
> > freedoms. How many of us can say we've done our part to defend truly
> > Free Software?
> >
> > You don't have to be a lawyer or OpenBSD developer to make a
> > difference. Email the SFLC and FSF and remind them that Free
> > Software consists of more than the almighty penguin. OpenBSD is
> > arguably the most Free and Open operating system available anywhere.
> > The SFLC and FSF need to remember that they were created to protect
> > victims, not thieves.
> >
> > Your donations are important for keeping the servers running, but
> > your voice is necessary for keeping our freedom alive.
>
> Just today, I was reading about a bug in OpenBSD's dhcpd. Nothing much
> wrong with that, anyone can make a mistake. A short while later I came
> across the message that some VMware thingy also had the same problem,
> because they derived their dhcpd from OpenBSD's code base (or probably
> just included it, I didn't check nor care).
>
> I'd like to summarize:
>
> * OpenBSD publishes some pieces of software under the BSD license.
>
>case 1: Linux takes some of it and publishes it under the GPL:
>Big war ahead!
>
>case 2: Company XY takes some of it and publishes it under their own
>license (binary only etc.): Everyone's happy... no?
>
> Maybe some of you can explain why attribution (the only thing the BSD
> license really demands) is not enough in the first of these two cases,
> or what the problem really is. It's imho a very easy question to tell
> which one out of ("Company X", "GPL") protects my freedoms better...
> And I also dimly remember that some popular Linux project clamoured for
> the removal of (undocumented) binary-only stuff from their release even
> earlier than OpenBSD 3.9 came out.
>
> This kind of proceedings is generally wrong-headed and a bane for the
> OpenBSD project in general. Unless you start going after all commercial
> users of OpenBSD, like eg. VMware, you are simply destroying that
> credibility and respect you have worked to earn over the years.
>
>
>
> Best,
> --Toni++
>
>
This has allready been discussed.
VMWare are not allowed to put it under any new licence as you said,
they are allowed to provide a binary only with the licence intact. The
Linux people _CHANGED_ the licence and now they changed it back and
they can use it.
Stop the old trolling about commercial companies just stealing, in
several cases they do give back!
BR
dunceor
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On 10/11/07, Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > I'd like to summarize: > > * OpenBSD publishes some pieces of software under the BSD license. > >case 1: Linux takes some of it and publishes it under the GPL: >Big war ahead! > >case 2: Company XY takes some of it and publishes it under their own >license (binary only etc.): Everyone's happy... no? [...] > This kind of proceedings is generally wrong-headed and a bane for the > OpenBSD project in general. Unless you start going after all commercial > users of OpenBSD, like eg. VMware, you are simply destroying that > credibility and respect you have worked to earn over the years. shut up, troll. This exact argument has been reiterated over and over on lkml, slashdot and also here. It has been refuted and _any one_ who can read and type three words into a web search can find the discussions for years to come. If you have read these, and you still post this then no answer in the world will make you change your mind. So, you made you statement, you got your attention, now go back playing. --knitti
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Thu, 13.09.2007 at 23:09:51 -0400, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about
> installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms
> are quickly eroding away. The rights and recognition of one of our
> own developers (reyk@) have been molested, and all we've done as a
> community is to participate in useless flames and blog postings.
> Theo has thrown himself, once again, against the spears of the Linux
> community and their legal vultures in order to protect our software
> freedoms. How many of us can say we've done our part to defend truly
> Free Software?
>
> You don't have to be a lawyer or OpenBSD developer to make a
> difference. Email the SFLC and FSF and remind them that Free
> Software consists of more than the almighty penguin. OpenBSD is
> arguably the most Free and Open operating system available anywhere.
> The SFLC and FSF need to remember that they were created to protect
> victims, not thieves.
>
> Your donations are important for keeping the servers running, but
> your voice is necessary for keeping our freedom alive.
Just today, I was reading about a bug in OpenBSD's dhcpd. Nothing much
wrong with that, anyone can make a mistake. A short while later I came
across the message that some VMware thingy also had the same problem,
because they derived their dhcpd from OpenBSD's code base (or probably
just included it, I didn't check nor care).
I'd like to summarize:
* OpenBSD publishes some pieces of software under the BSD license.
case 1: Linux takes some of it and publishes it under the GPL:
Big war ahead!
case 2: Company XY takes some of it and publishes it under their own
license (binary only etc.): Everyone's happy... no?
Maybe some of you can explain why attribution (the only thing the BSD
license really demands) is not enough in the first of these two cases,
or what the problem really is. It's imho a very easy question to tell
which one out of ("Company X", "GPL") protects my freedoms better...
And I also dimly remember that some popular Linux project clamoured for
the removal of (undocumented) binary-only stuff from their release even
earlier than OpenBSD 3.9 came out.
This kind of proceedings is generally wrong-headed and a bane for the
OpenBSD project in general. Unless you start going after all commercial
users of OpenBSD, like eg. VMware, you are simply destroying that
credibility and respect you have worked to earn over the years.
Best,
--Toni++
Re: Wasting our Freedom
> sorry, but calling attribution claims of any sort "petty" is nothing > short of dangerous ignorance. Says a man who has a .sig of "SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org"; Well sdf.lonestar.org claims to be NetBSD so might I suggest your dangerous ignorance starts at the Unix trademark. And please take this where it belongs which is the relevant wireless list. Better yet leave the dispute to those it actually involves, which is not most of the OpenBSD community, nor the Linux kernel team, but a small group of developers in the OpenBSD wireless world and a few people in the ath5k GPL project.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 11:55 -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > Theodore Tso wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > >> The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough > >> original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. > >> > >> I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. > >> > >> The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the > >> lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is > >> dismissing this issue,000d8b92-0010lling its resolution by the > >> developers. > > > > OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off", > > and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about > > "theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri: > > Yes, quite an improvement, considering how it all started, dont you think? > Pity it took so much pushing and dragging to get people to do the right > thing. > There is just one little step to go. It is can not be that hard, can it? > Apparently. > >> * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> [snip rest of BSD license] > > > > It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two > > lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not > > like anything won't be "given back". > > As a programmer, you sure would know what difference any "two lines" > would make on your program. When it comes to law, you seem to lose > that intuition. > > > > Whether or not they have made > > enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may > > differ from one jurisdiction to another > > --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later --- > > Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except* > these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning > when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they > sure can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here? > So, here is the actual commit of the code in Linville's wireless networking development tree: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=commitdiff;h=fb32e1730a91e39adcf06ed5254bfc5a65d17a9b It I am not mistaken, it was Sunday afternoon, so probably 5/6 or more of this thread consisting of more than 110 messages (according to my inbox) to LKML was after this time. As this already had the BSD license ... Anyway, as for the changes, I am not going to check the original, but from the first commit up to now is here: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=blobdiff;f=drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c;h=e4cc307e9590a71bcc8542c45dbd2caf3f9e8fe5;hp=f273c42d4004b81597e7cfc5f7eec757a7c52910;hb=everything;hpb=fb32e1730a91e39adcf06ed5254bfc5a65d17a9b Running a diffstat shows: ath5k_hw.c | 344 + 1 file changed, 165 insertions(+), 179 deletions(-) But not having the original version, and as the other two lines are already present, I am not going to look closer at the changes. However, the question I wanted to ask, was this: Can all those that still feel that there is a problem, please go and look at the original, compare it to the current, and then determine (ie, go ask a lawyer or some other appropriate person if need be) if the changes is enough of a contribution *BEFORE* posting again? Pretty please with sugar on top? Thanks, M
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two > lines: > > > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 > years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. copyright assertion == claim of ownership, or posession. posession is 9/10 of the law. was it petty of UCB to claim copyrights over code USL claimed ownersip of? was it also petty of Novell to claim that they, and not SCO, owned the copyright to UNIX? sorry, but calling attribution claims of any sort "petty" is nothing short of dangerous ignorance. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >> Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except* >> these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning >> when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they >> sure can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here? > > Please define "Sufficient contribution". And in what juristiction that > definition applies. Please note that I am not a lawyer. It would be best if you do your own research, and consult a lawyer. Please look up the definition of derivative work. Even Wikipedia would do for some basic definitions. The copyright laws in most countries adhere to the "Berne Convention", yet another phrase to look up. >From my own research, one guideline I would consider is: "The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself." But, again, if it comes to that, the lawyers will decide and we can have no more say on the subject. Let me, instead tell you how we handle this when working on BSD code: We communicate. If we feel we did some extensive changes to a file, we ask. Get OKs from other senior developers, preferably the authors and then add our name. During our license audits of the OpenBSD tree, a couple of years ago, our developers went into great pains to locate the authors and clarify the questionable licenses that were our tree. We are actively working on replacing the remaining non-BSD licensed code in our tree. Not by slapping on our own licenses, but by asking the authors nicely to relicense, finding replacements with an acceptable license, or by rewriting them. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Can E. Acar wrote: As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask. Additional work went in, thus additional copyrights were added. I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once such a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place) In a purely open development environment, even personal developer trees are made public. That's the way we _want_ development to occur. Out in public, with a full audit trail. Your implied ideal scenario is tantamount to guaranteeing that mistakes are never committed to a public repository anywhere. Mistakes will happen. Even legal mistakes. In public. some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they are doing is wrong. Right from the start. What you are seeing is an example of mistakes that were caught in review, and corrected. That's how any scalable review process works... the developer reviews his own work. the team reviews the developer's work. the maintainer reviews the team's work. the next maintainer reviews. and so on, to the top. Jeff
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except* > these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning > when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they > sure can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here? Please define "Sufficient contribution". And in what juristiction that definition applies. -- Len Sorensen
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >> The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough >> original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. >> >> I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. >> >> The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the >> lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is >> dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the >> developers. > > OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off", > and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about > "theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri: Yes, quite an improvement, considering how it all started, dont you think? Pity it took so much pushing and dragging to get people to do the right thing. There is just one little step to go. It is can not be that hard, can it? >> * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> [snip rest of BSD license] > > It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two > lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not > like anything won't be "given back". As a programmer, you sure would know what difference any "two lines" would make on your program. When it comes to law, you seem to lose that intuition. > Whether or not they have made > enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may > differ from one jurisdiction to another > --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later --- Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except* these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they sure can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here? I have seen some academic papers, where the first author did all the work, the second author is the professor who funded the work, and the remaining five "authors" are just coming along for a ride. You know what the difference is? The original author *allows* them to put their names as authors. Here, you are adding names, and say "why not". It is both unethical and illegal. > does it really make a > difference? Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit > than they deserve? Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is > given proper credit, right? As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask. If, at the beginning, Nick and Jiri, and others asked Reyk to be included in the Copyright for the adaptation work they did on the HAL. I do not believe he would have refused. I can not talk for him, but things would be have been resolved in a much nicer and positive way. Instead they chose to push Reyk for months to dual license his code, then attempted to change the whole license. Even now, when there is just a small issue left, people are still dragging and resisting. I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once such a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place) some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they are doing is wrong. Right from the start. I now see this is not how things work around here. Senior developers are either too busy or reluctant to get their hands dirty. In OpenBSD, (which, I accept is a much smaller community) when one developer does something wrong, the clue stick is there to be used by one of the more experienced developers. Which means, issues are resolved quickly and with much less pain. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > > [...] > > Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 > years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. > Fortunately, no one seems to miss you so much in the BSD camp ;-) Gilles
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would > > be good. > > It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which > Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the > *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_ > _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so > they should have their names listed in the headers. In other words, > all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two > lines: > > > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Its simple; this is illegal. Those two fruitcakes didn't do jack and can therefore not claim copyright. Would be the same as me taking the linux kernel and adding myself to each file. I am pretty sure some people would be up in arms about that. > > Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 > years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. I don't make the laws and I did not break any so you call it whatever you like. > > - Ted > > P.S. And yes, before those two lines is: > > > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So what? you don't get a cookie for abiding the law. > > and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice. Where it belongs. Again you don't get a cookie for doing what you are supposed to do. Just like you don't get a cookie for taking care of your kids; you're supposed to do that.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
hmm, on Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso said that > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would > > be good. > > It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which the keyword is `only'. only = him and noone else (at the moment) > Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the > *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_ > _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so > they should have their names listed in the headers. In other words, are you publicly stating that you have checked, and found the amount of work done justifying a (c) addition of not even one but 2 persons? > all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two > lines: > > > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 > years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. so you don't mind if a couple of us go around adding say 10 lines of code to files you authored, and then put our copyrights under your name? good! i am glad to hear that. a bit of additional "undeserved credit" is always welcome anyway. would look good in my cv. it is not just a bit of undeserved credit. the (c) owners will be asked in the future regarding any legal aspects of the files they hold copyrights to. i don't think those 2 gentlemen have earned that yet. -f -- dum spiro spero -- as long as i breathe i hope
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On 9/18/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would > > be good. > > It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which > Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the > *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_ > _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so > they should have their names listed in the headers. and did they really do enough? if those names shouldn't be there, why play childish games and insist on putting them in? > In other words, > all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two > lines: > > > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Petty, isn't it? and what so petty is there? who can show what those two added to the original work so that according to the law they are allowed to put their names in there? > Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 > years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. and who really cares about why you did this or did that? this OT sentence sounded like real childish BC. if you want to have fun while coding and share it with others - do it, if you want also to play contract games - do it; choose BSD or GPL and go with it. however, whatever you do you must respect laws. if the law says you can put your name in only if much of work is done, so it must be. there are no other variants. and everything will come back to you no matter whether it is good or bad. if you ignore laws using somebody's work, the same will be done to you one day. > - Ted > P.S. And yes, before those two lines is: > > > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice. P.S. Let's just say that BC like that is why I decided to work with BSD instead of Linux 11 years ago.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
