login
Search
[bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him]
I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because
Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux
people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him
pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by
the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other
Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there
are even greater potential risks for how the various communities
interact.For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two
licenses can use the file in either way.... but if they distribute
the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the
existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have
statements which say that the license may not be removed.It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either
license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is
still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal
document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may
not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual
licensed, every time it is distributed.Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to
communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what
they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that
Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this
leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level,
a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers).
And there are possibilities t...
Hi!
I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks.
So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion.
I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD
users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD
people, and obviously from some trolls.I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and
repeat a few words:- I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL
or any kind of a "dual"-license.- The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and
even the warranty term.- Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for
entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the
controversial code.- This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion
about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they
just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things?I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think
about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved
in the linux tree. But PLEASE DON'T SPAM ME with any other mails about
this, even if you want to help/support me, I will talk to the relevant
people in private.Thanks!
reyk
Hi,
In order to make my mind about this subject...
You're complaining solely of the changes in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.hBut not in files:
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.hRight?
To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without
malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he
shouldn't.In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says:
"at your choice" you may distribute under the terms of the BSD
license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU
GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files
alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use
anymore.But it is incorrect in my point of view to have done so on the former 5
files.I hope it's those 5 files everyone is crying foul about...
Rui
--
You are what you see.
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Hi!
IMO no. For dual-licensing using "or", you may exert the rights granted
by either of the licenses. But neither BSD nor GPLv2 grant
re/sublicensing. So I think you must keep the dual-license intact.You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant
Kind regards,
Hannah.
So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base
code and GPL-only modifications) have?
It depends. In the case of BSD XOR GNU GPL v2 (which is what happens in 3
of the files changed) the contributor can:
* dual license his changes
* contribute them under the BSD
* contribute them under the GNU GPL v2Regards,
Rui--
Pzat!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Blah blah blah
Hello!
I'd think in essence, the "intersection" of the license of the original
work (the dual-license) and the license of the substantial
modifications/additions (GPL). However one must retain the original
dual-license, anyhow, in my eyes. For example stating that that
dual-license applies only to part of the (derived) work (i.e. that part
that's from the original work).Kind regards,
Hannah.
This is not the case.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157The word is alternatively, not "logical or".
Regards,
Rui--
P'tang!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a
paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. The
GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't
trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question.
Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones?If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose.
I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement
with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free
Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it.If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has.
The GNU GPL actually says you must license "under the same terms" as this
license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to
use).I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy
OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of
particularly important details to my line of professional work.Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non
reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime
launch.So if you want, we can friendly chat more about this. If I ever pass around
your vicinity I would love to offer you a beverage of your choice at the
nearest spot you like :)Best,
Rui--
P'tang!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Hello!
But you also received the right to chose either or. So if you have to
Kind regards,
Hannah.
Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind
assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any
interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words...* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
* 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.--
Pzat!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last
paragraph above (starting with "Alternatively") as explicit permission
to replace all of the previous material (starting with "Redistribution
and use") with the GPLv2. Is this inference correct?IANAL, so I'm not going to speculate on the correct legal interpretation
of this text; I will grant that, if it were ordinary speech, I can see
how someone who tried hard enough could believe that interpretation.However, in the case that started this discussion, the original author's
intent has, IIRC, been clearly and authoritatively stated to exclude
that interpretation -- so anyone who is aware of this yet still changes
the license text in this case is, at the very least, behaving
unethically.Dave
--
Dave Anderson
<dave@daveanderson.com>
The basis of your argument is thinking the copyright notice is anything
more than (c) years, Fu Bar is mandatory and unchangeable.It is incorrect. The copyright notice is *only* (c) years, Fu Bar
All rest is informational.Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the
software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it
under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as
dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might
be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a
dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that.If he does distribute under the GNU GPL v2 and doesn't remove the licensed
Actually, you do really have to try hard to justify *your* interpretation,
since the meaning of *alternatively* and what a copyright notice is, isI actually think it's unethical to give a gift virtually without strings
attached and then crying like a baby because people don't give back
anything.Rui
--
Hail Eris, Hack Linux!
Today is Sweetmorn, the 27th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Hi.
My understanding is:
1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need
to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code.2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or GPL.
So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to
re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however
does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice,
right?
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's
conditions, not the BSD ones.Anyway, it's a moot point since the SFLC found a much more polite way of
converting to the GNU GPL without needing to remove it.Rui
--
Wibble.
Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under
certain conditions), but not re-license, right?--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Hi Sunnz,
No, the GNU GPL grants you the rights to
0. run it for any purpose
1. study & modify it
2. reditribution of pristine copies
3. redistribution of derivativesAll this just like the BSD. However, unlike the BSD, it does so in a reciprocal
level: if you redistribute in the conditions of 2. or 3. you must license itIt's closer to include than imply, if you want to use these terms, since
satisfying the BSDL means allowing proprietary derivatives, which the GPL aims
to forbid.Rui
--
Kallisti!
Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Hi Rui,
You've been arguing in circles for days now but the real cause is there
are some things about how copyright law works which you need to
understand a bit better. Hopefully I can help.Only the copyright holder can modify, remove or replace the licensing of
their copyrighted work. This is the law, and those silly license terms
which state you cannot remove the license are nothing more than being
overly redundant for the sake of idiots who do not know the law. Sadly,
most licenses state the bleeding obvious.Unless the copyright holder specifically gives the recipient the right
to relicense the work, the license cannot be changed. In the case of
dual licensed, or better said, multi-licensed works, this law still
remains in effect.Take the case of multi-licensed work of where there is no permission to
create derivative works (i.e. modifications). One of the available
licenses allows you to distribute verbatim copies of the work under
certain terms. The rest of the available licenses do not grant you the
right distribute copies.As long as you are in compliance with the terms set forth by the one
particular license which allows distribution of verbatim copies, your
action of distributing copies is legal, regardless if all of the other
available licenses do not grant the right to distribute copies.As you can see, the right to create copies must be specifically granted
by the copyright holder in order for the recipient to be legally able
to exercise that right. The same is true for all other rights protected
by copyright; They must be specifically granted by the copyright holder
otherwise they are illegal.When given a choice between multiple licenses, the only choice you get
is which license you wish to *comply* with, but you *never* receive the
right to relicense the original work unless it is specifically granted.
