login
Search
In a recent series of patches posted to the Linux Kernel mailing list, it was proposed that some imported Atheros wireless device drivers be re-licensed, some from a dual-BSD/GPL license, others from a modified BSD license, all to a pure GPLv2 license. Christoph Hellwig asked, "is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.." Luis Rodriguez suggested that there was no choice, "technically the best we can do is to leave the license as dual licensed, but keep in that technically that means nothing and is just for show, the GPL is what would apply as its derivative work and is the most restrictive license."
The patch series was also discussed on OpenBSD's -misc mailing list where it was asked, "is Reyk [Floeter] and others working on this drivers code dual licensed (from the diff it doesn't seem like it is, since I see a BSD 3 Clause)? Also say I submit a patch for this driver, does that mean this will have to be dual licensed also or can I choose if it is BSD 3 Clause or GPLv2?" Theo de Raadt replied pointing out that there are two parts to the driver, one part written by Reyk Floeter, and another part written by Sam Leffler, "Reyk's code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. He has explicitly stated that his code is not dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He's the author, he said so. None else can add a GPL to it." He went on to note that the files written by Sam Leffler are dual licensed with the clause, "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," stressing that 'alternatively' means 'or', "that means that if anyone makes changes to that file and distributes it, after their changes are in the file then EITHER license will apply."
From: Jiri Slaby [email blocked]
To: [email blocked]
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:00:50 -0400
ath5k, license is GPLv2
The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby [email blocked]
---
commit 330c2ab9a53ddce27003218bd546034e8eeeff17
tree b24cecd991fbe3046d5c5269c61e0090427e4fd3
parent ceeaf6b9aac9daaa41ec38fbba3d2c1972af4470
author Jiri Slaby [email blocked] Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:27:51 +0200
committer Jiri Slaby [email blocked] Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:27:51 +0200
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h | 12 +-----------
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c | 22 +++-------------------
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h | 33 +--------------------------------
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c | 13 +------------
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h | 12 +-----------
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h | 31 +------------------------------
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c | 4 +---
drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h | 4 +---
8 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
index 0c6f3f5..c76b97b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
@@ -2,17 +2,7 @@
* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [email blocked]
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [email blocked]
*
- * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
- *
- * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
- * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
- * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
- * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
- * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
- * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
- * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
#ifndef _ATH5K_H
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
index 5ee36b5..8703988 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
@@ -4,25 +4,9 @@
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [email blocked]
* 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.
- *
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
+
#define ATH_PCI_VERSION "0.9.5.0-BSD"
#include <linux/version.h>
@@ -2530,5 +2514,5 @@ module_exit(exit_ath_pci);
MODULE_AUTHOR("Jiri Slaby");
MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Support for Atheros 802.11 wireless LAN cards.");
MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE("Atheros WLAN cards");
-MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
MODULE_VERSION(ATH_PCI_VERSION " (EXPERIMENTAL)");
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
index 15560ad..aa07dfb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
@@ -2,38 +2,7 @@
* Copyright (c) 2002-2007 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
- * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
- * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
- * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
- * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
- * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
- * OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
- * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
- * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
- * IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
- * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
- * THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
- *
- * $FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/ath/if_athvar.h,v 1.20 2005/01/24 20:31:24 sam Exp $
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
/*
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
index a15aa21..3c44179 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
@@ -3,18 +3,7 @@
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [email blocked]
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [email blocked]
*
- * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
- *
- * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
- * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
- * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
- * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
- * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
- * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
- * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
- *
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
/*
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
index 55ae849..3d24d48 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
@@ -2,17 +2,7 @@
* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [email blocked]
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [email blocked]
*
- * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
- *
- * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
- * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
- * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
- * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
- * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
- * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
- * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
#include <linux/delay.h>
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h
index c6142d2..870efa1 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h
@@ -2,36 +2,7 @@
* Copyright (c) 2007 Nick Kossifidis [email blocked]
* 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
- * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
- * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
- * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
- * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
- * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
- * OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
- * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
- * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
- * IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
- * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
- * THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
/*
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
index c345da8..067c837 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
@@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
/*
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Reyk Floeter [email blocked]
*
- * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
/*
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h
index ebaeabe..d36bec6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h
@@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
/*
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Reyk Floeter [email blocked]
*
- * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/
#ifndef _IEEE80211_REGDOMAIN_H_
From: Christoph Hellwig [email blocked]
To: Jiri Slaby [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:11:55 +0100
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> ath5k, license is GPLv2
>
> The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc..