hmm, on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08:46AM -0700, David Schwartz said that > > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not > > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as > > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies > > being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B. > > You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep > GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to > modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the > right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*. > > This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license > notices has no effect on actual licenses. but how do i know i have a bsd licensed file if the license notice has been removed from it? i know copyright applies to a file which has no (c) line in it, because it's implicit. but licenses are not implicit, are they? -f -- treat each day as your last, one day you will be right.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would > be good. It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_ _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so they should have their names listed in the headers. In other words, all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two lines: > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. - Ted P.S. And yes, before those two lines is: > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Bodo Eggert wrote: > Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the >> | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD >> | licence is that it does not require you to give back. >> | >> | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not >> | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that >> | something has to be given back. >> >> Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST >> give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, >> they don't require it, so we don't have to". > > If you may demand me to give back, why should I(*) not demand the same thing > for my contributions? > > You're not only asking to contribute to your project, but you're asking me > to throw my code to the feet of Apple amd Microsoft, who will user it, make > big bucks and lock out alternatives as far as possible, especially free ones. > This happens to not be my idea of sharing code. > > You may say it's morally correct for them because they never claimed they'd > not suck your blood, but did the GPL people claim not to demand others to > give back? Au contrair, and if it's OK for companies to do what they say > they would, it will be OK for them and for me, too. > > > *) I did not yet work on a BSD licensed project, but let's asume I did > >> It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least. >> No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free >> software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't >> want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given >> back ? Why not do it yourself ? > >> By not giving back you're giving a strange signal. > > Gee, since you're demanding back anyway, you can use the GPL for your > project and use my contribution. Problem solved. > > Oh, you want people to be free not to share? Freedom includes having the > moral right to do something. Am I free not to share? Or is this "freedom" > just an empty shell? > > -- > Funny quotes: > 36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive. > > Fri_, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > - How about [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.6.22.1 on an i686 machine (5588.30 BogoMips). My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/ _ The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be privileged. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any attachments, without reading or disclosing them. Thank you.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sep 18, 2007, at 7:16 AM, Bodo Eggert wrote: Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD | licence is that it does not require you to give back. | | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that | something has to be given back. Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, they don't require it, so we don't have to". If you may demand me to give back, why should I(*) not demand the same thing for my contributions? You're not only asking to contribute to your project, but you're asking me to throw my code to the feet of Apple amd Microsoft, who will user it, make big bucks and lock out alternatives as far as possible, especially free ones. This happens to not be my idea of sharing code. Here we go again with the "Evil Corporation". What exactly have they "lock[ed] out"? How have they magically stopped you from distributing your "free" code? Are you somehow able to make "big bucks" on your own with the GPL that you wouldn't have otherwise been able to under the BSD? If so, please let me know. I want big bucks too! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would be good. On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:00:13AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 23:04]: > > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > > HAL > > if that is true and stays that way - excellenty! > > -- > Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > BS Web Services, http://bsws.de > Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services > Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Jacob Meuser wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence, and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community. I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has some in the BSD community so upset. First, note that I am not really a linux developer as my only contributions to linux are testing. But it really looks like bsd people are more unhappy with their licence than linux people. You can ask linux developers to keep the bsd licence - and the request is not unreasonable. Nobody is forced to give back, so some people choose not to. Some of these have a "GPL" agenda, some have a commercial agenda. I am sure some developers are willing to "give back" bsd code, but you can't do anything about those who don't. You don't want to have code "locked up" with GPL, these developers don't want their code improvements "locked up" in proprietary products. So - either you will have to accept the current situation, or adjust the BSD licence to cope with this. when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings Taking credit for the works of others is wrong of course, no matter what licence is involved. that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or less "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad. it would be like losing a friend. I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal. I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, "We can accept BSD licensed code. There's no need to add the GPL to it." and maybe even, "Although we strongly prefer the GPL, respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect for the GPL." Good points. But note that the linux community is divided on this, as on many other issues. And there is nothing to do about those who disagree. I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have happened in the first place. My impression is that the actions that started the debate was an unauthorized (possibly illegal) change that the linux community also rejected. With that problem solved, the debate turned to gpl/bsd licencing issues. look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license. the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same. and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the recourse to be? Clearly, there is the risk of less cooperation. Or some kind of licencing scheme that makes sure that code with bsd origin always can go back into bsd as long as it stays open. That would solve the problem - if such a scheme is possible. Helge Hafting
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the > | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD > | licence is that it does not require you to give back. > | > | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not > | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that > | something has to be given back. > > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, > they don't require it, so we don't have to". If you may demand me to give back, why should I(*) not demand the same thing for my contributions? You're not only asking to contribute to your project, but you're asking me to throw my code to the feet of Apple amd Microsoft, who will user it, make big bucks and lock out alternatives as far as possible, especially free ones. This happens to not be my idea of sharing code. You may say it's morally correct for them because they never claimed they'd not suck your blood, but did the GPL people claim not to demand others to give back? Au contrair, and if it's OK for companies to do what they say they would, it will be OK for them and for me, too. *) I did not yet work on a BSD licensed project, but let's asume I did > It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least. > No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free > software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't > want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given > back ? Why not do it yourself ? > By not giving back you're giving a strange signal. Gee, since you're demanding back anyway, you can use the GPL for your project and use my contribution. Problem solved. Oh, you want people to be free not to share? Freedom includes having the moral right to do something. Am I free not to share? Or is this "freedom" just an empty shell? -- Funny quotes: 36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive. Fri_, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wasting our Freedom
* Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 23:04]: > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > HAL if that is true and stays that way - excellenty! -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:03:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a > > > derivative work from > > > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable > > > elements in that work. > > > > Of course you can. > > No you can't. Gentlemen, please remove your wanking selves back to the gutter you've crawled from. This is not slashdot[1]. This is not gnu.misc.discuss. This is not alt.sex.cartooney.sue.sue.sue. This is a technical maillist and that dungpile doesn't belong here. If you insist on hitting vger, ask davem to create a new maillist ([EMAIL PROTECTED] would fit that kind of traffic nicely) and for pity sake, do fuck off already. Enough is enough. [1] the spews from nerds, the spews that splatter...
Re: Wasting our Freedom
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a > > derivative work from > > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable > > elements in that work. > > Of course you can. No you can't. > What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made available > (under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object... You are equating what rights I have with my ability to exercise those rights. They are not the same thing. For example, I once bought the rights to publically display the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". To my surprise, the rights to public display did not include an actual copy of the film. In any event, I never claimed that anyone has rights to a protectable element that they do not possess a lawful copy of. That's a complete separate issue and one that has nothing to do with what's being discussed here because these are all cases where you have the work. > You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning > copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee, > something like "do what you want but I will do what I want with > my code"). Sure, *you* can grant a BSD-style license to any protectable elements *you* authored. But unless your recpients can obtain a BSD-style license to all protectable elements in the work from their respective authors, they cannot modify or distribute it. *You* cannot grant any rights to protectable elements authored by someone else, unless you have a relicensing agreement. Neither the GPL nor the BSD is one of those. > >> If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary > >> licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't > >> have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. > > > > C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to > > comply with > > terms, to every protectable element that is in both the > > original work and > > the work he received. > But he may have received only binary program image - or the source > under NDA. > Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public. > Now what? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you just trying to be deliberately dense or waste time? Is it not totally obvious how the principles I explain apply to a case like that? Only someone who signs an NDA must comply with it. If you signed an NDA, you must comply with it. An NDA can definitely subtract rights. It's a complex question whether an NDA can subtract GPL rights, but again, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Sure, you can have the right from me to do X and still not be allowed to do X because you agreed with someone else not to do it. So what? > > C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to > > anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C. > Sure, the licence covers the >>>entire work<<<, not some "elements". This is a misleading statement. The phrase "entire work" has two senses. The license definitely does not cover the "entire work" in the sense of every protectable element in the work unless each individual author of those elements chose to offer that element under that license. If by "entire work", you mean any compilation or derivative work copyright the "final" author has, then yes, that's available under whatever license the "final" author places it under. But that license does not actually permit you to distribute the work. This is really complicated and I wish I had a clear way to explain it. Suppose I write a work and then you modify it. Assume your modification includes adding new protectable elements to that work. When someone distributes that new derivative work, they are distributing protectable elements authored by both you and me. Absent a relicensing agreement, they must obtain some rights from you and some rights from me to do that. You cannot license the protectable elements that I authored that are still in the resulting derivative work. > > Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual > > license a work is offered under by the original author. > > Of course, that's a very distant thing. Exactly. Every protectable element in the final work is licensed by the original author to every recipient who takes advantage of the license offer. > >> BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work > >> derived from another. > > > > In practice it doesn't matter. > > Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence > it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD, > or sell it to MS (if not based on GPL etc). Only the author of any protectable element can license it, whether it's in a derivated work or by itself. You are seriously confused if you think that just because you create a derivative work that includes my protectable elements you can then license the element
Re: Wasting our Freedom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 04:40:38PM -0700: > On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote: >> so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation? >> that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with. > > if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux community being > satisfied with it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on > their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature > of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear > that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire). Indeed, that argument is often paraphrased in a way that makes it hard to understand. What i heard people say is not "If people make derivative works based on BSD code, they should make them less free instead of fully free", but it is: "If people caring nothing about free software in the first place are building their own commercial systems anyway, they should rather reuse BSD code than hacking up their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff." Granted, that's a different approach than taken by the GPL, which essentially says "... anyway, they deserve to be on their own." > so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community > by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why? Be careful not to confuse "desires" with "legal requirements"... :-( Given BSD code, BSD-licensed substantial improvements make happier than restrictively licensed substantial improvements make happier than derived non-free closed-source software make happier than license violations. Besides, the Linux communities neither qualify as "caring nothing about free software" nor as "hacking up their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff" (hopefully ;-). So that argument simply doesn't apply to you. Probably, that's why Jacob talked about "morally equivalent to a corporation". > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the > code, but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok > and Linux evil? many people honestly don't understand the logic > behind this. please explain it. Several people have already explained this nicely; the degree of happiness may also depend on the level of cooperation and understanding you expect from the people building on the code, given their own intentions and goals. I may well be thankful towards an enemy just for not killing me, but at the same time sad about a friend leaving me out in the rain. ( This just being stated in general; i'm not sure what the state of discussions in the various Linux communities is just now. )
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough > original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. > > I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. > > The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the > lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is > dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the > developers. OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off", and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about "theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri: > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [snip rest of BSD license] It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not like anything won't be "given back". Whether or not they have made enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may differ from one jurisdiction to another --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later --- does it really make a difference? Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit than they deserve? Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is given proper credit, right? - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable > elements in that work. Of course you can. What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made available (under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object... You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee, something like "do what you want but I will do what I want with my code"). >> If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary >> licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't >> have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. > > C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with > terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and > the work he received. But he may have received only binary program image - or the source under NDA. Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public. Now what? > C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to > anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C. Sure, the licence covers the >>>entire work<<<, not some "elements". > Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual > license a work is offered under by the original author. Of course, that's a very distant thing. >> BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work >> derived from another. > > In practice it doesn't matter. Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD, or sell it to MS (if not based on GPL etc). > Would you argue that I can license Disney's "The Lion King" movie to you if > I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it? Sure you can :-) that doesn't mean it would protect me from Disney, but you can. > You are confusing licenses of two very different types. The BSD and GPL > licenses only cover modification and distribution, two rights you do not get > to MS Windows at all. *Use* is not restricted under copyright. I'm told in the USA use = copying from disk to RAM = distribution, isn't it true? :-) It doesn't matter of course. > There is simply nothing remotely comparable to the BSD or GPL license in the > case of MS Windows. There is no grant of additional rights beyond those you > get automatically with lawful possession (such as use). I don't compare them (though you can). You don't get a licence for "original elements" in MS-Windows, do you? > If MS wished to grant someone the right to modify or redistribute Windows, > that person would also need to obtain the right to modify or distribute > protectable elements not authored by Microsoft. The only way they could > obtain those rights, assuming Microsoft didn't have written relicensing > agreements, is from the original author under the original licenses. Yes, but it isn't automatic. Imagine you have received something from MS, under more permissive licence (I think such things did happen). How do you, for example, recognice boundaries of the elements, IOW what additional rights do you have to each line in the code or pixel in the font? The file itself only states: (C) MS portions (C) e.g. Bitstream licenced under their special agreement What extra rights do you receive from Bitstream? Perhaps you should ask them if they have given you some licence? :-) Or another example, redistributable runtime libraries. What extra rights do you have? What you write is true for GPL, but it doesn't mean it's true everytime. It's just that clause in the GPL. -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
2007/9/18, Can E. Acar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Theodore Tso wrote: > > > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > > HAL --- if people would only take a look at > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything > > > > from latest ath5k_hw.c: > > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [snip rest of BSD license] ath5k_regdom.c and ath5k_regdom.h seem to be missing the no warranty part of the license. I am not sure if this is a problem though. Cheers, Dries