Even if you are granted the right to create derivative works, the
copyright holder must specifically grant the right to modif...
blah blah blah
You are worse than a mother in law. Shut up already. Your drivel
stopped being amusing 178000 emails ago.
speaking of moot and polite, i would appreciate it if you could refrain
from posting any further about this topic, as your posts are (1) moot
and (2) not very polite to the eyes and brains of other list readers.
you have had more than ample opportunity to voice your opinions on the
topic, now give it a rest.
Do you really have so much problems with logical reasoning? I get the
feeling that you are just trolling, nothing more.Again, slowly written, so that you can follow ((slowly) read it over and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This part grants you the right to distribute the software under the
terms of the GPL.That means you receive the right to distribute the software under the
terms of the GPL.This means you receive the right.
This means this right is one right of all the rights you received.
Hey, didn't (1) talk about the rights you received? Now I wonder if the
right you just received is a right you received.So, either:
a) you didn't receive this right, so you are not allowed to distribute
the software under the terms of the GPL, orb) you did receive this right and thus have to pass on this right. If
not, you're not complying with the GPL. Which is okay, becausec) you can still distribute the software under the terms of the BSD
license, which nevertheless states that you have to retain the copyright
notice and the license terms.It's really easy, almost binary: Either you receive the right, then you
receive the right. Or you don't receive the right and you can not make
use of the right.But I guess you won't agree here, because this is logic, but you want
written proof.cheers
simon--
IF YOU READ THIS, YOU ARE STUPID.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (written, thus true)
But that's only if you chose the GNU GPL v2 licensing mode of the two
available to you. And the rights and duties you must pass along are those
of the GNU GPL v2 and not others.What some are saying is that the copyright notice mandates the usage of both
licenses, and that is as absurd as they come.Rui
--
Or not.
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Dude stop yapping you are making an ass of yourself. We know your
favorite audience is you. Show us your bar and people might listen to
you again.As stated before, your opinion is not relevant. Your interpretation is
not relevant. In fact everything you have said is not relevant.
No kidding. I finally got my head around this whole issue after
reading Jeroen's and Hannah's well-written messages. It seems that
RMSS is willfully ignoring the differences between copyright and
license in the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of his mind.Greg
--
Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that:
http://ticketmastersucks.orgDethink to survive - Mclusky
You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient,
PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive theThe word "alternatively" means "replace"? It might mean "select", but does
it really mean "replace in-line"? What dictionary are you using? If something
is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means?In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When
Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use,
is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and
they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards?Isn't that rude?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the caseMost dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternativeNoun
alternative (plural alternatives)
1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities.
2. A choice between two or more possibilities.
3. One of several things which can be chosen.If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and
not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from hisSection 6 is pretty clear, to me...
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. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
^^^^^^^^^^
exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcingOn the 5 files that are not dual licensed, we agree. On the other 3 ones...
I'm sorry, they felt they needed to make sure nobody would deprive otherOn the 5 files, yes. On the other ones, not really. On the other three ones
what seems to me is "we offered it under two possible sets of conditions,
you chose one we don't like, so we cry foul".This is what seems rude to me, and I was trying to understand if it was a
problem with all files or just the 5 ones I noticed that weren't dual
licensed (in which case I fully agree with you).Best,
Rui--
Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles!
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
That is not true at all. You have to adhere to ALL licenses. This is
not even remotely a slippery slope. You are making shit up to matchblah blah blah. You have to adhere to both licenses. Alternatively
Exactly; you need to adhere to all licenses. What part isn't clear?
Your agreement is not relevant. The law is.
I disagree with all kinds of things like paying taxes however I don't
That's not what the copyright notice of the files
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.hsaid. It said it was licensed under the BSD ters. *Alternatively* on the GNU GPLv2.
It is true in this files, and that's what I'm talking about.
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
* drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.hPlease stop rudely calling me a liar, ok?
That's section 6 of the GPL. These terms are the terms of the GPL if you chose
Sure, take them to court, it's your money. However I suggest english 101 first.
--
P'tang!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
NO. You are using the word out of context, put it back in there and it
is simple:* 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.To translate that:
"ALTERNATIVELY" you may "DISTRIBUTE" the software using GPL "or" BSD.
That's _ALL_ it does say. "distribute" is not the same as change,
modify, delete, whatever./Putting it down to the legal point of view it implies even a "XOR" eg.
one or the other choice, it's kind of missing the "may also" part but
we are not splitting words here and it's reasonable to interpret it
as "OR". This part is not that clear but also not that important since
the result of applying either "OR" or "XOR" is practically the same.
The wordly inpretation is actually if you choose GPL you may use BSD
any more, which is implied in the GPL so, but it is not stated like
that, so whatever, not relevant in the context, but this sentece could
be a lot clearer with "may also" instead of "may", could be also my
english, I am not a native speaker .../This allows you to "distribute" the Software complying with the license
there or, if you wish you so complying to GPL2.
The word "may" also makes it clear that the author prefers his license
and not GPL2 but since he is easy on that he allows you to make you own
choice there.The only thing which leaves room for interpretation there is the
"distribution" part. But from the court point of view you will likely
not get much leaway there and I would not place any bets on it.So if you wan't to be on the safe side, copy it, upload it, print it,
distribute it any way you like but don't modify the license or the
lawyers I work for/with will have you for a midnight snack from the
fridge. (Not even for breaktfast, case is not big enough)NOW:
When you modify the work, when you add you own code to it, the situation
changes.You can basically do 3 sensible things:
1. Distribute a "diff" u...
^^^^
Well he said it was not *alternatively*, which is true for 5 files I don't
dispute and agree with you all, but false for three files where it _is_I can't fathom such a non sequitor reason.
Rui
--
Or not.