From: Luis R. Rodriguez [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:11:03 -0400
On 8/28/07, Christoph Hellwig [email blocked] wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
> >
> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>
> Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
> done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
> work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc..
Technically the best we can do is to leave the license as dual
licensed, but keep in that technically that means nothing and is just
for show, the GPL is what would apply as its derivative work and is
the most restrictive license. This applies to any other driver in the
kernel right now with a dual license tag.
Luis
From: Johannes Berg [email blocked]
To: Jiri Slaby [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:59:42 +0200
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:00 -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
Since the BSD people are already getting upset about (for various
reasons among which seem to be a clear non-understanding) I'd suggest
changing it to:
+ * Parts of this file were originally licenced under the BSD licence:
+ *
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
> * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
> * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
> *
> * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
> * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
> * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
> * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
> * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
> * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
+ *
+ * Further changes to this file since the moment this notice was extended
+ * are now distributed under the terms of the GPL version two as published
+ * by the Free Software Foundation <yaddaya>
johannes
From: Jiri Slaby [email blocked]
To: "Johannes Berg" [email blocked]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:35:05 -0200
On 8/29/07, Johannes Berg [email blocked] wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:00 -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>
> Since the BSD people are already getting upset about (for various
> reasons among which seem to be a clear non-understanding) I'd suggest
> changing it to:
yes, please. Can somebody do it, I'm away from my box.
From: Darrin Chandler [email blocked]
Subject: Linux Driver Violates BSD License
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:35:36 -0700
Normally I wouldn't repeat undeadly stuff here on misc@, but I'm sure
many of you will want to know.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634
And if you do this kind of thing, it's worth letting the rest of the
world in on this:
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Lnux_Driver_Violated_BSD_License
--
Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG
[email blocked] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
From: djgoku [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Linux Driver Violates BSD License
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:06:48 -0500
On 8/28/07, Darrin Chandler [email blocked] wrote:
> Normally I wouldn't repeat undeadly stuff here on misc@, but I'm sure
> many of you will want to know.
>
> http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634
>
>
> And if you do this kind of thing, it's worth letting the rest of the
> world in on this:
> http://digg.com/linux_unix/Lnux_Driver_Violated_BSD_License
I am currently having a discussion about dual licensing, and am a bit
confused. Is Reyk and others working on this drivers code dual
licensed (from the diff it doesn't seem like it is, since I see a BSD
3 Clause)? Also say I submit a patch for this driver, does that mean
this will have to be dual licensed also or can I choose if it is BSD 3
Clause or GPLv2?
From: Theo de Raadt [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Linux Driver Violates BSD License
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 23:32:07 -0600
> On 8/28/07, Darrin Chandler [email blocked] wrote:
> > Normally I wouldn't repeat undeadly stuff here on misc@, but I'm sure
> > many of you will want to know.
> >
> > http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634
> >
> >
> > And if you do this kind of thing, it's worth letting the rest of the
> > world in on this:
> > http://digg.com/linux_unix/Lnux_Driver_Violated_BSD_License
>
> I am currently having a discussion about dual licensing, and am a bit
> confused. Is Reyk and others working on this drivers code dual
> licensed (from the diff it doesn't seem like it is, since I see a BSD
> 3 Clause)? Also say I submit a patch for this driver, does that mean
> this will have to be dual licensed also or can I choose if it is BSD 3
> Clause or GPLv2?
Well, there are two parts to the Atheros driver.
Reyk's code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. So there is no
issue with Reyk's code. He has explicitly stated that his code is not
dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He's the author, he
said so. None else can add a GPL to it. (No matter how much Luis
begs and pleads and whines).
The other part of the driver was written by Sam Leffler. Sam's code,
though, is dual-licenced with a 4-term BSD'ish license (it has only 3
terms, but the wrong term was deleted, and the attribution term was
actually strengthened -- read the license). The GPL annotation in the
licenses says specifically --
* 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.
Note that word "Alternatively".
That means "or".
That means that if anyone makes changes to that file and distributes it,
after their changes are in the file then EITHER license will apply.
Since it says "Alternatively" / "Or", we can simply take any of those
new changes UNDER THE LICENSE WE PREFER, and commit them to our file
which is NOT dual licensed. If they want to use the GPL to restrict
our use -- that is us, the original authors, see -- they should work
on seperate files.