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Adrian Bunk wrote on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:57:14PM +0200: > But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then > complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give > back is simply dishonest. > > Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code > and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen? > > And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence. As this is a recurring argument in the present discussion, let's address it, even though it lies somewhat beside the main topic. What i wish and what i try to enforce by legal contracts are two completely different things. In particular, it is _not_ a smart idea to try to enforce all one's wishes by legal means. For example, i wish that as much as possible of the code i write be freely available such that others can use it, too, and i wish that others write useful code and make it free such that i can use it. When i publish code, i wish bugfixes to be fed back to me, and i hope that others might free their derivative works, too. Besides, i might hope that people at large behave in human and rational ways and refrain from doing harm to others. In particular i might wish the fruits of my work not to be abused to harm or oppress people. Quite probably, lots of software developers share similar wishes, whatever licenses they happen to be employing. But this doesn't imply i should be putting any of the above into the license for my code. Once people attach additional conditions to their licences, sooner or later i get stuck when trying to combine different code covered by different licences. However well intentioned, in practice, those additional conditions habitually turn out to be incompatible - even when, regarded seperately, all of them might appear to make some sense. Now doubtless, the two main additional conditions imposed by the GPL - derivative works may only be distributed if they are made as open and as free as the original - are among those making the most sense of all the additional conditions you might imagine, in the sense that nearly any developer of free software will wish that anybody holding the copyright on a derivative work would make that free. Still, when trying to combine code with different licences, even the GPL at times turns out to be a bother. This does not only apply to the case of non-free closed-source commercial code, but also to cases where authors intended to make their code free, but, be it by inexperience or because they failed to restrain themselves, unfortunately added some uncommon condition to the license. Combining such code with ISC or BSD code is hardly ever problem, combining such code with GPL code may well be. Thus, even when wishing derivative works to be free in their turn, i still see a strong theoretical and a strong practical argument to choose the ISC license over the GPL: Theoretically, it's just the categorical imperative: If everybody would be adding her or his favorite condition to her or his license, we would not end up in free software, but in chaos. Practically, i'm quite fed up with GPL license incompatibility issues always popping up at the most inconvenient places, and still more, with all those license compatibility discussions. With the ISC license, there are no incompatibility issues and no incompatibility discussions, it just works. Of course, i lose the option to sue people to open up derivative works, but i keep the hope that some people (especially those engaged in free software themselves) understand and keep up the spirit, and above all, i avoid lots of legalese worries. Ultimately, it's kind of a trade-off. To summarize, there are valid reasons to wish that people would make derivative works free, but to not require it in the license. Just like there are valid reasons to wish that people should not use the code for waging war, but to not require that in the license.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: >> Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely >> modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code >> and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. > > Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier > versions. No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the > patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED. Not all, see below: > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > HAL --- if people would only take a look at > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything > from latest ath5k_hw.c: * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip rest of BSD license] The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the developers. The rest is, as you say, history. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely > modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code > and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier versions. No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED. Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the HAL --- if people would only take a look at http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything And yet, the BSD folks seem to continue to nurse the above mantra (which was true, but quickly corrected) combined with the "and the Linux folks aren't listening", which is manifestly not true. We might not agree with everything you are saying, and we might think you're being highly hypocritical, but we are listening. > All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a > new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil" > companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright. In the original BSD 4.3 code, if I recall correctly, /bin/true was 12 lines of AT&T copyright and the standard "this is proprietary non-published trade secret" legalease with the standard threats of bazillions and bazillions of damage due to AT&T's irreparable harm if the file was ever disclosed followed by "exit 0". :-) Personally, I find that issues of copyright are much more easily discussed if people keep a sense of balance and humor. - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Theodore Tso writes: hardly > Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need > a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a > bit differently but get the same effect.) Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows. Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told there are strange things happening there :-) > If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a > derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable > element in that work. Of course. > Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you redistribute the > Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically > receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify > the Program subject to > these terms and conditions." Seems fine, your point? In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work), the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original author. It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue you like in the SCO case. If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. > To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from > multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the > rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence > of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not), > only the original author can grant that to you. Of course. BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work derived from another. > It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in > the derivative work, that means he can license the work. Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't receive additional rights. Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense. > He cannot license > anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement. Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work. Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single company, though derived from other works, it's (C) MS and you get a licence for the whole MS Windows from only MS. You may have some additional rights and MS may have to acknowledge additional contributors, based on their licences granted by those contributors (such as using the original UCB licence). -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the > > goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. > > The BSD license promotes goodwill. > > The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical that > the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate greed, > while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and > non-redistributable drivers. It will bend over backwards for closed-source > vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren. Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with "binary blobs and non-redistributable drivers" is quite far away from the truth. > Jason Dixon 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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:39AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > Theodore Tso writes: > > > Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use > > the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs > > a licence from the original author to create a derived work. > > Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of > > the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-) I didn't write the above; please be careful with your attributions. - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Kryzstof Halasa writes: > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Theodore Tso writes: > > hardly A apologize for the error in attribution. > > Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. > > You never need > > a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries > > word this a > > bit differently but get the same effect.) > Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows. > Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told > there are strange things happening there :-) No, you do not need a license to use MS Windows. Microsoft may choose to compel you to agree to a license in exchange for allowing you to install a copy, but that is not quite the same thing. If you read United States copyright law, you will see that *use* is not one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder. Every lawful possessor of a work may use it in the ordinary way, assuming they did not *agree* to some kind of restriction. > > If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a > > derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every > > protectable > > element in that work. > Of course. > > Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you > > redistribute the > > Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically > > receives a license from the original licensor to copy, > > distribute or modify > > the Program subject to > > these terms and conditions." > Seems fine, your point? My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable elements in that work. > In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work), > the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original > author. > It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue > you like in the SCO case. > > If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary > licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't > have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario. C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and the work he received. C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C. Again, read GPL section 6. (And this is true for the BSD license as well, at least in the United States, because it's the only way such a license could work.) Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual license a work is offered under by the original author. In fact, they could not give you this right under US copyright law. Modify the license *text* is not the same thing as modifying the license. > > To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from > > multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements > > and need the > > rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and > > in the absence > > of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not), > > only the original author can grant that to you. > Of course. > > BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work > derived from another. In practice it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have a single fixed form or expression that contains creative elements contributed by different people potentially under different licenses. The issues of whether it's a derivative work or a combined work and whether the distributor has made sufficient protectable elements to assert their own copy really has no effect on any of the issues that matter here. > > It is a common confusion that just because the final author has > > copyright in > > the derivative work, that means he can license the work. > Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't > receive additional rights. No, he can't. He can only license those protectable elements that he authored. There is no way you can license protectable elements authored by another absent a relicenseing agreement. The GPL is explicitly not a relicensing agreement, see section 6. The BSD license is implicitly not a relicensing agreement. > Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright > holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense. A license is not just a promise not to sue, it's an *enforceable* *committment* not to sue. It's an explicit grant of permission against legal rights. Would you argue that I can license Disney's "The Lion King" movie to you if I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it? > > He cannot license > > anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement. > > Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work. Right. > Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single com
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:44:28 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: >> The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical >> that the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate >> greed, while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, >> and non-redistributable drivers. It will bend over backwards for >> closed-source vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software >> brethren. > > Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with "binary blobs > and non-redistributable drivers" is quite far away from the truth. I never said they don't have any problems. They have plenty of problems. They refuse to do anything proactive about them. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the > goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. The BSD license promotes goodwill. The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical that the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate greed, while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and non-redistributable drivers. It will bend over backwards for closed-source vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD | > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should | > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak | > for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of | > the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. | | GPL has a "share and protect" nature. Yes, and I was talking about the 'share' part. The protect part is fine with me, I understand the reasoning behind it. I would not choose it as my own licence, but that is a matter of personal choice. | > I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. | > I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of | > respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take | > BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you | > should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use | > GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). | | If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can | force them to do so. The exact same is true for the BSD Licence. If a corporation (or anyone else for that matter) violates the terms of the BSD licence, courts can make them stop these violations. It's just easier to violate the GPL, because it has more restrictions. [I'm still not a lawyer, btw] Big Evil Corps can however use GPL'ed code without giving back and without violating the GPL. Also the same as with the BSD licence. | BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the | GPL because it allows to take without having to give back. | | When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" | they are using the wrong licence. Why ? BSD people give their code away for free. They put hard work into writing quality software and they have their own ethics or morale. They do not *demand* getting code back, at least I have not seen any indication of such demands. So then why are they using the wrong licence ? I was merely pointing out a matter of mutual respect. | Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the | goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. And the people using the BSD licence are completely aware of this [I assume, again I do not wish to speak for anyone but myself]. At least I was surprised that fellow open source / free software developers are not giving back. I've come to expect this from certain companies, but to me the free and open software community as a whole (here I'm lumping everyone and their mother together, I know) should have some respect towards eachother and the licence they choose and acknowledge the contributions of other parties, giving back as freely as they've been given. Not because it is required but because it's just right. The GPL requires I give changes I distribute back under the same licence. But if I ever were to change such a program, I would not give these changes back because of this requirement but because it just makes sense. | And BTW: | Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by | Big Evil Corps. [1] There's also contributions to OpenBSD from people paid by Big Evil Corps. The same is true for Net- and FreeBSD. Of course, not all Big Evil Corps are, in fact, Evil. | First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether | their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms | of the BSD licence. | | And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and | that giving code back in these cases would be friendly. Of course, like I said, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to lose. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and > > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their > > copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported > > BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal > > departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the > > BSD license those not hinder them in any way. > > Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and > I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are* > putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications --- > which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do > (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution > which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of > using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL > sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their > proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a > GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still > allows you to see the source. > You assume a lot about what NetApp did. While they can use BSD licensed code in their system without any issue they can not slam a new copyright on that code unless the changes create a derivative work. If you just do an adaption of the code you have no right to add an additional copyright. You need to make substantial extensions to the original work. Now adapting code to make it run under linux is in my opinion not a substantial work. It can be compared to translate a book to a different language -- which neither allows you to assign copyright on the result. I very much doubt that WAFL is a simple adaption of UFS/FFS. So it should be clear that this work has it's own copyright. Maybe some parts of their code is using BSD work that they just adapted. On that code they can not add an additional copyright as the modifications are not substantial enough. > > Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often > > the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. > > Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require > > them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool > > but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their > > code just because the used some of my code. > > So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code > and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't > use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the > difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary > license is better? > Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil" companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright. -- :wq Claudio
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, | > they don't require it, so we don't have to". | >... | | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less | protection for the code than the GPL does. It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not mean you in person] | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything | back on moral grounds. I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal. I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being | available with less protection. If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL]. If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received. This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it. BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations] I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). | In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an | author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written | driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in | a friendly way. This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to lose). Cheers, Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST > | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, > | > they don't require it, so we don't have to". > | >... > | > | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less > | protection for the code than the GPL does. > > It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was > alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred > licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not > mean you in person] > > | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything > | back on moral grounds. > > I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything > back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the > GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal. > > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak > for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of > the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. GPL has a "share and protect" nature. > | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being > | available with less protection. > > If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code > available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so > for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code > for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence > and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this > respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code > and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a > rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL]. > > If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open > source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received. > This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it. > BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to > respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or > other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations] > > I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. > I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of > respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take > BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you > should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use > GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can force them to do so. BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the GPL because it allows to take without having to give back. When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" they are using the wrong licence. Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. And BTW: Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by Big Evil Corps. [1] > | In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an > | author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written > | driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in > | a friendly way. > > This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then > release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect > the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of > licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case > basis, there's nothing to lose). First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms of the BSD licence. And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and that giving code back in these cases would be friendly. I for one consider it important that the Linux kernel is protected by the GPL - but whether some contribution I send also becomes available under a different licence I don't care that much. > Cheers, > > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd cu Adrian [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/ -- "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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD | licence is that it does not require you to give back. | | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that | something has to be given back. Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, they don't require it, so we don't have to". It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least. No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given back ? Why not do it yourself ? By not giving back you're giving a strange signal. Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd PS: Yes, I know .. but your "giving back" attaches new strings that weren't there in the first place. -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:25:14AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
> > *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
> > void?