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Well, that's why I put the whole part int / .. / , to express that it is
more something like a comment then a finished "proof" of something, guess
these two little // haven't been clear enough, was only thinking there
in words since this little part got me "curious".In any case I am really wondering what you read into that part, since I did
not "express" a wish there anywhere and as stated it does make little
difference whether it's "may" or "may also". It gives very similar results
and will likely not make any difference in front of court.Whatever, you did not get the main point, the whole thing is about distri-
bution and distribution only and still distribution. That's not the same
as changing licenses and copyright notices. Being allowed to copy pages
and hand them out according to some rules does not permit you to change
the rules.Guess what ? I studied some of the stuff in University. It's 10 years ago
and I didn't follow up since then but little has changed. I do know a
thing or two about trademarks, patents and copyright. I don't know
everything there is to know about it, but I did my homework.You sir are just wrong. You understand the meaning of the word
"alternatively" quite correctly. But this word is not alone in free space,
it's connected to other words to form a sentence and create meaning.
You need to understand the sentence _and_ his relationship with the
environment it's in. This you obviously don't and don't wish.I any case I refuse to continue discussing things with you on a
kindergarden level. Stomping on the floor and saying it's XOR doesn't
help. The XOR Hammer has already been taken by others, you're late.-sm
Yes, I don't think you actually disagree with Theo -- what Theo tries
to say is that you simply cannot alter the text of the licence -- but
you can, obviously, select the terms of whatever one licence you want
to use.If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you
would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as
far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and
NetBSD, IIRC.C.
This has to agreed by all copyright holders.
Best
Martin
You are mistaken, it has not -- as long as the licences are compatible
and the names of the copyright holders appear aligned to their correct
licence.However, with this Atheros HAL case this is not the solution -- if the
Linux people wrap GPL around BSD code, then we won't be able to get
any changes back.C.
Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary.
? But you mentioned dictionaries first...
The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses.
The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth.
Rui
--
You are what you see.
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
You do realize that when it comes to legal documents, such as licenses,
that general-purpose dictionaries are inadequate, right? If you want to
look up legal terms, you need a law dictionary.I think that if one is ignorant enough of law that one needs to consult
a legal dictionary for more than one or two terms in order to
understand a document, then perhaps it would be best to either do a lot
of studying to become more knowledgeable, or find someone with more
legal training to interpret the document. As a layperson with little
in-depth knowledge of legal code, that's how i see things anyway.------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ramaley Dial Center 118, Drake University
Network Programmer/Analyst 2407 Carpenter Ave
+1 515 271-4540 Des Moines IA 50311 USA
I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any reputable
dictionary (legal or not), then I'm on a parallel reality for sure.Other than that, you're just being pretentious.
Rui
--
Or not.
Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org> spake on Tue, 4 Sep 2007
Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative
Hence the meaning of ALTERNATIVE: NOT all at the same time. Maybe you
Please, let this thread die.
Timo
Are you lying intentionally? "NOT all at the same time" is far from
the definition of the word in that page (which I had already linked to).1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities.
2. A choice between two or more possibilities.
3. One of several things which can be chosen.Glad you're helping it.
Rui
--
Hail Eris, Hack Linux!
Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms@1407.org> spake on Tue, 4 Sep 2007
Given that you live in a parallel world where everything is *^-1, I'm
You are standing at the edge of Niagara Falls (as a matter of fact,
your parallel reality might not know something like this, so have a
look here [0]).You have the CHOICE of jumping OR stepping back.
You do NOT have the possibility to do BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
Yes, you'd be an all-time winner of the Darwin Awards [1] in this
Even your universe surely knows people use polemics when running out of
Timo
I don't think you two are adding much to the common knowledge at this
point. Perhaps it's best moved to private email.--
Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG
dwchandler@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
And... you are a judge?
Theo, be as unreasonable as you want.
The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses.
If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or
proprietary for that would be a copyright violation.*Copyright notice != license*
Rui
--
Wibble.
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
no. the copyright notice tells you that you can use GPL2 for distribution,
not that you can "choose" it.-sm
Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear enough. The copyright notice tells
you that *alternatively* (this means if you don't want to use the BSD) under
the terms of the GNU GPL v2.Alternative implies choice, you choose which alternative you want.
Rui
--
Fnord.
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
I am not being unreasonable. You are not a judge, so stop acting like
you are one. You don't know the full story. I do not know the full
story either. But you are being a real prick on the lists here actingI am glad you are so sure, so confident. Are you placing money on the
outcome? Many many other people are NOT SO SURE AT ALL.So leave it, ok?
I'm not the one calling people names.
I wanted to understand the facts but nobody here wants to acknowledge that
3 of those files have *alternative* licensing.I agree fully with you all in the other 5 files which are not dual licensed.
The full story I needed to know is clear on those 8 files involved in the diff
on lkml you shows us, what I wanted to know is your understanding. I see nowSure, let's make a gentleman's bet. If on those three files that are dual
licensed, I'm wrong, I'll donate 50 EUR to OpenBSD.I also encourage those who agree with me to do so as well.
If you're wrong, you'll say sorry, publicly, ok?
Again, I'm talking only about the 3 files that are dual licensed, since on
the other 5 I agree with you, fully.Rui
--
P'tang!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Yes, indeed you can choose between the two licenses, but you CANNOT
*REMOVE* either of them. Only the Copyright holder who put that license
on it can remove them. This is also what both the GPL and BSD/ISC
licenses state very clearly.Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere
to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) or alternatively
you can choose the BSD and either give your patches back or not.Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the
rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to
anybody else you are giving this too. And especially if you would be
giving the file down to the author only under GPL your are limiting
their freedom, which is not the intent of the original copyright holder
and also something you fortunately can't be doing.If you don't like the licensing, then don't use the code at all, don't
even look at it.Greets,
Jeroen[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as
Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other users.
If your problem is that people don't give back, go knock on certain vendors who
profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back. Oh wait... they don't
have to, have they? :)Rui
--
Or is it?
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
Stop forking the argument.
