> 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 t
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
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 thi
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
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
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.
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 m
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
-
To unsubscribe
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
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
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 kvetchin
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
>
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 zombi
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 ac
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
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
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
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 communit
* 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
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
> "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 hav
[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 Li
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 messa
"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 avai
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
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 muc
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 co
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
"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 yo
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
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 licens
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 requi
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
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
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 giv
deleting this stupid thread...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
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 peop
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
> 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 diffe
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 l
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
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
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,
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 w
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 _no
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, Se
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.
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
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 "whateve
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 r
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 t
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
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,
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
> Do *you* read the GPL and tell me where exactly it does *explicitly*
> allow to change license notices at all. Ya know, that right is reserved
> by law and must be *explicitly* granted. So just not explicitly
> forbidding it isn't enough.
You are mistaken about the law and mistaken about the GP
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 g
"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
d
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
Hello!
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:57:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one
>> >license notice
>> >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one
> >license notice
> >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
> >derivative work still receives a dual license from the original aut
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
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>[...]
>If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one license notice
>from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
>derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to
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 deriva
* [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 Braue
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 developer
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 developer
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
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
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 h
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=1189
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
> You did say otherwise.
>
> Your claim was that "You can obtain, *from the GPL*, the right to remove
> a BSD license notice."
>
> This claim is bullshit.
No, it's not.
> You can get this right from the copyright holder, e.g. when he
> dual-licenced his code, but you can not get this right fr
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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubs
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 f
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 06:35:12PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > >...
> > > Again, one more time:
> > >
> > > 1) You can obtain, from the GPL, the right to remove a BSD
> > > license notice.
> > >...
>
> > I hope noo
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:19:14PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>...
> Now, in the case of the Atheros wireless code, the original author
> (Sam Leffler) has stated that as far as *his* code was concerned, he
> was willing to dual license it. However, in this case, he agreed to
> have the code dual-
Theodore Tso wrote:
Essentially, I agree with you. My only disagremeent with you is that I think
the problem starts sooner:
> However, consider a file which was originally BSD licensed. Now
> suppose it is modified (i.e., a derived work was created) and another
> author slaps on a BSD/GPL dual
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> >...
> > Again, one more time:
> >
> > 1) You can obtain, from the GPL, the right to remove a BSD
> > license notice.
> >...
> I hope noone believes this bullshit you are spreading.
How do you figure?
> When you incorpora
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> In responses and posts, there is over and over a huge confusion
> between two completely different issues. One is about whether you
> can modify licenses, the other is about whether you can modify
> license *notices*.
>
> Again, one
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:29:56PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>...
> Again, one more time:
>
> 1) You can obtain, from the GPL, the right to remove a BSD license notice.
>...
I hope noone believes this bullshit you are spreading.
When you incorporate BSD licenced code into a GPL'ed project it
Adrian Bunk writes:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:37:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you
> > > can choose
> > > the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
> > You can choose under which license you would like to
[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
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 offi
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 a
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:37:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
> > the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
>
> You can choose under which license you would like to receive the right to
> modify o
> Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose
> the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
You can choose under which license you would like to receive the right to
modify or distribute the code. But you cannot change the license that code
itself i
> 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
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
> >> develo
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
> du
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,
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 ques
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 l
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-wirel
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 wit
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
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
c
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
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.
>> >
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
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 ou
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