>
> Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code.
> The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors.
> Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author
> offered it under.
>
> You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor
> of code you did not author.
>
> The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code
> you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under
> different licenses.
>...
The licence text we are talking about disagrees with what you claim:
<-- snip -->
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
*without modification.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
*similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
*redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
*similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
* 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
*of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
*
* NO WARRANTY
* ...
<-- snip -->
We are talking about dual-licenced code, not about BSD licenced code
incorporated into GPL'ed code.
That other people can distribute the original dual-licenced code
dual-licenced or BSD-only, and that you can get the code under this
licences from there, is without a doubt. But *the author* allowed me to
choose the licence when *I distribute it*.
> DS
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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Theodore Tso writes: > Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use > the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs > a licence from the original author to create a derived work. > Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of > the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-) Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a bit differently but get the same effect.) If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable element in that work. If the work were under a GPL or BSD type license, only the original author of each individual element could grant you such a license. Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not), only the original author can grant that to you. It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in the derivative work, that means he can license the work. He cannot license anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement. The GPL is explicit that it is not such a license. That's what the "from the original licensor" language in section 6 means. The BSD license is not explicit, but it couldn't work any other way. When you receive a Linux kernel distribution, you receive a GPL license to every protectable element in that work from that element's individual author. Nobody can license the kernel as a whole to you. DS
Re: Wasting our Freedom
> And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL > *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are > void? Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code. The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors. Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author offered it under. You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor of code you did not author. The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under different licenses. > And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when > his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make > his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and > BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text > for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code... That's true. DS
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the > | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD > | licence is that it does not require you to give back. > | > | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not > | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that > | something has to be given back. > > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, > they don't require it, so we don't have to". >... The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less protection for the code than the GPL does. If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything back on moral grounds. If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being available with less protection. In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in a friendly way. > Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd >... 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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Jacob Meuser wrote: when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or less "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad. it would be like losing a friend. I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal. All very nicely said. I'd like to add that an insult implicit in the attempt to remove the BSD license is that it says to the original authors, "we plan to improve this code, and when we do you'll never again be able to ship it as BSD." They weren't the words, but that's what you get when you think to the future. Although opinions seem still to be divided, I think everyone has been reminded that just because you can doesn't mean you should. I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, The one shining light in this whole sorry Atheros saga is that it's now all history; the only people still talking about it are people not directly involved. The matter could now rest...
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Am Montag 17 September 2007 15:15 schrieb Jason Dixon: > > The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less > free than the BSD. > > Free code + restrictions = non-free code. The legal restriction that people must not enter your house uninvited by smashing the door adds to your freedom, don't you think so? Hans
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Or that > "OpenBSD != Linux kernel" > > was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they > are both open source operating systems. BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux? I did, not once :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: >... > Saying something like: > "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU" > > is quite similar to saying: > "Windows != Microsoft" > > In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are > certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often > considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under > the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You > are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common > language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though > it is pedantically incorrect to do so. >... You could equally say that "OpenBSD != University of California, Berkeley" was wrong since OpenBSD uses the licence of the UCB. [1] Or that "OpenBSD != NetBSD" was wrong since OpenBSD is just a spinoff of NetBSD, and for everyday people all the *BSD operating systems are anyway the same. Or that "OpenBSD != Linux kernel" was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they are both open source operating systems. Or even that "OpenBSD != FSF" was wrong. In case you wonder about the latter, check at [2] whose project's project leaders won the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software and whose project's project leader did not. The FSF and the Linux kernel community have some relationship, but they are quite distinct communities with different views on some things. As an example, Linus Torvalds made clear some years ago that the kernel is GPLv2 only and will stay GPLv2 forever. This makes it impossible to move the kernel to the FSF's new GPLv3. If you have such differences in mind it sounds ridiculous when people don't differentiate between the FSF and the Linux kernel community. > kind regards, > jcr cu Adrian [1] I don't know the background of the 2-clause BSD licence, but at least for the 3-clause and 4-clause BSD licences this was true [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_for_the_Advancement_of_Free_Software -- "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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
"Can E. Acar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code > to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough > to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright? "Deserve"? The copyright is automatic, the author (of the derivative work) may like it or not. -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant > additions/changes*. Such as a patch? Hardly IMHO, a patch is not a work but an output of an automated tool. The copyright is not about fragments of works. You may add a copyright _notice_, not a copyright (a right). The author of a derived work automatically has copyright to the whole derived work, not only to the "fragments" he has created. MS Windows is "Copyright Microsoft", not "Microsoft and others". You can add any licence (not copyright, as it's automatic) to your (derived or not) work. If it's a derived work, you must comply with the original licence(s). Of course, the original work is copyrighted by its original author and licenced under its original conditions, and nobody is able to change that. Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs a licence from the original author to create a derived work. Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-) You do need a licence from the original author to use the original work, e.g. unmodified original work distributed by third party. I.e., you don't need a licence to use MS Windows from the retail shop, you need it from MS. Is it that hard to understand? > However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the > BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined > work). Where exactly? Have you seen MS EULA maybe? Such requirement would be impossible to fullfit. > No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for > the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever) > license for the modifications/additions. Look at MS EULA, does MS Windows in your opinion have such a mixed licence too? :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Hannah!
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >> >>...
> >> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
>
> >> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
> >> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
>
> >> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
> >> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
> >> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
> >> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
> >> in one of the licenses.
>
> >Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
> >the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
>
> It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
> But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.
On which legal grounds do you base this statement?
And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
void?
And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when
his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make
his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and
BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text
for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code...
> >> Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
>
> >Noone said otherwise.
>
> Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
> relicensing.
If anything can be called relicencing, then the act of choosing one of
the licence. And this happens one level above the actual licences, and
the licence texts don't matter for this act.
> >> If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
> >> (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
> >> tested before court).
>
> >The licence in question was:
>
> ><-- snip -->
>
> >/*-
> > * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> > * All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> > * are met:
> > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> > *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
> > *without modification.
> > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
> > *similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
> > *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
> > *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
> > * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
> > *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> > *from this software without specific prior written permission.
> > *
> > * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> > * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> > * Software Foundation.
> > *
> > * NO WARRANTY
> > * ...
>
> ><-- snip -->
>
> >Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
> >_this_ code. [2]
>
> I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
> probably right. Value judgements like "you should give code back" (when
> the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
> with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).
>
> Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
> terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
> probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
> code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
> having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
> you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
> softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
> that instance.
You confuse two completely different situations.
The SFLC talks about how to incorporate *not* dual-licenced
BSD-only code into GPL'ed code.
> >[...]
>
> >> But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
> >> while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
> >> under different terms with few restrictions.