Numerous folks have explained that you are free to choose either
license, but you have to keep the existing copyright and license
notices intact. Why is this so hard for you to acknowledge?---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
Yes, BUT (s)he thought that the guy choosing has morals and a brain;
You did not understand; it's not about DOING, it's about BEING ALLOWED
TO USE WHAT IS GIVEN BACK.Reread this in the original post until you understand it (and beware of
No, they don't have to, and that has been clear from the start of the
project; the issue discussed that you're trying to raise is a MORAL thing.Timo
Salut,
They wouldn't, even if we asked them to. They would do it once and switch
to some incompatible Cisco SSH which only works with PuTTY. The goal we
have reached with everyone using OpenSSH is that they are actually
interoperable with the rest of the SSH world. You cannot convince vendors
to be more open by forcing them in the way the GPL people do; this will
only drive them into the hands of the other commercial providers.Nothing has boosted the spread of VxWorks like the GPL violations project.
Tonnerre
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
As I wrote, you are absolutely correct. You are allowed to choose which
license you use. BUT, the big BUT: You can't remove either of them and
you will have to extend the same privileges to anyone you give the code
on to.There is nothing false in that sentence. Indeed the 'when distributed'
part might be good to add, but that happens, the second you start using
the software outside your own organization/person/... thus most of the
time and almost always. Unless you actually don't want the code to beWhich thus means you can only per the license use the software yourself.
Which is fine as nobody will use it then except you yourself and nobody
will even know about the fact that you did patch it. The moment though
GPLYes, you have the choice, but you still can't remove either of them.
Everyone who gets a copy of the work also gets the same rights.
For that matter, the GPL license in there is pretty much useless as the
BSD one allows full rights already. But that was exactly the point why
these things are dual-licensed, to make all the GPL folks happy, while
they simply don't understand that the code is dual-licensed and that the
one with the least restrictions will be used by the people who want tousers.
I simply slam BSD on everything that I want to make available so that
people can use it however they want. GPL licensing has no advantages at
all over BSD, it only has a disadvantage: that people can't use yourI have no problem with people not contributing back, as I receive enough
patches for my code, because people know they get credited properly for
their work.I do have a problem with some people who think that they can change
As for commercial vendors, they have given enough kudos's over the years
already for stuff that I have come up with, and why? well because they
could in the first place actually use the code without having to worry
that if their work one day would be distributed outside their offices
that they would have to get rid of all that GPL stuf...
Hi folks.
I'm using a number of USB drives connected to the same server for backup
purposes. And there will be different backup sets from the server that
need to be kept separated. So I really need to be able to plug a disk
into a specific USB cable and know that the correct backup set will be
delivered to that particular disk.My problem is that I need to figure out the device name (sd#) for a
drive that's plugged into a particular usb cable.I'm using a device/address description as the basis of this. For
instance, "/dev/usb4 addr 4" corresponds to a particular physical USB
port (I believe).So far I'm using a script which does the following:
----------
# usbdevs -f /dev/usb4 -d | grep -A 1 "addr 4" | tail -1
umass1# dmesg | grep scsibus | grep umass1 | tail -1
scsibus3 at umass1: 2 targets# dmesg | grep scsibus3 | tail -1
sd2 at scsibus3 targ 1 lun 0: <WDC WD25, 00BEVS-11UST0, > SCSI2 0/direct
fixed## Check if it's been detached again..
# dmesg | grep sd2 | tail -1
sd2: 238475MB, 238475 cyl, 64 head, 32 sec, 512 bytes/sec, 488397168 sec
total
---------At this point, I can check the file system on sd2 and perform the
backup.This is overly complicated, prone to failure (relies on a circular
buffer) and I'd really like to find a better way to do it.Can anyone point me to some information that might let me write my own
tool (or modify an existing tool) that will trace a physical USB port to
the name of the device plugged into the port?Apologies to people who followed an earlier thread about this issue
("http://marc.info/?t=118713340200003&r=1&w=2") I thought I'd give it
another go for people that missed it the first time round.If I don't get any further this time, I'll give up and post the script
I've written to close both threads.ciao
dave---
Dave Edwards
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are confusing the effects of the GNU GPL with other things.
Only the GNU GPL parts have to be distributed under its terms.
Parts licensed under the BSD *only* don't make anyone do so.
The copyright notice is not the license, it's merely informational, and no
longer required since 1989 by the Berne Convention.Well, some developers think that the power to remove freedom to others is
Well, the one with the least restrictions can be chosen by those who want
to use it.You can do one of three things:
don't choose and just pass along
choose the first one
choose the second onePeople can use my code if they want to. If they want to distribute it
around... there's a string attached: you can't make it proprietary offAs I said, that was only done on the 5 files that were not dual licensed,
and in those files, I agree fully with you.Rui
--
Pzat!
Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?
One of the really fascinating aspects of this whole thing, at least to
someone with a classic liberal arts education, is how poorly technical
people often perform when faced with natural language text. Not all
of them, obviously, but it's amazing how often it happens, even with
people whose high intelligence is indisputable. You see the full
panoply of logical fallacy at work. They try to do things they would
never try with technical specs.For example, "you may choose a license for distribution". There seems
to be an overpowering urge among some to read this as "you may may
choose a license for removal". This is an obvious non sequitur. The
reasoning seems to be something likepremise a: you may choose BSD or GPL
premise b: you may distribute under your chosen license
conclusion: therefore you may distribute without the other licenseFallacy of Equivocation: use of a term with two or more meanings, as
in, using "distribute" to mean "alter", or taking "choose A" to mean
"remove B".
Fallacy of Illicit Process: a term in the conclusion has a wider
extension than in the predicate (i.e. going from "some lawyers are
cheats" to "all lawyers are X"); this non sequitur doesn't quite fit
the definition, but it does involve similar chicanery, going from
"choose A" to "choose A and remove B".I'm sure this bit of faulty reasoning commits a few other fallacies as
well. In any case, it's amazing how many technical people are willing
to take OR as a synonym for EXCLUSIVE OR.The only way this will get clarity in the end is in the courts. In
this case, the people pulling these shenanigans - possibly including
the FSF - richly deserve the RIAA treatment. Maybe the foundation
should create a fund for defending the license. (And I'm not even
religious about this stuff - it just really irks may that these people
pontificating about freedom are willing to behave so selfishly and
disingenuously. And illegally.)-gregg
With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree..
The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.
The license is a part of the copyrighted work.
