login
Search
You are so cleanly isolating and cutting away of a group of developers. I sincerely hope your fellow developers will not cut you off if you make a similar mistake. I know mine wont. What you are saying is, a Copyright violation done by someone else is Somebody Else's Problem (tm). There are a couple of issues with this point of view: First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process. There have been complete silence from the leaders of their own community (Linux Kernel developers, FSF, ...) all perhaps used your argument to convince themselves that this is not their problem. However, from an outsider point of view, this lack of silence means an agreement to something that is ethically and legally wrong. Furthermore, this is a case about collaboration and cooperation between GPL and BSD developers. I believe they share some common goals related to freedom and improvement of Open Source software. This case illustrates some important issues that should interest ALL free software developers: 1) How tricky code sharing between different projects can be even when intents and goals are pretty much alike. 2) MANY developers on BOTH sides have NO clue about the laws and ethics associated with handling Copyrights and Licenses. 3) The copyrights and licenses are the foundations of our work. We put out great usually volunteer work, to create and improve. The licenses specify the terms and conditions under which we allow our work to be used. When we allow ANY license violation to occur, This has been done. Really. They have been contacted privately before the issue became public. Got no results. The issue is then made public, Sometimes inaction is wrong. In case of the OpenBSD Broadcom driver using parts of the GPL driver which was under construction and prematurely committed to a public repository, NONE of the OpenBSD developers argued for what was done. It ...
No, I'm saying "You are complaining about this in the wrong place and accusing IIRC, the advice was "Yes, it is legal to choose to follow only one of multiple offered licenses on a project" - nothing else. They looked at the patches and said "Wait, you've changed the license on files that aren't under a dual license." Hence, no problems here - no questionable advice only. Then file the lawsuit - if they have violated the license and ignored requests to fix the problem then there is sound legal grounds for it. Yes, but in this case you are complaining to people that have no control over the code in question. It's known that the patches are bad, and if people continue to use them, then it is their problem and the problem of the copyright holder. And it has happened - the Linux Kernel community has commented on the situation a *LOT* - to the extent that the patches in question were This has happened. Or are you ignoring the evidence in favor of more trolling No, I'm not. In fact, I don't use MadWifi, endorse it or even like it. I even advise people *NOT* to use it. Or is that *NOT* enough for you? DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
The replies suggest that some (most?) people are not aware of the recent developments, and that it is a dual licensing issue. This has very little to do with dual licensing right now, there has been other developments, more "advice" from SLFC. The code in question is Reyk's open source HAL work. I want to emphasize. This work was NOT ever dual licensed. Furthermore, since it is compatible with the binary HAL from Atheros, the interface is fixed and the same both in Linux and *BSD. So, even the latst code divergence arguments do not apply here. The improvements to this piece of code improve the Open Source Atheros support, and is important for both Linux and BSD. Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118963284332223&w=2 and here is a very brief summary: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118965266709012&w=2 If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these links, and think about it. Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright? Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
Look at what I replied to and then thank me for replying to the text in And that was only in question *PRIOR* to the review and rejection of the Doubtful. If I wrote a HAL implementation from scratch using Reyk's code as a reference only would that make my bottom-up rewrite a derivative? If you think it would, then you need to stop talking and start listening. Just because the code needs to provide a specific interface does not mean that any specific persons implementation is a derivative of another. This simple fact is key - because if that fact wasn't true then the original, purely binary No need. Here are the facts: 1) People have come to the Linux Kernel ML and complained about a set of patches that were never accepted. 2) Theo has accused a Kernel developer of telling people to break the law. 3) People show up complaining again, apparently about the same patches. 4) One of them points out that the MadWifi developers have taken the broken patches 5) Several people on LKML say "So go be a troll there, leave us alone" 6) The original people, and more, start with claims that the Linux Kernel developers should "police" the "GNU/FSF/GPL Community" And now you come here saying that people don't understand the situation. Go look at the first two links in Theo's mails, which you linked to. Are they to kernel.org git repo's? Is either of them for the "linux-wireless-2.6" git repo? The answer to both is "No" - they are to MadWifi - a system which is developed separate from the Linux Kernel and not discussed here. The other two links are to a git repo that hasn't been included in the Linux Kernel, but probably will be, since it doesn't violate anyones copyright. Is Theo happy? No. Because the two people that ported to code to work in Linux have added themselves as holding copyrights to portions of the code. "Those files are still invalidly being distributed -- Nick and Jiri did not proveably do enough original work to earn copyright on ...