>
> >> However, you say "regarding ethics
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their > copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported > BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal > departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the > BSD license those not hinder them in any way. Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are* putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications --- which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still allows you to see the source. > Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often > the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. > Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require > them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool > but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their > code just because the used some of my code. So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary license is better? - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:52AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400 >> Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, >>> regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. >>> The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution >>> must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, >>> regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. >>> >>> The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less >>> free than the BSD. >>> >>> Free code + restrictions = non-free code. >>> >>> (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. >>> Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil >>> Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. >>> That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither >>> EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their >>> *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution >>> intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! >> >> Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the >> BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code >> is being "stolen". > > They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT. This was a mistake in one patch that had never been merged, and this mistake has been corrected once it was discovered. > Jason Dixon 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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code is being "stolen". They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400 Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, > regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. > The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution > must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, > regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. > > The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less > free than the BSD. > > Free code + restrictions = non-free code. > > (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. > Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil > Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. > That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither > EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their > *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution > intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code is being "stolen". Instead of worrying about Evil Corporation "stealing" their code, they're worrying about Evil GPL folks "stealing". Why don't you take a moment to email them with a reminder that whatever GPL group X does with their *copy*, all users of the code have the same rights. If they really believe in the BSD license they will then calm down and we can all go back to work. Regards, S.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]: you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom. Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence since it doesn't defend that the code stays free. Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt > > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... > > > > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the > > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden > > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's > > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or > > in one of the licenses. > > > > Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings. > > > > If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments > > (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses > > tested before court). > > Hannah, > > What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a > "derivative work". Whether or not you can even make a derivative > work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is > strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD > license says: > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met > > Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people > to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The > conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about > licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you > are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows > Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, > proprietary copyright. > > So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can > create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more > restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where > no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or > source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a > relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still > available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work > which is under the more restrictive copyright. > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the BSD license those not hinder them in any way. Now comes the funny part, as the BSD code in NetApp is available from public sources -- for example from OpenBSD -- it is actually not covered by the NDA. NDAs can only cover information that is not publicly available -- you can only forbit disclosure of information that is secret in the first place. Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their code just because the used some of my code. -- :wq Claudio
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]: > > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but > > brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? > > NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom. Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence since it doesn't defend that the code stays free. Some people consider the BSD licence more free since NetApp or Linux or Microsoft can take your code and never gove back. Although I don't agree with it, I can understand the rationale of the latter. But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give back is simply dishonest. Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen? And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence. 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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hannah Schroeter wrote: > The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just > choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms > altogether). You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing license notices, the other is about relicensing. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. No amount of changing license notices affects the license a recipient gets to any code that the license changer did not contribute. You cannot, in the sense of it being legally impossible, affect the license your recipients get to code you did not author. Relicensing is simply impossible under either the BSD license or the GPL license. Neither grants you any relicensing rights. Remove the BSD license from a dual-licensed work doesn't relicense anything. Everyone who gets the work still gets a dual license from the original author. > It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course. > But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether. Of course not. But since the GPL does not require you to keep a BSD license notice intact and the BSD license does not require you to keep a GPL license notice intact, the result is that you do have the right to remove the other license's terms altogether. Note that this has no effect whatsoever on the rights anyone actually gets. Rights come from licenses, not license notices. If you were right, a dual-licensed work would not be GPL compatible. Since the GPL prohibits the use of any mechanism to prohibit modification to the work (other than the inability to remove the GPL itself). > Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is* > relicensing. Umm, no. That's so obviously mind-bogglingly crazy that I don't even know where to start. Let's try a hypothetical: I download the entire Linux kernel and remove every single GPL license notice and replace it with a public domain notice. I then distribute the result. Am I relicensing the Linux kernel? Isn't it obvious that I'm not. I *can't*. I have no right to change the license under which other people's code is offered. When you change a license notice, that has no effect on the actual license anyone gets to anyone else's work. You license notice changes can only affect licenses that *you* grant. Nothing requires a license that exists to be documented in the accompanying file. There is nothing in copyright law that is offended by the idea that someone might remove a license notification even though the license still applies so long as the license only *adds* rights. The only reason we can't remove the GPL license from the Linux kernel is because the GPL says so. > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies > being allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B. You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*. This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license notices has no effect on actual licenses. DS
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > >So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can > >create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more > >restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where > >no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or > >source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a > >relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still > >available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work > >which is under the more restrictive copyright. > > No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for > the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever) > license for the modifications/additions. Yes, agreed. I was being sloppy. In actual practice, the GPL is more restrictive, aod so the terms of the GPL are what tend to have more effect, but you are absolutely correct. > *If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part > of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative > work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive > conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing). Yes, although actually, the place where the BSD license must be honored is in a binary distribution, since the BSD license and copyright attribution must be distributed as part of the binary distribution. (Even Microsoft does this when they use BSD code.) For a source distribution, retaining the copyright attribution and permission statement in the comments is sufficient to meet the BSD license requirements, and since the open source world normally deals mostly with source, we sometimes get sloppy with how we phrase things. Regards, - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote: > Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence, > and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community. I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has some in the BSD community so upset. when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or less "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad. it would be like losing a friend. I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal. I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, "We can accept BSD licensed code. There's no need to add the GPL to it." and maybe even, "Although we strongly prefer the GPL, respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect for the GPL." I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have happened in the first place. look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license. the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same. and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the recourse to be? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hello! On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: >[...] >What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a >"derivative work". Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable on their own. >Whether or not you can even make a derivative >work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is >strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD >license says: > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met >Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people >to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The >conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about >licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you >are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows >Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, >proprietary copyright. Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant additions/changes*. However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined work). >So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can >create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more >restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where >no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or >source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a >relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still >available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work >which is under the more restrictive copyright. No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever) license for the modifications/additions. *If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing). >[... dual-licensing issues etc. already handled in other mails ...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]: > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but > brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
>> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
>> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
>> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
>> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
>> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
>> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
>> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
>> in one of the licenses.
>Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
>the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.
>> Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
>Noone said otherwise.
Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
relicensing.
>> If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
>> (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
>> tested before court).
>The licence in question was:
><-- snip -->
>/*-
> * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
> *without modification.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
> *similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
> *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
> *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
> * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
> *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> *from this software without specific prior written permission.
> *
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> * Software Foundation.
> *
> * NO WARRANTY
> * ...
><-- snip -->
>Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
>_this_ code. [2]
I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
probably right. Value judgements like "you should give code back" (when
the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).
Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
that instance.
>[...]
>> But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
>> while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
>> under different terms with few restrictions.
>> However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level.
>> Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
>> OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the
>> reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some
>> modifications back?
>Is it really ethical to use a licence that does not require to give
>back, but then demand that something has to be given back?
IMO Theo didn't demand (as in try to enforce with legal pressure), but
state it'd be the *morally* right thing to do even if *not* legally
required (which isn't debated).
>Why don't you use a licence that expresses your intentions in a legally
>binding way?
Because BSD people don't want to enforce it in every thinkable case. And
BSD people don't want to enforce it using as much text as the GPL needs.
But still I think it'd be the (morally!) right thing to do with respect
to the Atheros HAL even if *not* legally bound to do so.
>[...]
>But the truth is a bit less harsh:
>In reality most Linux kernel developers might not mind to give back -
>and e.g. much of the ACPI code is BSD/GPL dual-licenced, and there
>doesn't se
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hi! On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: >On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >> >>... >> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel >> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. >> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt >> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... >> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the >> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden >> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's >> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or >> in one of the licenses. >That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows >distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can >follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. >And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and >ignore the GPL) >It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more >agreeable. The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms altogether). >I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. Refrain from personal attacks. Regards, Hannah.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back, and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office? which is _exactly_ what you guys are doing. so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation? that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with. A difference between linux and corporations: Linux actually gives changed source code back - just not with a BSD licence on it. So you can at least see what the linux community did, and do the same. Although not by direct copying. But why complain when the linux community do what the BSD licence lets them? If you think the linux community is abusing a loophole in the licence, why don't you just close the hole? For example, require that changes made to your code when used in the linux kernel must be made available under a BSD licence also. Still possible to use the code anywhere, but with a guarantee of getting stuff back. Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence, and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community. Helge Hafting
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community > > over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it > > should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain > > about those (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on > > code with the BSD license. > > > > And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the > > MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only > > people that accepted the patches in question. > > Although it's true the code is not yet upstream... > > Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is > sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm, > rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" > > with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate > > Reyk's copyright. > > Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant. We want to > make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make > sure any copyright problems are fixed. > > On a side note: "MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k > driver, the driver at issue here. Some mistakes were made by Linux > wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected. > > > Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU > > > > If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with > > faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 > > is a better license than v3 > > Amen. 100% agreed. > > Jeff Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in bad faith, the code in question is per se "intended" to become part of the Linux kernel. The code has not been "accepted upstream" as you say but that is still the intended goal. Saying something like: "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU" is quite similar to saying: "Windows != Microsoft" In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though it is pedantically incorrect to do so. Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example. There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair minded and well thought than I will ever be. With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go? The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer. As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you. If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team were to contact the people who have been illegally messing with licenses on the atheros code and ask them to quit messing around, it could do a lot of good towards resolving this issue. In doing so, you'll not only end the current pointless waste of time between GPL/GNU/BSD, but you'll also prevent the pointless waste of time of discussing this to death on lkml when the time comes to move the code upstream so you have better atheros support. The people who have done this illegal license swapping nonsense will not listen to Reyk, will not listen to Theo (which some will say is a difficult thing to do) and will not listen to me (which is probably more difficult than listening to Theo). All of three us are in the "wrong camp" simply because we use a different license. My hope is the people responsible for the illegal license swapping will hopefully listen to you, the Linux kernel developers. If you'd like to see all of this end, rather than carry on and on and on until it winds up in court, please do something. Please try asking the people responsible to quit messing with licenses. kind regards, jcr
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2
> >>
> >> and here is a very brief summary:
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118965266709012&w=2
BTW, I didn't say anything the last time, but the above mail is a load of
horse-shit. Theo is pointing fingers and making claims that anyone capable of
independent thought can see aren't related to reality.
Quoted in full (my comments are in the curly-braces):
I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
Here it is (with a few more changes)
{Okay, this starts off good. Theo is going to make sure people understand what
is going on and what has happened. Perhaps he has realized things are
different from when he claimed that people were being advised to break the
law.}
-
starting premise:
you can already use the code as it is
steps taken:
1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
- get told no, repeatedly
{Alright - not a problem here. Happens all the time}
2. climb over ethical fence
{Off the deep end already, but lets keep going...}
3. remove his license
- get caught, look a bit stupid
{Caught? Well, yeah. Caught by the Linux Kernel developers before it became a
real problem. This has been fixed, although the code still hasn't been added
to the core Kernel tree - and the current iteration still hasn't been offered
for review}
4. wrap his license with your own
- get caught, look really stupid
{Not done, although this was, apparently, suggested by the SFLC. Nice FUD
there, Theo.}
5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
- get caught, look even more stupid
{Not done. Again, nice FUD there}
Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of
evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what
will happen next. We wait, to see what will happen.
{Theo, embrace reality. It'll solve all kinds of problems. It's a simple fact
that reality has split from Theo's view of things between numbers 3 and 4.
What has happened is that the licenses have been maintained and the two
people that have been working on it for the Linux kernel has added their own
copyrights - covering the code they have added. If someone outside the Linux
Kernel development team has followed the above path then there is no reason
to doubt that they have created problems for themselves.}
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.
{While there are ways to handle the situation that don't involve lawsuits I
don't think this is the best solution. I don't know what avenues that Reyk
and the OpenBSD community have already tried, but from what I've been told
all that's been done is a "private" message to the MadWifi people that they
are violating a copyright. The rest has been flames and FUD on the Linux
Kernel ML - which solves nothing and just creates problems. Maybe if the
OpenBSD community slammed the MadWifi mailing lists over this instead of the
Linux Kernel ML the problem there would go away...}
> >> If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these
> >> links, and think about it.
> >
> > No need. Here are the facts:
>
> It is now obvious that you have no interest in facts,
> You blindly repeat what you made yourself to believe.
I believe the truth. All the facts I have are derived from the mail exchanges
I've witnessed. If you disagree with the facts as I understand them say so -
don't just say that I'm "making myself believe them". If I've made a mistake
in judging the facts from available evidence then let me know - and provide a
reference that shows where I made the mistake. (ie: a public e-mai, etc...)
Anyway...
The facts I stated could be shown from the LKML archives, but I believed you'd
have seen the same posts I have - almost all the relevant posts were in
threads that were CC'd to at least one of the OpenBSD ML's.
I dissected the logic presented and pointed out how *ALL* the arguments that
have been presented so far have been either handled - either by being shown
to be false or in the most logical (and legal) manner possible. But instead
of the most expected answer - that is, attacks on the core Linux Kernel
developers - ie: those that discuss development and exchange patches on LKML
stopping - Theo continues to stir up the trouble by claiming that *ALL* Linux
Kernel developers are making a concentrated attempt to "steal" code.