It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law.The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
notice, not the license itself,
And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright
notice would likely violate copyright law.BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with
no availability of source - and no preservation
of license.The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a
"License to Steal"I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being
co-opted by Linux developers.
To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the
BSD crowd what they have gone to great
pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the
golden rule.BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC
Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the
copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License.Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my
understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license.BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you
to do most anything with BSD code.
Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the
license ?How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical
that what many commercial developers have already done ?If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then
craft your license to prohibit it.If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of
this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally,
but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the
BSD License allows them to.
Hmm, complying with the license. How can you say you comply with the
license that says you may not alter the licence yet you alter the license?You're wrong. Read the 'without modification' words a few times to get why.
--
Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net_____________________________________________
| \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice)
| Free Daemon Consulting \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice)
| http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
| "..in support of free software solutions." \ 250797 (FWD)
| \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
You sure? That's a very slippery slope. Are you advising me to
re-publich gcc tomorrow under a BSD license? Or with the GPL removed
from it? It sure looks like the GPL says you can't remove the
license, as well. Heck, it goes further -- the GPL says you mustLook, you are oversimplifying things by a lot. The ISC license says a
hell of a lot more than that. If we could simplify it to less than 3
lines, as you did above we would. But it is clear your 2 lines above
don't explain what the ISC license requires and grants. You have
mis-described the license.And, you have a backwards understanding of the law. Copyright law
first gives me rights, then I even surrender some rights to the
public. First I have rights, then I surrender rights. The ISC
statement does not contain a statement which surrenders my right, asWrong. The commercial products, when distributed as source code, do
still contain the licenses. Just go look at how Apple did it. Or
Sun. Heck, or how many BSD licences still show up on files throughout
the FSF's code distributions. Or find me one counter example of a
vendor publishing BSD licensed source code with a license removed, and
then getting away with it. AT&T/USL did actually do this wrong when
they published manual pages without showing the University ofIt isn't that simple. When you oversimplify things, they are almost
always wrong.Wow, you don't get it. Here, let me give you a very simple lessons:
(1) You author an original work. You distribute it without a Copyright notice.
VOILA. Even without declaring copyright... You AUTOMATICALLY have
copyright on it, with the full rights as the author. You have all
the rights of copyright, and noone else does. Noone else can do
anything with it. Really! Go read up on this, if you don't believe
me. If you don't believe this, you better start by learning why
it is so.(2) You author an original work. You distribute it with one line at the top:
Co...
First, I wish to appologize.
While I am actually fairly familiar with the GPL,
I am not intimate with either the various forms of BSD License or
the ISC.
Somehow jumping back and forth between them all on wikipedia before
my original
post I missed the clause that appears to be in each of them require
preserving the
License/Permissions as well as the copyright.I made an honest effort to look, and somehow read right through
exactly what I was looking for.
I went back over the ISC a second time before posting, but I read
what I was expecting to see, not
exactly what was writing.That fairly well obliterates the main point I was attempting to make.
But many of the other issues are still valid.
The argument that you start with copyright and then add or subtract
based on the license is
correct.But you can not expect copyright law to return, rights you cede in
your license.Yes, a License is a legal document, and MOST legal documents are
immutable,
but generalization is not the same as law.The ISC and BSD Licenses are immutable, because although they cede
alot, they do preserve that.They are not immutable, because all legal documents are inherently
immutable.
Nope, read the license. It says you cannot touch the license, in plain
[...] rest of rant deleted.
But don't mind me. I wouldn't want *facts* to get in the way of your
nice ideological diatribe.
Wrong wrong wrong.
You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is.
You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience."I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now" doesn't
make it so. Try it and see what happens.Let me try once more to explain how this works. Here is the license of
a piece of code I wrote:
* Copyright (c) 2007 Marco Peereboom <marco@peereboom.us>
*
* 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 means if you want to use my code in any way shape or form you MUST
maintain the copyright & license. It says on ALL copies therefore this
includes other code, binary files, source, GPL goo etc.The whole point is that one can't go around interpreting law. That's a
judge's job. I am not interpreting any licenses for anybody, I am
stating facts as they exist today in the frame of the law. Don't like
that? I suggest suing someone to see if you can get a judge to agree
with your interpretation; from there you can claim jurisprudence.Wrong. Copyright includes ALL rights; the license is what surrenders
some of these rights. Copyright is INCLUSIVE. In other words if if
write my totally 1337 program that has NO license it automatically is
completely covered by copyright. One can NOT copy it, can NOT modify itTry to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
they preserved the copyrights as required.If you are not preserving the copyrights and the license in the file you
We can't help people living in alternate realities and making their own
interpretations. It is wrong. Let me quote my license once more:
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I am the only one capable of giving up that right. The G...
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:40:30 -0500
I did run strings on some Windows XP command line tools just out of
curiosity and while I was able to find the copyright line I couldn't
find any license.
I don't want to reanimate this thread, I want it to die as quickly as
possible but I was just wondering why they don't need to provide the
license conditions.Jona
--
"I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists
build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns
laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you
are free." Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord & Confusion
The license on that code says:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.What you ran strings on is not "source code". It was the binary.
Then license on the original code continues:
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.Well, if you take your Microsoft documentation, and dig really deep,
you will find the whole notice copied into it there. Go ahead, you'll
find it. Can't take that long.Furthermore, older copies of the license used to say:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the University of
* California, Berkeley and its contributors.And.. once again, older copies of Windows DID follow that rule, too,
just like Sun and everyone else. The only vendor who ever failed to
do this was AT&T / USL, who included modified BSD manuals in their
Unixware commercial distributions, and that mistake resulted in USL
losing the USL v BSDI & University of California lawsuit. (I have
simplified the situation, s/losing/settling at a serious loss/).That particular term was rescinded on July 22, 1999 by UCB, and since
that time vendors are no longer required to follow term 3. Some still
do, though, since their licensing-in-advertising people haven't heard
the news.After UCB recinded that term, Todd Miller and I went and found all the
code in the tree where that license term had been copied, and used by
a new author -- and we contacted those author and asked them to recind
their term too. I think, in the end, they all did.As far as I know the 3-term BSD license is totally dead, except in
NetBSD, where their group still pushes developers to place ...