Note there are some files out there that don't use words like "or" or
"alternatively" when they mix licenses. One must read what the
license says very carefully. Trying to brush everything into the same
simple catagories will get you nowhere.
As a commentary, it seems as if many people have tired of the "make my
own license" game, and now are playing the "mix licenses in my own
way" game. And the "interpret it in the way that is most beneficial
to me" game.
Simpler said, I don't know why they have to be such jerks. Luis in
particular has been ragging on Reyk for years to dual license his
code, and won't take no for an answer. It's already totally free code,
but apparently there is some stupid Linus rule that says that all the
code must not be free .... noooo.... it can't just be free, it has to
be SPECIFICALLY GPL. Now I know that's not the truth, because the Linux
tree is FULL of objectional code that either has CSRG licences on it, or
no license at all.
Now he's saying that Linux people should basically ignore Reyk's
license. Well screw you Luis, that is precisely not what you will do
-- you uneducated twit. Copyright is law. You will obey it.
Anyways, hope that explained the question you asked, FOR THIS PARTICULAR
CASE. As I say, read the exact files, and the exact licenses.
IANAL, but dual licensing
IANAL, but dual licensing always means that you can chose one license or the other, as you like.
After all GPL (2 and 3) states clearly "with no further restrictions", so you can surely not impose both GPL restrictions AND another license's restrictions (the point of GPL is exactly making impossible to impose further restrictions).
Yes, Theo is simply right.
Yes, Theo is simply right. He is also right that one is not allowed to remove a license (e.g. the BSD license). You're never allowed to remove a copyright notice. NEVER. You are however allowed to specify which code (files) are licensed under which license.
The reason he's pissed is also obvious. If he wanted Linux kernel developers to slap their own license on the code he wrote he'd put the code in public domain or put it under a license which (specifically) allows that. Clearly, he (or Reyk) have not done this. The BSD license leaves space for ego recognition to be preserved, and this can be valuable.
A little riot was started because of the license statement being removed (see this URL and http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634 ) however this kind of behaviour (starting public riot) was started by other Linux kernel developers (see http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/07/1618239 ) so Linux kernel developers although not the same ones as the ones who started it on the latter URL got what they asked for: a public riot opposed to a private resolving after which news can be brought out in a more peaceful manner. What comes around comes around!
He's 100% wrong. The
He's 100% wrong.
The original code will be dual licensed (or licensed under the BSD).
The new code will be GPL (if wanted by the new contributer). No way around it, and ditributing that code without the GPL license is copyright violation.
That said, stripping the original BSD license terms, and distributing the result is also copyright violation. Of course Theo-baby and the OpenBSD-kindergarten is shooting at everyone, instead of the single developer who did this stupid change, but that is to be expected...
"The original code will be
"The original code will be dual licensed (or licensed under the BSD)."
Will be?
I don't think you understand what happened.
Heres what happened:
Code C1, C2, and C3 are part of the same piece of software.
P1 licensed C1 under L1 and L2.
P2 licensed C2 under L2.
P3 licensed C3 under L1 and removed P2's notices of which code was licensed under L2.
The violation is the part after and. P3 shouldn't have done this. This is what Theo announces with a lot of hoompa, and he is correct in his assessment.
I heard the issue is fixed btw. Next customer, please.
I'm talking about this part:
I'm talking about this part: "That means that if anyone makes changes to that file and distributes it,
after their changes are in the file then EITHER license will apply.
Since it says "Alternatively" / "Or", we can simply take any of those
new changes UNDER THE LICENSE WE PREFER, and commit them to our file
which is NOT dual licensed. If they want to use the GPL to restrict
our use -- that is us, the original authors, see -- they should work
on seperate files."
Which is just plain wrong.
"I'm talking about this
"I'm talking about this part: "That means that if anyone makes changes to that file and distributes it,
after their changes are in the file then EITHER license will apply.
Since it says "Alternatively" / "Or", we can simply take any of those
new changes UNDER THE LICENSE WE PREFER, and commit them to our file
which is NOT dual licensed."
IANAL, but if my understanding is correct, it's doesn't sound very practical to take code from a file that is dual licensed under 2 open source licenses and include it in another file that is licensed under a single open source license.