That is sheer and utter bullshit. I've finished a quick look through the
Atheros code in the git repo that Theo pointed out and don't see how
his "Jus
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote: [snip] >> Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago: >> >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2 >> >> and here is a very brief summary: >> >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118965266709012&w=2 >> >> If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these >> links, and think about it. > > No need. Here are the facts: It is now obvious that you have no interest in facts, You blindly repeat what you made yourself to believe. I will waste no more time with you. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote: > Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote: > > [snip] > > >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel > >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. > > > > IIRC, the advice was "Yes, it is legal to choose to follow only one of > > multiple offered licenses on a project" - nothing else. They looked at > > the patches and said "Wait, you've changed the license on files that > > aren't under a dual license." > > > > Hence, no problems here - no questionable advice only. > > The replies suggest that some (most?) people are not aware of the > recent developments, and that it is a dual licensing issue. Look at what I replied to and then thank me for replying to the text in question. Or is the fact that I was responding to - > >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel > >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. - somehow beyond your comprehension? > This has very little to do with dual licensing right now, > there has been other developments, more "advice" from SLFC. And I have seen absolutely none of said "advice". > The code in question is Reyk's open source HAL work. > I want to emphasize. This work was NOT ever dual licensed. And that was only in question *PRIOR* to the review and rejection of the patches in question. Comprende ? > Furthermore, since it is compatible with the binary HAL from > Atheros, the interface is fixed and the same both in Linux and > *BSD. So, even the latst code divergence arguments do not > apply here. The improvements to this piece of code improve > the Open Source Atheros support, and is important for both > Linux and BSD. Doubtful. If I wrote a HAL implementation from scratch using Reyk's code as a reference only would that make my bottom-up rewrite a derivative? If you think it would, then you need to stop talking and start listening. Just because the code needs to provide a specific interface does not mean that any specific persons implementation is a derivative of another. This simple fact is key - because if that fact wasn't true then the original, purely binary HAL that was/is in FreeBSD would be illegal, as would Reyk's code. > Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago: > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2 > > and here is a very brief summary: > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118965266709012&w=2 > > If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these > links, and think about it. No need. Here are the facts: 1) People have come to the Linux Kernel ML and complained about a set of patches that were never accepted. 2) Theo has accused a Kernel developer of telling people to break the law. 3) People show up complaining again, apparently about the same patches. 4) One of them points out that the MadWifi developers have taken the broken patches 5) Several people on LKML say "So go be a troll there, leave us alone" 6) The original people, and more, start with claims that the Linux Kernel developers should "police" the "GNU/FSF/GPL Community" And now you come here saying that people don't understand the situation. Go look at the first two links in Theo's mails, which you linked to. Are they to kernel.org git repo's? Is either of them for the "linux-wireless-2.6" git repo? The answer to both is "No" - they are to MadWifi - a system which is developed separate from the Linux Kernel and not discussed here. The other two links are to a git repo that hasn't been included in the Linux Kernel, but probably will be, since it doesn't violate anyones copyright. Is Theo happy? No. Because the two people that ported to code to work in Linux have added themselves as holding copyrights to portions of the code. "Those files are still invalidly being distributed -- Nick and Jiri did not proveably do enough original work to earn copyright on a derivative work, since their work is just an adaptation." Now think about it - there are files that they have modified - in some cases this was apparently quite a bit of work. Yet they can't place their own copyrights on the code because Theo thinks it all is "Just an Adaptation" ? Think about this: Linux runs on numerous hardware platforms. For each platform there is a "port" - and "adaptation" of the code to make the kernel capable of running as fast and as stably on the new platform as the original supported one. Each one of those "ports" is an "adaptation" of existing code. By Theo's reckoning - judging from the statement I've quoted - none of them are worthy of a copyright, because they are "Just an adaptation". For instance, compare src/sys/dev/ic/ar5xxx.h to ath5k.h (they appear to be the same file) - there was a *LOT* of work done in this file. I truthfully can't tell how much of the original remains and how much has been re
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Can E. Acar wrote: Furthermore, since it is compatible with the binary HAL from Atheros, the interface is fixed and the same both in Linux and *BSD. Hardly. It is software; the interface most definitely can and will change. Jeff
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote: [snip] >> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. > > IIRC, the advice was "Yes, it is legal to choose to follow only one of > multiple offered licenses on a project" - nothing else. They looked at the > patches and said "Wait, you've changed the license on files that aren't under > a dual license." > > Hence, no problems here - no questionable advice only. The replies suggest that some (most?) people are not aware of the recent developments, and that it is a dual licensing issue. This has very little to do with dual licensing right now, there has been other developments, more "advice" from SLFC. The code in question is Reyk's open source HAL work. I want to emphasize. This work was NOT ever dual licensed. Furthermore, since it is compatible with the binary HAL from Atheros, the interface is fixed and the same both in Linux and *BSD. So, even the latst code divergence arguments do not apply here. The improvements to this piece of code improve the Open Source Atheros support, and is important for both Linux and BSD. Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2 and here is a very brief summary: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118965266709012&w=2 If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these links, and think about it. Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright? Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back, and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office? which is _exactly_ what you guys are doing. so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation? that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with. if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux community being satisfied eith it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire). so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why? you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? many people honestly don't understand the logic behind this. please explain it. if you don't like what your license allows, change it. it's trivial for you to do so, all you need to do is to agree on a new license and start releaseing your code under it (the BSD license allows for derivitive works to be released under any license) make the new license match your real desires and this sort of problem can be avoided in the future. David Lang
Re: Wasting our Freedom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? many people honestly don't understand the logic behind this. please explain it. There are two highly relevant angles to this that nobody is mentioning: 1) Does it make sense to share code, at a technical level? The fact is, BSD and Linux wireless stacks are quite different. Linux also has a technical requirement that "Linux drivers look like Linux drivers." This enables a vast array of source code checking tools like Coverity and sparse, as well as maximizing human reviewer bandwidth. Therefore, there is a strong /technical/ motivation for the source code to diverge. That's quite natural. 2) Information sharing is both rampant and healthy. Linux and BSD projects share a vast amount of hardware knowledge, information on how to properly program hardware. Linux folks use BSD code as /reference documentation/, and BSD folks do the same with Linux code. This is far more efficient in many cases, due to the natural divergence of the respective codebases. It is often easier to look at codebase A, and then mentally translate that into code for codebase B, than to directly copy and reuse code. Jeff
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources > to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back, > and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office? which is _exactly_ what you guys are doing. so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation? that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 02:17:53AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote: > Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say > someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository, > removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put > it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they > are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license > removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere. Ok, suppose someone did (precisely) this. Then the person to be upset with would be the people who did this, not the people behind the official repository. Some folks seem to be unfortuntaely blaming the people who run the official repository. Look, it's perhaps a little understandable that people in the *BSD world might not understand that the Linux development community is huge, and not understand that the people who work on madwifi.org, the core kernel community, and the FSF, are distinct, and while they might interact with each other, one part of the community can't dictate what another part of the community does. You wouldn't want us to conflate all of the security faults of say, NetBSD with OpenBSD, just because it came from a historically similar code base and "besides all you *BSD folks are all the same --- if you don't want a bad reputation, why don't you police yourselves"? Would you not say this is unreasonable? If so, would you kindly not do the same thing to the Linux community? Secondly, it looks like people are getting worked up about two different things, and in some cases it looks like the two things are getting conflated. The first thing is a screw-up about attribution and removal of the BSD license text, and that is one where the SFLC has already issued advice that this is bad ju-ju, and that the BSD license text must remain intact. The second case which seems to get people upset is that there are people who are taking BSD code, and/or GPL/BSD dual licensed code, and adding code additions/improvements/changes under a GPL-only license. This is very clearly legal, just as it is clearly legal for NetApp to take the entire BSD code base, add proprietary changes to run on their hardware and to add a propietary, patent-encrusted WAFL filesystem, and create a codebase which is no longer available to the BSD development community. The first case was clearly a legal foul, whereas the second case is legally O.K (whether the GPL or NetApp propietary license is involved). However, people are conflating these two cases, and using words like "theft" and "copyright malpractice", without being clear which case they are talking about. If we grant that the first is bad, and is being rectified before it gets merged into the mainline kernel, can we please drop this? If you are truely offended that working pre-merge copies of the files with the incorrect copyright statements still exist on the web, feel free to send requests to madwifi.org, the Wayback Archive, and everywhere else to stamp them out --- but can you please leave the Linux Kernel Mailing List out of it, please? As far as the second case is concerned, while it is clearly _legally_ OK, there is a question whether it is _morally_ a good idea. And this is where a number of poeple in the Linux camp are likely to accuse the *BSD people who are making a huge amount of fuss of being hypocrites. After all, most BSD people talk about how they are *proud* that companies like NetApp can take the BSD code base, and make improvements, and it's OK that those improvements never make it back to the BSD code base. In fact, these same *BSD folks talk about how this makes the BSD license "more free" than the GPL. Yet, when some people want to take BSD code (and let's assume that proper attributions and copyright statements are retained, just as I'll assume that NetApp also preserved the same copyright statements and attributions), and make improvements that are under the GPL, at least some *BSD developers are rising up and claiming "theft"! Um, hello? Why is it OK for NetApp to do it, and not for some Linux wireless developers to do precisely the same thing? Is it because the GPL license is open source? At least that way you can see the improvements (many of them would have been OS-specific anyway, since the BSD and Linux kernel infrastructures are fundamentally different), and then reimplement yourself in the case of NetApp, you don't even get to **see** the sources to the WAFL filesystem; they are, after all, under a proprietary copyright license. The final argument that could be made is the practical one; that regardless of whether or not a Linux wireless developer has any legal or moral right to do what NetApp developers have done years ago, that it would be better to cooperate. That's a judgement call, and I'll assume that the BSD wireless developers are different from the people who are screaming and trolling on the kernel mailing list --- si
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... > > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or > in one of the licenses. > > Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings. > > If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments > (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses > tested before court). Hannah, What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a "derivative work". Whether or not you can even make a derivative work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD license says: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, proprietary copyright. So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work which is under the more restrictive copyright. Now, the original copyright can say that you aren't allowed to do this; for example, the GPL says that you are not allowed to add any restrictions on the copyright license of any derived works of GPL'ed code. This is why some BSD partisans claim that their license is "more free"; the BSD license allows people to add more restrictive copyright license terms on derived works. OK, what about dual licensed works? The specific wording of the dual licensing is that you can use *either* license. That means, you can treat code as if only using the BSD license applied, or only if the GPL license applied. That is, the end-user can redistribute if either the conditions required by the BSD license *or* the GPL license applied. But we've already shown that the BSD license allows the creation of a derived work with a more restrictive license --- such as the GPL. But don't take my word for it; the Software Freedom Law Center has issued advice, pro bono, written by lawyers about how this can be done. If you want, feel free get your own lawyers and ask them to provide formal legal advice. > A difference is, GPL requires it under every circumstance. BSD does not, > indeed. But how should one expect it from *OSS* people that even *they* > don't give back? Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as > closed-source companies? The problem with your argument is that BSD folks have claimed that the BSD license is morally superior --- "more free than the GPL" --- because you don't have to "give back" (or more formally, create a derivitive work with a copyright license more restrictive than the BSD). If that is true, it is the absolute height of hypocrisy to suddenly start complaining when code is restricted via an another open source license such as the GPL, but not complain when NetApp uses BSD code to make million and millions of dollars without giving anything of substantial value back. At least in the case of GPL'ed code you still can look at the changes and decide how and whether you to reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back, and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office? - Ted
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >>...
> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
>
> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
>
> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
> in one of the licenses.
Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
> Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
Noone said otherwise.
> If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
> (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
> tested before court).
The licence in question was:
<-- snip -->
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
*without modification.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
*similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
*redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
*similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
* 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
*of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
*
* NO WARRANTY
* ...
<-- snip -->
Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
_this_ code. [2]
> >[...]
>
> >Regarding ethics - if you use the BSD licence for your code you state in
> >the licence text that it's OK that I take your code and never give
> >anything back.
>
> But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
> while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
> under different terms with few restrictions.
>
> However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level.
> Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
> OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the
> reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some
> modifications back?