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:16:35 -0600
You can't get too much information IMO.
While I knew the rough lines of the story it's interesting to read some
details. Thanks for that!Jona
--
"I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists
build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns
laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you
are free." Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord & Confusion
The 4 term licence in NetBSD is mostly dead too. It is not pushed as
desirable at all, it is up to the individual developer to use the
licence they feel appropriate and that seems, more often than not, to
be the 3 term licence.Not that it matters much but I think the advertising clause is a waste
of time and does make life far more difficult for the people who do
want to comply with the licence conditions - they have to trawl
through all the code and pull out all the individuals that want their
names mentioned. It made a little more sense when the sources were
under the BSD umbrella but now it's just silly having to list a cast
of thousands in any advertising.--
Brett Lymn
I beg to differ. Do a grep of their entire tree. You'll be surprised.
Could somebody please explain about "Running Strings"?
Thank you so much
Kind Regards
Siju
The usual explanation is "man strings". But for example:
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*
artemis:~
{20} % strings /dev/fs/C/WINDOWS/system32/nslookup.exe | tail -n 30
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
@(#)nslookup.c 5.39 (Berkeley) 6/24/90
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
@(#)commands.l 5.13 (Berkeley) 7/24/90
-*-**********
**************************
**************************
@(#)debug.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
@(#)list.c 5.20 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
@(#)subr.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
@(#)skip.c 5.9 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
@(#)getinfo.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
@(#)send.c 5.17 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/
0123456789abcdef.QISKNU?
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcp\VParameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcp\Parameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Transient
\Registry\Machine\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows NT\DNSClient
DDD@DDD@DDD@
DDD@DDD@
DDD@
",D@p
b"""
DD@DD@
artemis:~
{21} %
*----------------------------------------------------------------------*This is on Windows XP, using the "strings" from Microsoft Services for
UNIX.
tvc: {2476} strings `where ftp` | grep -A1 -i copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
tvc: {2477}That's on OpenBSD. On Windows, you can presumably get strings(1) as a
part of the Cygwin package, or try out Windows Services for UNIX.http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20030927090008
C.
/Alexander
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1man 1 strings
The strings utility finds the printable strings in a object, or other
binary, file.example:
dnewman@maertens ~ 505$ strings /bin/ls | grep -i copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1989, 1993, 1994dn
iD8DBQFG2cfNyPxGVjntI4IRAtiTAKDUtUkdvgknGf1xBhzV3h8wfWuEkACgsHDc
unCO9OHA5cuqLdo3cujTY6M=
=IB6u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
strings(1) - print the strings of printable characters in files
Pull down many of the Windows command line utilities to your Unix host
(particularly those that share similar names with the Unix commands)
and run strings against them. Pay attention to the strings referencing
the University, CSRG, etc.Also:
http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20030927090008
DS
iku@kameli:~$ which strings
/usr/bin/stringsSee strings(1) :-)
--
Antti Harri
That is entirely false.
If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you
cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file.The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code
nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence).If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a
copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes
fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a
legal document after the document is already signed and approved.C.
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish -
You can do whatever either copyright law or the license allows you
That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that
requires preserving the license.
In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove
the copyright,
The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style
licenses has been over pretty much this
point.FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT
convert GPL'd code to proprietary code.BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be "Totally Free" - specifically because
you can convert the code to proprietary code.If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do
not need any license at all.
Just a simple copyright notice will do.
Pretty much by definition when you have a software license it is
because you are trying to remove yourself from some constraint of
copyright law - whether you are trying to further bind the user, or
Unless the license allows you to do that.
That is a cost to granting others "Total Freedom"If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to
atleast some extend you have modifed your rights
with respect to copyright.
Both the GPL and ISC cede vast amounts of copyright protections.
You have to be extremely careful arguing copyright law with any
licensed work, because ontly those parts of copyright law that
the licensed has not ceded, or can not be waived remain.The legal document argument is week. The closest legal document
analogy I can think of would be granting someone else
the right to act as your agent - as in a power of attorney.And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control
your affairs..
I will have to quote the license once more.
* 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What part here tells you that you can replace the license with anything
else? Oh wait, it tells you that you can't. What in the world are you
arguing? Your point is completely retarded on a 5th grade reading
comprehension level.You are deriving drivel from an incorrect premise. I can argue all
kinds of neat things that way.Which per the copyright law is NOTHING and the license tells you what
parts of copyright are surrendered. This license also mentions thatBut you can not remove the license and copyright. It says so in the
That doesn't mean you surrender your copyright. In fact the very first
thing in the license is (c)some_year some_person. Which means that one
is explicitly mentioning copyrights. This bounds all uses toThere is no such thing outside of public domain. Repeating it doesn't
Not vast amounts which means nothing. ALL copyright protections.
Despite the worthlessness of this argument a power of attorney can be
unilaterally revoked at any time; and in many cases even retroactively.
You could not be more wrong, I think. Seems to me the BSD license is
designed precisely to prevent this. Granting of rights != transfer of
ownership. You can _use_ BSD-licensed code in a proprietary product;
that does not mean you have a proprietary claim on the BSD-licensed
code. That's the point of requiring that the copyright/license notice
be retained. There is no "conversion to proprietary code" here.In this respect GPL and BSD are in complete agreement. The difference
is in the obligations they impose on the licensee regarding use. BSD
imposes one simple negative condition - you /must not/ remove the
license. GPL imposes a more complex set of positive conditions - you
/must/ make alterations available under the same license. In neither
case does ownership enter the picture.Copyright law goes back centuries, contract law goes back to the
Romans. There's more than meets the eye there; "common sense"
interpretations uninformed by some degree of awareness of the legal
traditions - as in, "I don't see anything in there that says I can't
do X" is almost certain to be wrong.IANAL, though. Talk to one of them if you really have a burning
desire to understand all this. Even then, only the courts can settle
the matter.-Gregg
Your reading comprehension seems to be suffering. I would *love* to
know how you read this statement:"Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or 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....and then come to the conclusion that the only restriction it names
on copying, modification, and distribution is that the copyright alone
must remain.The statement "provided that the above copyright notice *and this
permission notice* appear in all copies" seems to speak pretty
clearly, does it not?A = copyright notice
B = permission noticeA != A+B
DS
Gents,
the driver was developed from Reyk in Germany. Reyk add a license to his
code. So the question will be, what is the Europen/German law here.