In the same way you can't strip the BSD license from the stuff that is only licensed with the BSD license, you can't strip either license from the dual licensed code, so while you may only be bound by the license you agree with the next person may choose to comply with the terms of the other license. Each file should indicate which license it uses, so having one file be BSD licensed and another be BSD/GPL licensed is not such a big deal, to include BSD and BSD/GPL licensed code in the same file and have to itemize and list individually the codes snippets that are licensed under different terms sounds like a nightmare.
You could have a file with all the BSD only code and a patch with all the BSD/GPL code or vice verse, that would at least be manageable, but doesn't really sound much better to me.
Later, Seeker
People can already use all
People can already use all code from BSD without any stupid copyleft. So what's wrong with the Linux zealots? Aren't they able to just give tribute to the developer? Linux is Kindergarten, they are talking of freedom, but they are indeed talking of enforcing a stupid religion together with a disrespectful behaviour.
You don't need to "shot" at people which are mature enough to think for themselves.
Pfft
You have no clue what you're talking about.
Firstly, there was no removal of copyrights, so your whole post is based
on an incorrect assumption.
Secondly, do you even understand the point of dual licensing? Do you
realize that an author can choose not to contribute to a project which
is licensed in a manner to which they object? Don't come here and lecture
people about freedom without any idea what you're talking about. That is
all.
To be fair, the copyright
To be fair, the copyright lines were never removed. Just the license the Linux developer chose NOT to use. And of course you are allowed to delete licenses in a dual licensing case. When the license says "use license A OR license B", when you choose license B you are allowed to shorten it down to "we use license B".
Read again please.
Nobody cares about the files that are/were dual licensed. People care about the stuff writen by Reyk Floeter that is *not* dual licensed. In those files the ISC license was flat out removed and replaced by a GPLv2 statement which is blatant copyright violation.
Ahh bullshit
Get your facts straight. There was no copyright violation. There
was never any BSD licensed code distributed under GPL. There was
a simple proposal raised that would incorrectly have removed the
BSD license.
The mistake was pointed out, and the original poster retracted
their proposal and accepted a different approach.
If you want to find a copyright violation, you need look no
further than the blatent distribution of a GPL wireless driver
under BSD license by the OpenBSD developers. And this was even
after the reverse engineers had publicly posted specifications
of how the hardware works that could have been used by the
OpenBSD to write a cleanroom driver.
open source licenses
GPL people are very evangelistic, very imperialistic, and leading a charmed life that will soon end. In a recent judicial case, which has followed decades of judicial results, the Artistic License was deemed a contract issue, not a copyright issue. In US of A, that means all future disputes will end up in State Courts (contract law is a state perogative). The Federal judiciary is sidestepping these challenges to the DMCA!
What does this mean? It means that anyone can virtually ignore the provisions of all open source licenses, because the Federal remedy, based on the DMCA blocks activities through enjoining them, while the state remedy merely establishes damages - and since GPL and all open source licenses give the code away, there is no basis for monetary damages. Hence, any group that sues for GPL contract violations will be considered frivolous and subject to payment of the defendants legal fees.
We all know there are hundreds of GPL software applications that have ignored the GPL, even one distro ignores it! Now, it is legal to ignore it. Hence, the BSD license will survive, but not many others.
Whatever.
If the GPL is invalid, so what? Nothing else gives you the right to copy the software. You're liable for copyright infringement if you don't have permission to copy something but you copy it anyway (outside the bounds of "fair use").
Creative works automatically enjoy copyright protection under the Berne copyright convention. If you ignore the GPL, then all you have is a copyrighted work and no permission to copy it. Oooooooooh. Removing the GPL doesn't place GPLed work into the public domain. Rather it makes it impossible to distribute them legally until the authors/copyright holders find a different license to relicense it under.
It's not surprising that a license is a contract, and that licenses like this can fall under contract law. I don't see how that nullifies the copyright associated with code. Just because the license that extends the right to copy can be interpreted as a contract doesn't mean copyright law isn't involved, or is somehow irrelevant.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
Really
Are you sure there is no basis for monetary damages? On one hand you seem
to be saying that the only way to establish a basis for monetary damages
is by looking at the position of the plaintiff had the copyright not been
violated. On the other hand, in the case of GPL code, that would mean they
could get access to the source code with the value added to it with the
defendant's changes. Why isn't that a reasonable basis? (honest question,
I'm not a lawyer).
You're ignorant of copyright
You're ignorant of copyright law. There are statutory damages in addition to actual damages.
I don't know what IANAL
I don't know what IANAL stands for...?