Is it really ethical to use a licence that does not require to give
back, but then demand that something has to be given back?
Why don't you use a licence that expresses your intentions in a legally
binding way?
> >[...]
>
> >Some people have the funny position of opposing the GPL which enforces
> >that you have to give back, but whining that people took their BSD
> >licenced code and don't give back.
>
> A difference is, GPL requires it under every circumstance. BSD does not,
> indeed. But how should one expect it from *OSS* people that even *they*
> don't give back? Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as
> closed-source companies?
You could also see it from a different perspective:
If you like that the GPL enforces that everyone has to give back, do you
also want to see your code BSD licenced without this protection?
But the truth is a bit less harsh:
In reality most Linux kernel developers might not mind to give back -
and e.g. much of the ACPI code is BSD/GPL dual-licenced, and there
doesn't seem to be any problem with this.
But Theo's wrong accusations regarding dual licenced code might not be
the best way for starting a fruitful collaboration...
> >[...]
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hannah.
cu
Adrian
[1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/102
[2] The fact that Alan didn't notice that part of Jiri's patch touched
non-dual-licenced code is the mistake I already mentioned - but
this mistake is not what Theo is ranting about.
--
"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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote: > Hi! > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > >>... > >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel > >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. > > > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... > > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or > in one of the licenses. That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and ignore the GPL) It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more agreeable. I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Hi! On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >>... >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or in one of the licenses. Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings. If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses tested before court). >[...] >Regarding ethics - if you use the BSD licence for your code you state in >the licence text that it's OK that I take your code and never give >anything back. But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications under different terms with few restrictions. However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level. Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some modifications back? >[...] >Some people have the funny position of opposing the GPL which enforces >that you have to give back, but whining that people took their BSD >licenced code and don't give back. A difference is, GPL requires it under every circumstance. BSD does not, indeed. But how should one expect it from *OSS* people that even *they* don't give back? Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as closed-source companies? >[...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote: > >> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> > J.C. Roberts wrote: > >> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2 > >> > > >> > Link with outdated info. > >> > > >> > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k > >> > > >> > Link with outdated info. > >> > > >> > > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making > >> > > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous > >> > > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly > >> > > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? > >> > > >> > Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. > >> > > >> > A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of > >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g > >> >it > >> > > >> > but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and > >> > HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from > >> > > >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git > >> > (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here) > >> > > >> > Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are > >> > actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly > >> > seen by the changes being made over time. > >> > > >> > So let's everybody calm down, ok? > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Jeff > >> > >> Jeff, > >> > >> Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say > >> someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository, > >> removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put > >> it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they > >> are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license > >> removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere. > >> > >> You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not > >> been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or > >> whatever project? > > > > But that isn't the situation being discussed. You've sent this mail to > > the *LINUX* *KERNEL* ML, not the MadWifi ML. The patches in question were > > not accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send > > mail related to them. > > You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. > I sincerely hope your fellow developers will not cut you off if you > make a similar mistake. I know mine wont. No, I'm saying "You are complaining about this in the wrong place and accusing the wrong people of the misdeed." > What you are saying is, a Copyright violation done by someone else is > Somebody Else's Problem (tm). There are a couple of issues with this point > of view: > > First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel > developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. IIRC, the advice was "Yes, it is legal to choose to follow only one of multiple offered licenses on a project" - nothing else. They looked at the patches and said "Wait, you've changed the license on files that aren't under a dual license." Hence, no problems here - no questionable advice only. > > > *PLEASE* go do a Google search or check the MadWifi site for their > > discussion list/forum/whatever and complain there. > > This has been done. Really. They have been contacted privately > before the issue became public. Got no results. The issue is then made > public, > with the results you see now. This is no longer a MadWifi problem. Then file the lawsuit - if they have violated the license and ignored requests to fix the problem then there is sound legal grounds for it. > > > If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over > > patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just > > as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those > > (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD > > license. > > It is fair. All license issues deserve utmost attention and respect by > all communities. If we let such issues to go unresolved, we face a > much greater danger to our work. Yes, but in this case you are complaining to people that have no control over the code in question. It's known that the patches are bad, and if people continue to use them, then it is their problem and the problem of the copyright holder. > > Is it too naive to hope that some leader/senior developer from the > Linux/FSF/GNU > whatever will take the clue stick and let the developers know what is > happening > is wrong. Being leaders in a community do have some responsibilities you > know. And it has happened - the Linux Kernel community has commented on the situation a *LOT* - to the extent that the patches in que
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Daniel Hazelton wrote: If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD license. And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only people that accepted the patches in question. Although it's true the code is not yet upstream... Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm, rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or [EMAIL PROTECTED] *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate Reyk's copyright. Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant. We want to make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make sure any copyright problems are fixed. On a side note: "MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k driver, the driver at issue here. Some mistakes were made by Linux wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected. Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 is a better license than v3 Amen. 100% agreed. Jeff
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >... > First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel > developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... This was the first email that was forwarded to linux-kernel, and it made it really hard to see at first that there was also an accidental copyright violation in Jiri's (never merged) patch. > There have been complete silence from the leaders of their own > community (Linux Kernel developers, FSF, ...) >... s/community/communities/ This seems to be a common thinko by some people: The Linux kernel developers and the FSF are two very distinct communities, and there are quite different views on some copyright issues. There is no "GPL community" covering both, there might be some kind of "open source community" - but this would as well include OpenBSD. > This case illustrates some important issues that should interest ALL > free software developers: > > 1) How tricky code sharing between different projects can be even when >intents and goals are pretty much alike. It should now be resolved how to incorporate BSD licenced code correctly into GPL'ed code, or is there any unresolved legal problem? > 2) MANY developers on BOTH sides have NO clue about the laws and ethics >associated with handling Copyrights and Licenses. I agree with you regarding the laws. Regarding ethics - if you use the BSD licence for your code you state in the licence text that it's OK that I take your code and never give anything back. Both Linux and Microsoft have used BSD licenced code according to this licence. Some people have the funny position of opposing the GPL which enforces that you have to give back, but whining that people took their BSD licenced code and don't give back. Everyone can choose the licence he likes for his own code, but if intentions and licence text don't match that's the fault of the person who licenced his code that way. > 3) The copyrights and licenses are the foundations of our work. >We put out great usually volunteer work, to create and improve. >The licenses specify the terms and conditions under which we allow >our work to be used. When we allow ANY license violation to occur, >it affects our own work, regardless of the license on it. >... Who allowed any licence violation? Let's look at the facts: - Each year, at about two thousand different people contribute patches that get incorporated into the Linux kernel. - One of them made the mistake of accidentally sending a patch that would have wrongly deleted the BSD header from BSD code. - Other developers didn't notice this mistake when looking at the patch. - This patch has never been merged. A mistake. No bad intentions. Shit happens. Resolved as soon as people were made aware of the mistake. > Can 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
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Can E. Acar wrote: There have been complete silence from the leaders of their own community (Linux Kernel developers, FSF, ...) all perhaps used your Regarding "Linux Kernel developers," false. _I_ have posted. ath5k, wireless, and net driver maintainers have all sent emails. License and code fixes have been committed. As for the FSF: It has been repeatedly stated that the FSF has zip to do with this. Nothing. Nada. Zero. Zilch. Linux != FSF. argument to convince themselves that this is not their problem. However, from an outsider point of view, this lack of silence means an agreement to something that is ethically and legally wrong. You are failing to observe that changes have been made in response to criticism. Given that Linux Kernel devs have responded both with code changes and emails, "silence" and "inaction" are provably false. And since the changes go ath5k->linville->me->linus or ath5k->linville->me->davem->linus, I am a step in the approval chain. I do know what I'm talking about. :) Jeff
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
I don't thinl this helps openbsd or anyone else. As Theo is already working with the individuals involved, and hasn't asked for help, I think rather than saying "I think you're going to suck", let's see what happens. Going ovewrboard isn't going to help anyone. On 9/16/07, J.C. Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eben Moglen wrote: > > Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's > > instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts > > concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means > > the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping > > lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through > > line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is > > not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, > > and to make policy recommendations > > Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations > which very simply reads: "steal and infect everything you possibly can > and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received." > http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/ > > As you do your imaginary "painstaking reconstruction" the whole world > can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed "spirit" > of your "steal-alike" license because you refuse to pass on the rights > you have received. > > > The required work has been made more arduous because some people have > > chosen not to cooperate in good faith. > > When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your > license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention > of cooperating in good faith with anyone. > > > But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like > > "theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea > > Speaking of "Really Bad Ideas," you trained us. The only time we get any > form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more > abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in > your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push > your "free as in koolaid" political agenda there will be people like me > who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your > stalling tactics and your legal bullying. > > I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell. > > jcr > > -- "This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity." -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote: >> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> > J.C. Roberts wrote: >> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2 >> > >> > Link with outdated info. >> > >> > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k >> > >> > Link with outdated info. >> > >> > > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making >> > > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous >> > > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly >> > > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? >> > >> > Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. >> > >> > A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g >> >it >> > >> > but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and >> > HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from >> > >> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git >> >(official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here) >> > >> > Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are >> > actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly >> > seen by the changes being made over time. >> > >> > So let's everybody calm down, ok? >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> >Jeff >> >> Jeff, >> >> Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say >> someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository, >> removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put >> it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they >> are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license >> removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere. >> >> You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not >> been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or >> whatever project? > > But that isn't the situation being discussed. You've sent this mail to the > *LINUX* *KERNEL* ML, not the MadWifi ML. The patches in question were not > accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send mail > related to them. You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. I sincerely hope your fellow developers will not cut you off if you make a similar mistake. I know mine wont. What you are saying is, a Copyright violation done by someone else is Somebody Else's Problem (tm). There are a couple of issues with this point of view: First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. There have been complete silence from the leaders of their own community (Linux Kernel developers, FSF, ...) all perhaps used your argument to convince themselves that this is not their problem. However, from an outsider point of view, this lack of silence means an agreement to something that is ethically and legally wrong. Furthermore, this is a case about collaboration and cooperation between GPL and BSD developers. I believe they share some common goals related to freedom and improvement of Open Source software. This case illustrates some important issues that should interest ALL free software developers: 1) How tricky code sharing between different projects can be even when intents and goals are pretty much alike. 2) MANY developers on BOTH sides have NO clue about the laws and ethics associated with handling Copyrights and Licenses. 3) The copyrights and licenses are the foundations of our work. We put out great usually volunteer work, to create and improve. The licenses specify the terms and conditions under which we allow our work to be used. When we allow ANY license violation to occur, it affects our own work, regardless of the license on it. > *PLEASE* go do a Google search or check the MadWifi site for their discussion > list/forum/whatever and complain there. This has been done. Really. They have been contacted privately before the issue became public. Got no results. The issue is then made public, with the results you see now. This is no longer a MadWifi problem. >> No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal >> getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart. > > Yes, true, but you are attacking people who haven't done anything wrong. And > by your own words, Mr. Roberts, OpenBSD has violated peoples > copyrights: "Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took > some GPL code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that > cases was just as illegal," Sometimes inaction is wrong. In case of the OpenBSD Broadcom driver using parts of the GPL driver which was under construction and prematurely committed to a public repository, NONE of the OpenBSD dev
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eben Moglen wrote: > Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's > instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts > concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means > the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping > lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through > line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is > not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, > and to make policy recommendations Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations which very simply reads: "steal and infect everything you possibly can and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received." http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/ As you do your imaginary "painstaking reconstruction" the whole world can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed "spirit" of your "steal-alike" license because you refuse to pass on the rights you have received. > The required work has been made more arduous because some people have > chosen not to cooperate in good faith. When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention of cooperating in good faith with anyone. > But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like > "theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea Speaking of "Really Bad Ideas," you trained us. The only time we get any form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push your "free as in koolaid" political agenda there will be people like me who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your stalling tactics and your legal bullying. I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell. jcr