Maybe the OpenBSD project/Reyk should solve the problem in the same way
as the gpl-violations.org initiative do it. Let the court decide. Will
be happy to donate some money to force a decision at court.Reiner
Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the
sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words "without
modification"?As I explained to a friend of mine minutes ago ..
adding GPL to BSD is sad to the BSD people (we can't use the GPL code then)
adding GPL and removing BSD is not legal
Who's side are you on anyway suggesting legal battles? The lawyers, the
companies, or free software?--
Todd Fries .. todd@fries.net_____________________________________________
| \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice)
| Free Daemon Consulting \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice)
| http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX)
| "..in support of free software solutions." \ 250797 (FWD)
| \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A
http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
Dear Todd,
What Do you mean by adding GPL to BSD?
Is that what you mean by dual licencing?Thankyou so much
Kind Regards
Siju
Hello!
I guess he means writing own additions/modifications (thus creating a
combined or derivative work), and releasing those *own*
additions/modifications under the GPL. In the end, you can use the
combined/derivative work only to the extent that's permitted by *both*Kind regards,
Hannah.
The term "embrace and extend" comes to mind.
//art
ISC has no say in the matter of "interpreting" the legal document.
Authors put them onto files hoping the license lays down the rights
they wish to retain, and grants they wish to give to the public. Then
courts interpret COPYRIGHT LAW FIRST, then what the author's license
grant really says.ISC does not enter into the picture, except as they were the first to
craft the legal document in that way. In fact, the ISC-style license
that OpenBSD uses is... a tiny bit different. In fact, the ISC
license has gone through a variety of mutations over the decades. It
is an attempt to be a shorter easier to understand version of the
2-term BSD license (but it is apparent many people still can't
understand that copyright notices have an implied and invisible fullCopyright law does.
When you are holding a gun to my head, there is no piece of paper
in front of my head saying you can't fire the gun. Do I really needBullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law,
a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is
pulled in the MOMENT a "Copyright (c) YYMM author" decleration isNothing is that simple -- or all these licenses would be exactly that
text you print, but they are quite clearly not, and have many many
words there for a reason. AND they carry the full weight of CopyrightIf you have a copyright notice with a license that grants SOME rights,
you retain all the other rights granted in the full copyright acts of yourThere is only one 'Total Freedom', and it is a "Public Domain"
declaration, which these licenses are not. These are full Copyright
Act licenses, carrying the full of power of the Copyright, and only THENWow. You are so full of balony. Get an education, please.
Hello!
In some legislations, especially in Europe, copyright law applies
*automatically*, even without an explicit copyright statement/assertion.And that "Total Freedom" isn't available everywhere. In some
legislations (e.g. in Europe), you *can't* give up the copyright you
*automatically* acquire by creating a copyrightable work. It can only
expire (after N years, or even only N years after the death of theKind regards,
Hannah.
IIRC this is true for any country which has adopted the Berne
Convention, which is currently almost every country which has any
copyright law in place. It includes the U.S.Dave
--
Dave Anderson
<dave@daveanderson.com>
Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't
be bothered to check facts on their own, here's the relevant text
(http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html):"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in
fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately
becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the
author or those deriving their rights through the author can
rightfully claim copyright..."The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law,
... Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public
that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright
owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the
event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright
appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a
copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given
to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent
infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages...""Copyright is a personal property right,..."
"Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any
subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of
exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and
signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly
authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not
require a written agreement.""Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract..."
"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to
make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection..."I had thought that the only remedy against infringement is legal
action by...
And therein lies the problem. Unless a developer went through a
university program that requires courses in contract and copyright
law or worked in a company whose corporate counsel actively
educated engineers in that law or the developer took the initiative
to learn on his own, he almost certainly doesn't know what he's
talking about. Dorm room debates and shrill, puerile diatribes
carry no legal weight. So try a self examination. Have you been
through at least one of the three sources above and did it stick?
If not, you might want to broaden your education a bit before
ranting away and becoming a poster boy for why geeks *should* be
beaten up on playgrounds. (One inexpensive source is Nolo Press
and their legal self-help books.)This will be especially critical for OSS development given the
pool from which developers self-select. Students who live in
bubbles of unreality where they aren't held to account for their
actions. Individuals unfamiliar with the language and laws of
the country whose copyright law is in force. Those with political
agendas who'll eventually damage their own cause with careless
or intentional disregard for the issues. While "SCO vs Novell" looks
like the last act of the desperate, the surface argument is still
valid. Someone from the above list is eventually going to do
something particularly stupid and "we're sorry" isn't going to
be accepted as compensation. The tools for rapidly identifying
theft and misattribution are now available so obscurity isn't
going to save you. So, gosh, I hope those promises of indem-
nification from companies with a few million in annual revenue
hold up.Finally, for fun, here's a hypothetical to try out your newly
acquired knowledge. Hypothesis: The fundamental function of the
preprocessor (in C, C++, etc.) is to create derived works. Two
major functions are to attach a work, in whole, to another work
and to replace parts of one work with parts from another. The
derived work is then further processed an...
There are simpler reasons to not remove licenses statements, as will
become clear in a moment:Here's a pop question:
Which of these two licences grants more rights?
a.
Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt.b.
Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt
You may use or distribute this file without
modifications.The answer is b. The first licence grants NO RIGHTS AT ALL, and
retains them all for the author!David, I truly recommend you go study at least a few minutes of
copyright law, heck, even at wikipedia if you are short on time.
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:
And the license request you to preserve the license, thus if you do not
Sorry, but it really can't be stated clearer than:
8<-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------->8Which is what the ISC license contains, again, you need to preserve it
That code (most likely) still contains the license. A lot of times you
It is a license to use, but as long as you credit the original author.
Which part of:
8<------------------
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
------------------>8
is unclear that that part needs to be kept intact?