What I don't get is the point of dual-license?
Say I'm a company and I want to use this code, I can say 'ok, I'll take it but I'll let myself be forced by the GPL to re-release the code' and not choose to use the BSD licensed code and decide later if I want to re-release the modified code or not.
If I'm understanding this correctly, isn't dual-licensing just redundant? Have it 99.99% free for whatever use you need (BSDL) or have it 50% free (GPL), but get a lawyer to read you the GPL license and let you know what you can and cannot do because you have limitations to what's defined and/or interpreted as 'free and not free'.
IANAL == I Am Not A Lawyer
IANAL == I Am Not A Lawyer
A third party can create a significant schism
IANAL, but I will attempt to answer.
You have effectively received two copies of the code in question. One copy is GPL and the other is BSD. Now do what you want with it. For example, you can ignore the BSD and fork the GPL copy with your modifications. Then you can put out the GPL fork for others to use under just the one license. Since you own the modifications though, you can also use the BSD copy and after modifying that use it in a closed source product. Over time, the public GPL-only fork you are hosting may diverge a lot from your BSD+modifications copy especially *if* different people own parts of the copyrights of the grown fork, as you won't be able to close off those modifications others contributed only as GPL (for the GPL fork). If you host the fork, you might not accept any contributions unless copyrights are assigned to you or you get the code also as eg BSD. In this latter case, you will be able to keep the BSD copy tracking the GPL public copy but you may not get as many contributors if you ask that they make this copyright/licensing deal with you. [Many companies do ask for something like this just so that they can keep their internal copy tracking all improvements to the GPL public version].
Also, keep in mind that others may also get the dual license. From their point of view, their GPL versions will be able to track your public GPL fork, but their BSD version will not since they will only have GPL access to the improvements made on what you are hosting.
The above is an example of a possible scenario to show how the two licensed copies can diverge. The bottom line is that the GPL is not the BSD so having files licensed both ways creates different opportunities. [Also, note that a GPL fork may come from a group that wants to modify the project extensively but license the whole thing only as pure GPL. This fork may eventually become dominant and all the new stuff would be available to the public only as GPL.]
Until a signficant GPL-only fork arises or until the original licensor changes the dual licensing terms, all will go on normally with everyone having access to everything public effectively as if the terms were BSD but without the issue that occured recently being discussed in this very story since there would simultaneously exist a BSD and a GPL copy. In the case of the Linux kernel, dual licensed files would not present any problems as the GPL version would be taken without even caring that another licensed copy existed at one point. In this case, the originally dual licensed files and the copy placed in the kernel could diverge over time with the kernel version's modifications only accessible as GPL.
Thank you!
Wow, thank you for the great reply! Much appreciated!
We must not forget...
We must not forget that Linux, GNU, OpenSolaris and *BSD are all free open source software operating systems, and that we are all friends!
Happy time!
Sharing is caring.
Are you new here?
Are you new here? Linux, GNU, OpenSolaris, and *BSD friends?!
Just kidding. Free and open source software is about sharing. And most of the time it works. Unfortunately its only news when it doesn't work.
We must not forget that
We must not forget that Linux has not got any friends, because they don't like other free operating systems at all. So the spread FUD, like this company in Redmond.
Agreed 100%!
Agreed 100%!
Are you that guy that does
Are you that guy that does paintings on tv? '...Happy Trees' or are you one of the Care Bears?
Bob Ross. Too bad he's
Bob Ross. Too bad he's dead.
Just a pissing contest
If memory serves, a GPL driver was incorporated inside BSD code and but instead of privately discussing the matter, a public circus was made as it was 'a GPL violation', so now there is again a circus because there's a 'BSD copyright removal', even though it's only one developer who made a mistake..
*Sigh*, frankly are technical websites all turning into theregister? It's funny when such 'petty drammy' are shown on tabloid website not on osnews, kerneltrap, etc..
As before a tempest in a tea pot..
>If memory serves, a GPL
>If memory serves, a GPL driver was incorporated inside BSD code
*If memory fails*, a GPL driver was *not* incorporated inside *usable* BSD code. It was just online in CVS to work with it, but Linux kindergarten doesn't know how real software engineering is done.
But this BSD code is free, real *free*, you have to pay just tribute to the developer. But in Linux kindergarten disrespectful behaviour and spreading FUD is the usual way as you can see at this place.