It is now obvious that you have no interest in facts, You blindly repeat what you made yourself to believe. I will waste no more time with you. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
BTW, I didn't say anything the last time, but the above mail is a load of
horse-shit. Theo is pointing fingers and making claims that anyone capable of
independent thought can see aren't related to reality.
Quoted in full (my comments are in the curly-braces):
I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
Here it is (with a few more changes)
{Okay, this starts off good. Theo is going to make sure people understand what
is going on and what has happened. Perhaps he has realized things are
different from when he claimed that people were being advised to break the
law.}
-----
starting premise:
you can already use the code as it is
steps taken:
1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
- get told no, repeatedly
{Alright - not a problem here. Happens all the time}
2. climb over ethical fence
{Off the deep end already, but lets keep going...}
3. remove his license
- get caught, look a bit stupid
{Caught? Well, yeah. Caught by the Linux Kernel developers before it became a
real problem. This has been fixed, although the code still hasn't been added
to the core Kernel tree - and the current iteration still hasn't been offered
for review}
4. wrap his license with your own
- get caught, look really stupid
{Not done, although this was, apparently, suggested by the SFLC. Nice FUD
there, Theo.}
5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
- get caught, look even more stupid
{Not done. Again, nice FUD there}
Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of
evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what
will happen next. We wait, to see what will happen.
{Theo, embrace reality. It'll solve all kinds of problems. It's a simple fact
that reality has split from Theo's view of ..."Deserve"? The copyright is automatic, the author (of the derivative work) may like it or not. -- Krzysztof Halasa
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
This was the first email that was forwarded to linux-kernel, and it made
it really hard to see at first that there was also an accidental
s/community/communities/
This seems to be a common thinko by some people:
The Linux kernel developers and the FSF are two very distinct
communities, and there are quite different views on some copyright
issues.
There is no "GPL community" covering both, there might be some kind of
It should now be resolved how to incorporate BSD licenced code correctly
I agree with you regarding the laws.
Regarding ethics - if you use the BSD licence for your code you state in
the licence text that it's OK that I take your code and never give
anything back.
Both Linux and Microsoft have used BSD licenced code according to this
licence.
Some people have the funny position of opposing the GPL which enforces
that you have to give back, but whining that people took their BSD
licenced code and don't give back.
Everyone can choose the licence he likes for his own code, but if
intentions and licence text don't match that's the fault of the person
Who allowed any licence violation?
Let's look at the facts:
- Each year, at about two thousand different people contribute patches
that get incorporated into the Linux kernel.
- One of them made the mistake of accidentally sending a patch that
would have wrongly deleted the BSD header from BSD code.
- Other developers didn't notice this mistake when looking at the patch.
- This patch has never been merged.
A mistake.
No bad intentions.
Shit happens.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Hi! JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or in one of the licenses. Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings. If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications under different terms with few restrictions. However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level. Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some A difference is, GPL requires it under every circumstance. BSD does not, indeed. But how should one expect it from *OSS* people that even *they* don't give back? Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as Kind regards, Hannah.
That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and ignore the GPL) It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more agreeable. I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused. <snip> DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
Hi! The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms Refrain from personal attacks. Regards, Hannah.
