> Theo de Raadt wrote:
quoted text
> >
> > 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.  
> 
>     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.

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 must
release software with the same rights you received it under.  Go look.

quoted text
>     The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright
> notice, not the license itself,

Look, 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, as
the author, to be the only one who modifies the license.

quoted text
>     BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with
> no availability of source - and no preservation
>     of license.

Wrong.  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 of
California copyright notice, and that did not end up well for them.

quoted text
>     The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a
> "License to Steal"

It isn't that simple.  When you oversimplify things, they are almost
always wrong.

What next... "the license does not say you can murder babies, so you can"?

quoted text
>     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.

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:

    Copyright (c) 2006 <name of author>

    VOILA.  You have copyright on it, since you declared it.  You have
    all the rights of copyright, and noone else does.  Noone else can do
    anything with it.  It's the same as case (1) above.

(3) You author an original work.  You distribute it with with the following
    text at the top:

    Copyright (c) 2006 <name of author>

    You may use this software.

    Someone may use this software.  However, just like in cases (1) and (2)
    above, you did not permit distribution.  Copyright law automatically
    retains that right for you, until you decide otherwise to give it up.
    You don't even need to MENTION the rights you retain.  You retain those
    rights until the moment you give them up.

(5) You author an original work.  You distribute it with the following text:

    Copyright (c) 2006 <name of author>

    Permission to use, copy, 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.

    In this case, read very carefully.  I removed the word "modify" from
    an ISC license.  Guess what?  COPYRIGHT LAW gave the author the right
    to control modification, and they did not surrender it in their notice.

    Therefore, someone who receives this MAY NOT MODIFY IT.

    REALLY.

All added up together, what is the lesson learned?  If you are not
explicitly granted a right by the author, you haven't got it.

If you are told you must leave the notice to get all the other rights,
you gotta leave it.  If you are NOT told you need to leave the notice,
you still gotta leave it.  And you can't change it.  Really.

You seem to think that as authors we write the license text to RETAIN
PROTECTION FOR OURSELVES.  No!  We automatically have the protection
for ourselves, and we write these licenses text to GIVE UP some of
those rights, to benefit the public sphere.

quoted text
>     Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my
> understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license.

No.

Yes, there is an issue where we are asking others to follow the spirit
of open exchange as well.

But the Copyright surrender statement we give under a BSD / ISC / MIT
license is partial, and very conditional.  The notice must stay.

quoted text
>     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  ?

 * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user@your.dom.ain>
 *
 * 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.

Looking at an ISC license, it says it right there.  It says that the
author surrenders his rights ONLY IF THE NOTICE IS LEFT.  Do you need
to re-read it?

quoted text
>      How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical
> that what many commercial developers have already done ?

No, what the Linux developers propose is both illegal AND unethical.
It is illegal because they are voilating the rights of the author as
enshrined in Copyright law.  The author did not surrender those rights
he automatically got under the law.

But yes, it is also unethical for them to strictly impliment a
"one-way street" around our freely given code.

Companies which distribute copies of our code DO leave the notices intact.
And companies follow the spirit of giving back all the time.  Sometimes they
don't, because they wish to be proprietary, because it benefits them.

And that's what these Linux people are doing, right?  Proprietary Linux,
GPL enforced.  Is that the spirit of the GPL or the ISC license?

quoted text
>      If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then
> craft your license to prohibit it.

We have crafted our license in that way, very carefully.  The law says
people can't modify the licenses, and the law and our notice says that
they can't be deleted.  It's not public domain.

quoted text
>     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.

You sure have misunderstood the license.

Part of this is because people call them "licences", without
understanding that there are diffferent kinds of licenses with
different rules.  A licenses under Copyright law starts off with a
presumption of rights for the author even before the word "Copyright".
According to the Berne Convention, and the applicable laws implimented
in the signing nations to that accord, Copyright gives the author
unrevokeable rights -- right from the start -- and then the author can
choose to surrender some of his rights in a statement.  Contract
licenses has similar concepts such as "you can't pay someone else to
break the law", and such.