To be fair, the BSD driver
To be fair, the BSD driver was actually *committed* in their public archive (from which it cannot be deleted, the revision will still be there). The Linux driver was never committed anywhere, just discussed on the mailing list. The code that was actually committed in the Linux case was the "fixed" driver.
The Linux driver is
The Linux driver is "committed" to thousands of LKML mirrors worldwide. I guarantee you it has wider distribution.
Commit to mailing list? are
Commit to mailing list? are you kidding? What does a commit to mailing list mean? It has no meaning.
The mailing list message was
The mailing list message was a commit log.
If you still doubt, read the followup where he says he can't "fix it" because he's away from his computer. Fix what? A mailing list post? No, he meant reverting the commit.
Wrong
The mailing list message was a proposed patch.
The patch looks like a commit log because it has come from the author's
repository. AFAIK the author's tree isn't publically available, but if
it was, that wouldn't put Linux in violation if anything.
If I take a clone of a BSD tree, add some GPL licensed code with the BSD
license, does that put that BSD distribution in violation of copyright?
Have you really read all the facts here and are simply incapable of
understanding them that you keep posting stupid things, or are you just
glad to have something to hysterically shout about?
Yes... but not of the BSD
Yes... but not of the BSD copyright... it's the GPL's copyright that's been violated because there are other restrictions on the BSD code that aren't compatible with the GPL (the display clause).
You want to make sure everyone can get the code... so... you GPL it so the original authors can't use it so everyone has fair access to it... how is that fair? Dual license...
is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks'
http://kerneltrap.org/node/6692 You were complaining about being far behind BSD in reverse engineering wireless drivers... now that they're giving to you, you're going to cut them out... yeah... they're going to give you TONS of wireless drivers after this.
Idea: How about contributing all code under the public domain. Nobody can claim copyright on BSD code and since the GPL is a copyright (even though it's a copyleft) it can't be claimed on the public domain code. This means the BSD and GPL people can use it without problems.
Not a lawyer, not sure if it works.
The person who changed the code from BSD to GPL probably did a search/replace function deciding he'd release his changes under the GPL and wasn't bright enough to check the files first to see if some didn't have the GPL clause. I recommend not taking patches from someone this...
Only one of those was intended for reference to the above post... good luck figuring what the others are responses to.
Another armchair moron
OK, so how about I post a patch on some random public mailing list
to add GPL licensed code to a BSD distribution with the GPL license
stripped off?
That means it's been committed to their distribution and they are
automatically distributing it in violation of the license?
Hahahaha.
Licenses aside, Theo makes a
Licenses aside, Theo makes a giant out of a mouse.
I hope OpenBSD finds another leader. Theo's attitude is
1000x worse than Linus flaming Gnome and doint the OpenBSD
project as whole no favour. If you don't know what I mean,
dig out the older email conversations of Theo.
In other news today...
OpenBSD announces it will begin transitioning immediately to the new two (optionally three) clause Theo license. When asked to comment on the new license, namesake Theo de Raadt said that "it captures my sentiment pretty well considering the limits allowed on strong language in legal documents". He also noted that "although strictly not required, the optional clause (3) is highly recommended".
For the interested reader, a full transcription of the new license, which is currently waiting approval by the Open Source Initiative, follows below:
Copyright (blah blah blah)
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this code is provided under the following conditions:
1) You can do whatever the hell you want with this code, including, but not limited to, ripping it all off as the base of a multibillion dollar enterprise without such much as returning a single LOC, and then returning to spit on our unmarked graves in 50 years, as long as our names are left in a comment somewhere.
2) Notwithstanding (1), if "whatever the hell you want" even so much as involves thinking of erecting any sort of constraint to ensure things like the example in (1) do not occur, then (I HATE YOU YOU PIECE OF DOG VOMIT LOVING GPL FREAK WHO COULDN'T EVEN DEFINE FREE WITH A DICTIONARY ARGGGGAGGHH) no additional rights whatsoever are granted, and, if you even so much as look at this code, so help me and more if the full damages allowed under the law, including criminal prosecution, are not brought down on you.
3) Oh, and did we mention, we are responsible for OpenSSH.
Haha. Very good parody - I
Haha. Very good parody - I like it! :)
Quoting 1): If you had a
Quoting 1):
If you had a 'great idea' and that could make you into that 'multi-billion dollar enterprise', yet you didn't want the competition to take your modified code - for security or money reasons, etc. (as is one of the problems with the GPL) - or for other reasons such that you didn't want to have the GPL shoved down your throat and be controlled, dominated and governed by the rules of the GPL, but rather your own, then...