That part is more or less exactly the same as the ISC license btw.Also, if what you say above would be true, then a lot of people will be
having a lot of fun with a lot of copyrighted works."Oh look a copyright, lets strip the license, the copyright is still
there, so now smack our own license on it" as that is what you stateBecause the commercial developers don't claim it as their own.
Try doing a grep for "BSD" on those binaries and you will find out thatThe license does prohibit that. Weird that you missed out that part, it
is not like the GPL license which is several pages long of legal nonsense.Some people like to code and provide that code to others so that those
people can use it, without running the risk of getting sued when
somebody peeps up using their code. They use BSD/ISC licenses. Some
other people like to code something and let everybody use it and then
let people pay for what they've done in returns for "support costs"
these people use GPL viral licenses.Greets,
Jeroen
...
So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the
dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing
deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the
license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do
whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted
prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until
otherwise stated by the developper.--
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc ]
That is utterly false.
All of the licenses we use in the open source world
(1) Do not permit removal of the license by a non-author
(2) Do not permit modification of the license by a non-author.
If a license does not permit you to do the above, then you can't do
it, and that is EXACTLY how some people (including you) are attempting
to incorrectly interpret dual licenses.Perhaps English is your second language, because my posting was very
clear. Please read what I said again. You cannot modify a
developer's license, and then distribute the file. That is the
problem at hand.When an author declares (or, even, does not declare) Copyright, the
get certain rights. Then they surrender some rights to their audience --
with or without conditions. If a right is not surrendered, you don't
have it.If the license does not say you may distribute the file without the
license, you can't. If the license does not say you may modify the
license, you can't.
Hi,
with all due respect, but this is utterly true, this being the raison
d'etre for dual- (or otherwise multi-) licensing *any* software in the
first place.While I see what kind of a problem you are talking about, and it surely
is an undesirable problem to be sure, the sole reason why BSD can't
import back GPL'ed changes is that GPL'ed changes impose more
conditions than does the BSD license.Or wrapped in a different way: Were you GPL'ing your code, you had
_absolutely_no_ (legal) problems importing back those changes. The GPL
ensures availability of source code (which is good!), but those are
exactly the strings you opted to not attach to your software with the
argument that this kind of force is "non-free". Now, this implies that
you consider the ability for a licensor to not give back code a freedom
which the Linux community has taken the liberty to make use of, so why
do you complain?Honestly, this imho is an ugly side-effect of what you were preaching
all the years, but I cannot imagine that it is by evil intention. I
hope Eben finds a way to resolve the problem in a way that doesn't draw
the line between BSD on one and Linux on the other side. Imho, no-one
needs a dog-fight between these two groups, and I also hope that no-one
wants it, either, but I'm not so sure about that actually being the
case.Weren't you complaining loudly about the absense of contributions from
large companies every year when you started a new rally for donations
(we donate, according to our feeble possibilities), and now you're
claiming that the Linux folks are doing even more evil than those
companies who not give back in any form, according to your statements,
do? Because they release source code, but you opt to stay too far away
to get it? They imho need to do it this way since it is essential for
the legal integrity of their system (as much as you chose to not use
such stuff for the very same reason).Are you just this very moment saying that you want to enforce a viral
effect ...
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 00:42 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
I would say this is probably true of any license anywhere. To be honest,
though, the philosophy is actually a lot closer to the free software
movement started by Richard Stallman than the open source movement later
splintered off by whoever it was (Eric Raymond maybe?).The main difference seperating us (the BSD-derived OS camp) from the
GNU(/Linux) camp is the differing social goals we are after. I, of
course, consider myself closer to the GNU camp, but have no problem
contributing to a BSD-licensed project under that license. Not that my
programming skills are yet back up to snuff to do so, but that's a rant
for another day and thread...--
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code
should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they?
should, or must?
must.
Another argument has popped up elsewhere (by some poster, on
kerneltrap.org), pointing out that the GPL itself may also require
dual-licensed software to remain dual-licensed.The implication is that a recipient read both licenses, and then CHOSE
the GPL, the GPL would then them to pass on the choice they had to
whoever they distributed it to.Yes, you get to see me quote a paragraph from the GPL. Just this
once. Never again.For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.More can be found at kerneltrap.
With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree..
The law requires complying with the license not preserving it.
The license is a part of the copyrighted work.
It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law.The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
notice, not the license itself,
And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright
notice would likely violate copyright law.BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with
no availability of source - and no preservation
of license.The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a
"License to Steal"I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being
co-opted by Linux developers.
To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the
BSD crowd what they have gone to great
pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the
golden rule.BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC
Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the
copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License.Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my
understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license.BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you
to do most anything with BSD code.
Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the
license ?How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical
that what many commercial developers have already done ?If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then
craft your license to prohibit it.If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of
this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally,
but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the
BSD License allows them to.
Hello!
Which is exactly one characteristic of BSD vs. GPL, that BSD doesn't
require you to distribute source should you chose to distribute binariesIMO it's by copyright law itself. Relicensing/sublicensing is by default
a reserved right, so it has to be explicitly granted in a license if
licensees should be allowed to relicense/sublicense. That explicit grant
is *not* present in the BSD/ISC licenses I've looked at in this moment.
The BSD/ISC licenses grant the rights (that are reserved by copyright
law) to use, (re)distribute and modify the work itself, and *those*
rights are bound by only few conditions (fewer than the GPL imposes).Of course, you may make a derived/combined work where your own
contribution is of a different license. But the original part of the
work remains BSD/ISC licensed. The combined work is only usable when
a licensee can fulfill the conditions of *both* licenses in order to beAs said, IMO and as far as I understand, it's not a matter of the
licenses themselves, but of copyright law itself. It's a matter that
the licenses (both BSD/ISC *and* GPL) have no clauses permittingKind regards,
Hannah.
| Michal Piotrowski | Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc4 |
| Satyam Sharma | [PATCH 0/8] i386: bitops: Cleanup, sanitize, optimize |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| David Woodhouse | Re: [bug?] tg3: Failed to load firmware "tigon/tg3_tso.bin" |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 15/37] dccp: Set per-connection CCIDs via socket options |
| Alexey Dobriyan | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