Re: Wasting our Freedom
J.C. Roberts wrote: You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros, the GNU project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you are all one large project working together. Lumping the FSF, the SFLC, and Linux Kernel developrs all in the same boat is not fundimentally different from claiming that there is no difference between OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Dragonfly, and on and on and on. Spend some time on LKML. There are enormous cultural and viewpoint differences just there. While the level of acrimony is several notches lower than here, they are infinitely less monolithic. Presuming even that Linux Kernel developers speak with one voice flies in the face of facts. Despite the fact that Linux uses the GPL, there is more ideological common ground between OpenBSD and GNU/FSF/SFLC. While there are distinct differences there are also some strongly held shared principles. Linux development is most strongly characterized by pragmatism over principle from the top down. To the extent that pragmatism is the defining principle. The primary offense here was the acts of a few - possibly one, Linux developer. To my knowledge nothing done that Theo, Reyk or others on OpenBSD-Misc are complaining about has found its way into any public linux source or repository. That was not the case when the shoe was on the other foot. While some - including some important and influential people on Linux lists have expressed oppinions that there is nothing wrong with changing Reyk's license, that is not the same as having accepted or published infringing code. It was my understanding that the SFLC had made a specific legal sugestion that I thought was legal but disengenuous, but that appears not to be the case. It appears the SFLC is still working on the matter, so maligning them (or others) for an oppinion they have not issued is pretty ethically challenged too. This whole legalistic who is stealing what from whom debate is ludicrous anyway. Both Linux and OpenBSD developers are free to use each others work as documentation for the hardware in question, and develop new drivers, firmware, ... that does not infringe. Just as Reyk's work does not infringe on Atheros, any sufficiently competent developer (including Atheros, Broadcom, ..) can take Reyk's work and create something new that does not infringe on Reyk's. Copyright does not grant Atheros an absolute monopoly in firmware for their hardware, much less create a similar monopoly for Reyk. Linux and OpenBSD developer's have two choices. Strong cooperation: Agree to license their work under terms acceptable to the each OS. Or Weak cooperation: stand aside and watch as developers from the other OS develop their own drivers/firmware possibly using your work as a resource - with or without credit. Even the latter with significant duplication of effort would take less time than the rhetoric that has been expended on this issue, or the legal time the SFLC is likely to spend. One of the central features - atleast as I perceived it of FOSS has been that proprietary work, and legal roadblocks are obstacles to program around. -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the above press release. Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address, there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL. Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing, after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option, are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is well-deserved? It is a press release, and an old one at that. There is no particular obligation to be fair, complete, or credit everyone with everything. It might have been politically wise - particularly as there are mentions of Linux and other developers to include OpenBSD and Reyk. Of course before posting it they sould have asked for individual critiques from every member of the FOSS community. What the SFLC is trying to do is assure that Reyk get's everything his license requires, everytime his work is used or is the basis for a derivative work. That is not the same as assuring that he gets credit everytime Atheros, Linux, or OpenHAL are mentioned. In the specific release you are pointing to, the issue the SFLC was resolving was whether the Linux Atheros driver or OpenHAL infringed on Atheros copyrights - a completely unrelated issue to the current dispute. While only Linux and the Linux wireless system maintainer are mentioned, the SFLC basically cleared the OpenHAL project and probably by implication the BSD Atheros drivers from copyright claims by Atheros. In essence rather than maligning Reyk they have agreed to defend his work should Atheros ever raise a claim, They may not have named him or OpenBSD specifically, but they have placed their impramatur on his work. While credit might have been nice too, the SFLC is basically saying the OpenHAL reverse engineering work was well done and does not violate Atheros's copyrights. The SFLC did Reyk and the OpenBSD community a favor. They did it for free. They did it at the request of Linux developers, and that is who they mentioned in their release. -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." Albert Einstein
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote: > On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > J.C. Roberts wrote: > > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2 > > > > Link with outdated info. > > > > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k > > > > Link with outdated info. > > > > > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making > > > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous > > > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly > > > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? > > > > Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. > > > > A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g > >it > > > > but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and > > HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git > > (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here) > > > > Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are > > actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly > > seen by the changes being made over time. > > > > So let's everybody calm down, ok? > > > > Regards, > > > > Jeff > > Jeff, > > Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say > someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository, > removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put > it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they > are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license > removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere. > > You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not > been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or > whatever project? But that isn't the situation being discussed. You've sent this mail to the *LINUX* *KERNEL* ML, not the MadWifi ML. The patches in question were not accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send mail related to them. *PLEASE* go do a Google search or check the MadWifi site for their discussion list/forum/whatever and complain there. > No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal > getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart. Yes, true, but you are attacking people who haven't done anything wrong. And by your own words, Mr. Roberts, OpenBSD has violated peoples copyrights: "Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took some GPL code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that cases was just as illegal," If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD license. And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only people that accepted the patches in question. > If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the > people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code, > then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it. *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate Reyk's copyright. > Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all > of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the > GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a > criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven > to be guilty code theft. > > After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the > horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux > source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other > than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this > point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now > stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now > missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on > the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they > now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their > assertion about the way you normally operate. > > You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still > practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people. > By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code > theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the > GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft, > you are weakening your own license.
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote: > > We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and > > we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us > > instead of helping. > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/ > > As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems. > > As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates > the issue at hand. > > Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now. Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the above press release. Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address, there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL. Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing, after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option, are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is well-deserved? http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258 C.
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
Thanks for the detailed response. There have also been some very articulate and fact-oriented responses here from the OpenBSD Misc list as well. I will repeat and elaborate on what I wrote in my first response which I gave the subject "Divide and conquer (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)" Although there are some valid concerns regarding workflow between projects of different licensing families, keep in mind that 1) a license (ie. GPL, BSD, or other) is simply another tool 2) some outside FOSS would like nothing better than to divide FOSS up and set the factions against each other Intentional trolls (agent provacateur) are part of the bag of tricks available to the political groups that have much to gain by playing the various FOSS projects off against each other. Various political parties and factions, not the least of which is MS, lose out if we use our time effectively or if the general public start to understand and apply principles that make for sound, secure, and interoperable systems. Bickering with or harranging the FSF, OBSD, or any other project is less useful than coding, documenting, debugging (even workflow debugging) or teaching. It plays right into MS' media strategy of "Saturate, Diffuse, and Confuse" by filling up the communications channels with noise, thus drowning or diluting the useful material and burning out the casual observer. One of the common tactics seen again and again, including in this case, is the re-circulation of outdated and incorrect sources. Some of the people doing the bickering may just be plainly and simply less than knowledgeable and further handicapped by inability to express themselves. Others may just be 'tards easily goading into action by an agent provacateur and, unless proven otherwise, should be treated as the first group. Regards, -Lars
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote: > We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and > we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us > instead of helping. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/ As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems. As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates the issue at hand. Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now.
Re: Wasting our Freedom
Am 16.09.2007 um 12:05 schrieb J.C. Roberts: Can I ask a question here? You're getting worked up over nothing. Open Source doesn't work without Open Hardware. The level of the software is approaching a good level to use for Open Hardware, IMO. While it's your time to relax the hardware hackers are at turn now, don't you think? Thanks. -p On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote: Secondly, what the HELL is with you guys and the personal attacks?!?!? You said I am "hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual liar"??? You are right and I apologize. I've received plenty of personal attacks from your group, and failed to hold my temper when dealing with you. You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros, the GNU project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you are all one large project working together. When some part of your project is indulging in code theft, it makes all of you look bad, regardless if it's upstream, downstream, sidestream or otherwise. When linux/gpl developers and linux/gpl lawyers refuse to take a stance against code theft, you look like one big happy family doing everything you can to put as much code as possible under your preferred license regardless if it's illegal or immoral. I knew darn well that I wouldn't be winning any new friends in the linux/gpl/gnu camp by voicing an unpopular opinion to your project, but after being ignored, you too would want to find the people on the other side with the spine to stand up and say code theft is wrong. Would you stand by quietly, tolerate being ignored, and accept delay tactics of unethical lawyers if the roles were reverse? Would you be willing to be called every untoward name in the book by voicing your dissenting opinions clearly and loudly? I have. jcr
Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On Sunday, 16 September 2007, J.C. Roberts wrote: Let's say someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository, removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they are older than the originals. Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven to be guilty code theft. After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. None of this has happened. What has happened is that people who do not have full possession of the facts and have no legal expertise-- people whom from the very beginning we have been trying to help--have made irresponsible charges and threatened lawsuits, thus slowing down our efforts to help them. It might be useful to recall the first stage of this process, when OpenBSD developers were accused of misappropriating Atheros code, and SFLC investigated and proved that no such misappropriation had occurred? Wild accusations about our motives are even more silly than they are false. We understand that attribution issues are critically important to free software developers; we are accustomed to the strong feelings that are involved in such situations. In the fifteen years I have spent giving free legal help to developers throughout the community, attribution disputes have been, always, the most emotionally charged. But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like "theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea, because once some people started using that language--thus making adversaries rather than collaborators of themselves--I had no choice but to ask my clients and my colleagues to stop communicating with them. Let me therefore point out one last time that if the threats of litigation and bluster about crime and malpractice--none of which has the slightest basis in fact or law--were withdrawn, we would be able to resume detailed communication with everyone who has a stake in the outcome. Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, and to make policy recommendations, if possible, that would result in all projects, under both GPL and ISC, having full access to all code on their preferred terms, on an *ongoing* basis, with full respect for everyone's legal rights. We continue to believe those policy goals are achievable in this situation. The required work has been made more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good faith. But we will complete the work as soon as we can, and we will, as Mr Garvik says, follow the community's practice of complete publication, so everyone can see all the evidence. We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us instead of helping. -- Eben Moglenv: 212-461-1901 Professor of Law, Columbia Law School f: 212-580-0898 moglen@ Founding Director, Software Freedom Law Centercolumbia.edu 1995 Broadway (68th Street), fl #17, NYC 10023softwarefreedom.org
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote: > Secondly, what the HELL is with you guys and the personal > attacks?!?!? You said I am "hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual > liar"??? You are right and I apologize. I've received plenty of personal attacks from your group, and failed to hold my temper when dealing with you. You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros, the GNU project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you are all one large project working together. When some part of your project is indulging in code theft, it makes all of you look bad, regardless if it's upstream, downstream, sidestream or otherwise. When linux/gpl developers and linux/gpl lawyers refuse to take a stance against code theft, you look like one big happy family doing everything you can to put as much code as possible under your preferred license regardless if it's illegal or immoral. I knew darn well that I wouldn't be winning any new friends in the linux/gpl/gnu camp by voicing an unpopular opinion to your project, but after being ignored, you too would want to find the people on the other side with the spine to stand up and say code theft is wrong. Would you stand by quietly, tolerate being ignored, and accept delay tactics of unethical lawyers if the roles were reverse? Would you be willing to be called every untoward name in the book by voicing your dissenting opinions clearly and loudly? I have. jcr
Re: Wasting our Freedom
That's the wonderful thing about open development: our mistakes, and the corrections made to fix mistakes, are out in the open for all to see. And we wouldn't have it any other way. Jeff
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: > J.C. Roberts wrote: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2 > > Link with outdated info. > > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k > > Link with outdated info. > > > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making > > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous > > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly > > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? > > Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. > > A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g >it > > but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and > HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git > (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here) > > Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are > actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly > seen by the changes being made over time. > > So let's everybody calm down, ok? > > Regards, > > Jeff Jeff, Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository, removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere. You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or whatever project? No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart. If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code, then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it. Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven to be guilty code theft. After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their assertion about the way you normally operate. You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people. By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft, you are weakening your own license. jcr