Wouldn't you be glad that the BSD license existed or would you rather keep working 9-5 and never get the chance in your life time to implement/sell your 'great idea' and become that billionaire?
Just curious.
It's all about 'choice' and without it, there's no such thing as the right tool for the job...
"You can do whatever the
"You can do whatever the hell you want with this code, including, but not limited to, ripping it all off as the base of a multibillion dollar enterprise without such much as returning a single LOC, and then returning to spit on our unmarked graves in 50 years, as long as our names are left in a comment somewhere."
1) So what? It's not "ripping off" if the code is free. That's why it's free. If someone "rips off" the free code, that doesn't prevent you from using the free code. BSD still survives after all this time. There will always be people with interest in sustaining the free branch, no matter what companies do.
2) Theo made a calm and rational post. You are making one full of nerd hate and rage.
And you're really gonna hate
And you're really gonna hate me for this... but I've gotta say it.
The GPL and Microsoft: Marketing done right! *RUNS*
http://waxy.org/archive/2004/07/09/jaleco_b.shtml
----I wish I were this selfless.
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2v3Compatibility
----Funny.... but isn't compatibilty important.
PS... you guys really need to get to working on a linux TTS engine so that audio programs can comply with the GPL v3!
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonvisualLegalNotices
I'm kidding... the GPLv2 is brilliant, v3 is drek with glimmers of what could have been. It's not what I want... but you seem to like it... enjoy. Personally, I've got a BSD design book I'm itching to read... and no free time.
GPL calls BSD a vanity license... But I'm reminded of how the head of the Gnu organization refuses to do an interview unless it's called GNU/Linux. Artists sign paintings and we don't complain... what's the difference? Personally, I'd like to know who wrote the code so I can ask them a question or ask for another license maybe.
Honestly, there's so much GPL-ed code I wish I could use. But... it's incompatible with code I'm already using. I wish all the GPL-ed code was public domain so I could combine everything together and create a new SUPER-OS to change the world. The SUPER-OS will exist... someday... but I won't be allowed to give away copies under the GPL. At least, once I have kids, they'll have it... and that'll be enough.
The GPL is a brilliant license... I just wish it were reserved for OS-es. We can all agree that every OS should come with source code and the ability to modify, without exception. (BSD, GPL, Whatever, I want to see source)
And now for the most important truth... Forget all this nonesense... fight software patents! They're the real threat... to everyone. That's what we need... the best way to unite people... a common enemy!
I'm the above (believe it or
I'm the above (believe it or not). I apologize for the claim of vanity license... can't find the quote... might be my memory again.
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
Under the GNU GPL
While this may be a noble strategy in terms of software sharing,
So... nevermind
Reading the BSD license,
Reading the BSD license, there is no clause that says no further restrictions can be added. But there is a clause which says that the license and copyright notice cannot be removed. So the legal thing to do for inclusion in Linux is to add GPL on top of the BSD license. What happens here is that the file effectively becomes GPL (since it is redistributed under the GPL and not BSD license), although the BSD license must never be removed.
For those who can't accept the reasoning above, here's a logically simpler (but longer) version: one can take OpenBSD sources and build it, then distribute the binaries for a sum of money, under a proprietary license, with proper attribution to OpenBSD developers, without redistributing the source code. This means that the Open Source property of that particular copy of OpenBSD is gone. Now another person takes OpenBSD sources and build it, then distribute the binaries and the source code, under the GPL v2 license, with proper attribution to OpenBSD developers, and without removing the original copyright and license. The former is more restrictive, while the latter is less restrictive. If the BSD license as used in OpenBSD is Open Source and is not restrictive, and the former act is allowed by law, then the latter (less restrictive) act is also logically allowed by law. This may not be a politically correct move, but it is perfectly legal.
What I think of Theo is that, he wants to say "I'm producing free code, take it and build your own proprietary software, just don't GPL it." The act of GPL'ing BSD licensed software might not be intended by the original developers, but it is perfectly legal -- that's life; that's copyright law; accept it.
No license is perfect, this is just one "flaw" of the BSD license, if looked at from a somewhat skewed perspective.
From a Linux user's point of view, my opinion on this matter is: just because something is legal does not mean it is the best action to take. Please just redistribute the files under the GPL v2 (this is allowed by the BSD license), but don't strip off the original copyright and license (so as to be faithful to the original license). Then, require changes to the main kernel tree to be under a BSD license, so that OpenBSD can benefit from the additions. After all, the code originated from them; without people like Reyk, we won't have this free driver right now, so please be grateful to them and send patches back (under the BSD license).
Note: I posted this comment yesterday (without logging in) and was told my comment was probably spam, and the admin will review it. But the review never happened, so I'm posting this again.
Even if you could
Even if you could redistribute the BSDed files under GPL, you cannot add such files to Linux, as Linux is already under GPL and GPL doesn't allow additional restrictions. In other words the BSD+GPL combo is incompatible with GPL.
non-OpenBSD developers and NDA's
How do you know there isn't already binary, BSD based code in the Linux kernel or other places that you say violates the GPL? In other words, for those non-OpenBSD developers who believe in non-FOSS that sign NDA's and include BLOBs (Binary Large OBjects), etc. that may already have code used from BSD.
Linux: Yay, a shiny new binary-only video driver - with a rootkit and oh, yes, this other binary-only driver that has serious security risks involved - yeah baby, yeah! Most Linux contributors/developers are defeating the original intent/purpose of Linux - as per his first public USENET? posting - and yet, Linus doesn't have any balls to stand up for FOSS as much and as good as Theo does. It's just too bad they can't work together directly on at least one common goal, other than Licensing...
Sorry, but for me, I'll stick to pure FOSS - OpenBSD - I guess OpenBSD the only such one left???
GPL and passing same rights as you receive.
The GPL takes great pains to say you MUST provide the user the same rights as you received. That seems like a very nice thing and one that should not be ignored.
So, if you received a file that allows for dual licenses, is it not a right that you had. Should you not respect that (if you choose GPL) and provide that same additional right of license choice when you distribute the files? I doubt that GPL would prohibit you from expanding on the GPL to allow the user even more rights and freedoms than it would provide alone.
Just a thought.
Initially your comment looks
Initially your comment looks trivial. Upon re-reading the GPL, however, I'm beginning to see that you have a good point there. Quoting GPL v2 (from the preamble, I'm not sure whether the preamble has any legal meaning)
In the quote above, it is specifically said that "you must give the recipients all the rights that you have". But one thing's not clear here: is the GPL talking about the rights that the GPL grants, or the original rights? I'm inclined to agree on the former, but I'm not entirely sure. Could you please elaborate your opinion on this?
Legally, I think one is entitled the right to choose one of the two licenses in a dual-license situation. Is the wording not "you may choose one of the licenses below" or "alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GPL"? The words expressly gives one the right to choose the license which he sees best fits his interests and needs. The GPL doesn't restrict additional rights, it only restricts additional restrictions. But as for myself, I would personally continue the dual-licensing and pass the choice on to someone else. I think if everybody does this, then there would be no problem: the file in question would be compatible with both the licenses, and this is the most flexible solution.
Answering the anonymous comment:
Yes, the GPL doesn't allow additional restrictions. But the BSD license doesn't add more restrictions; it has less restrictions than the GPL and the restrictions it imposes is merely a subset of the restrictions imposed by the GPL. The requirement
is considered normal copyright protection, and I doubt anybody would challenge it (assert that the above statement adds restrictions to the code). Therefore it is legal to add BSD-licensed files to Linux.
> Legally, I think one is
> Legally, I think one is entitled the right to choose one of the two licenses in a dual-license situation.
For your own use, yes.
But for distribution, you cannot modify the copyright legal document placed by the author on the file,
and thus, if you choose by editing it, you cannot distribute that. You must pass on the document exactly
as it is.
Please see my post on various forums about this. It is very interesting that the two of you have come up
with an argument specifically from the GPL that comes to the same conclusion, but Copyright law already has this one solved:
(1) Only the author may modify the copyright notice
(2) The licence says you may not delete it (to replace it with your a shrunken version).
So to distribute, you have to leave the license exactly as it is.
I'm well aware that someone
I'm well aware that someone other than the copyright holder cannot modify the license notice. But can one choose one of the licenses offered and put it on top of the file, so that the new license becomes the effective one?
For example, if a file has a structure like
then, can one put another license on top of it like
or even
I'm not a lawyer here, but I think this is legal, because we leave the copyright notice and license exactly as it is, while using the freedom given to us by choosing one of the licenses.
What do you think?