You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing license notices, the other is about relicensing. One has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. No amount of changing license notices affects the license a recipient gets to any code that the license changer did not contribute. You cannot, in the sense of it being legally impossible, affect the license your recipients get to code you did not author. Relicensing is simply impossible under either the BSD license or the GPL license. Neither grants you any relicensing rights. Remove the BSD license from a dual-licensed work doesn't relicense anything. Everyone who gets the work still gets a dual license from the original Of course not. But since the GPL does not require you to keep a BSD license notice intact and the BSD license does not require you to keep a GPL license notice intact, the result is that you do have the right to remove the other license's terms altogether. Note that this has no effect whatsoever on the rights anyone actually gets. Rights come from licenses, not license notices. If you were right, a dual-licensed work would not be GPL compatible. Since the GPL prohibits the use of any mechanism to prohibit modification to the Umm, no. That's so obviously mind-bogglingly crazy that I don't even know where to start. Let's try a hypothetical: I download the entire Linux kernel and remove every single GPL license notice and replace it with a public domain notice. I then distribute the result. Am I relicensing the Linux kernel? Isn't it obvious that I'm not. I *can't*. I have no right to change the license under which other people's code is offered. When you change a license notice, that has no effect on the actual license anyone gets to anyone else's work. You license notice changes can only affect licenses that *you* grant. Nothing requires a license that exists to be documented in the accompanying file. There is nothing in copyright law that is offended by the idea ...
but how do i know i have a bsd licensed file if the license notice has been removed from it? i know copyright applies to a file which has no (c) line in it, because it's implicit. but licenses are not implicit, are they? -f -- treat each day as your last, one day you will be right.
Hannah, What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a "derivative work". Whether or not you can even make a derivative work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD license says: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met.... Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, proprietary copyright. So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work which is under the more restrictive copyright. Now, the original copyright can say that you aren't allowed to do this; for example, the GPL says that you are not allowed to add any restrictions on the copyright license of any derived works of GPL'ed code. This is why some BSD partisans claim that their license is "more free"; the BSD license allows people to add more restrictive copyright license terms on derived works. OK, what about dual licensed works? The specific wording of the dual licensing is that you can use *either* license. That means, you can treat code as if only using the BSD license applied, or only if the GPL license ...
which is _exactly_ what you guys are doing. so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation? that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with. -- jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
A difference between linux and corporations: Linux actually gives changed source code back - just not with a BSD licence on it. So you can at least see what the linux community did, and do the same. Although not by direct copying. But why complain when the linux community do what the BSD licence lets them? If you think the linux community is abusing a loophole in the licence, why don't you just close the hole? For example, require that changes made to your code when used in the linux kernel must be made available under a BSD licence also. Still possible to use the code anywhere, but with a guarantee of getting stuff back. Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence, and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community. Helge Hafting
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has some in the BSD community so upset. when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or less "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad. it would be like losing a friend. I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal. I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, "We can accept BSD licensed code. There's no need to add the GPL to it." and maybe even, "Although we strongly prefer the GPL, respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect for the GPL." I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have happened in the first place. look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license. the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same. and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the recourse to be? -- jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
All very nicely said. I'd like to add that an insult implicit in the attempt to remove the BSD license is that it says to the original authors, "we plan to improve this code, and when we do you'll never again be able to ship it as BSD." They weren't the words, but that's what you get when you think to the future. Although opinions seem still to be divided, I think everyone has been The one shining light in this whole sorry Atheros saga is that it's now all history; the only people still talking about it are people not directly involved. The matter could now rest...
First, note that I am not really a linux developer as my only contributions to linux are testing. But it really looks like bsd people are more unhappy with their licence than linux people. You can ask linux developers to keep the bsd licence - and the request is not unreasonable. Nobody is forced to give back, so some people choose not to. Some of these have a "GPL" agenda, some have a commercial agenda. I am sure some developers are willing to "give back" bsd code, but you can't do anything about those who don't. You don't want to have code "locked up" with GPL, these developers don't want their code improvements "locked up" in proprietary products. So - either you will have to accept the current situation, or Taking credit for the works of others is wrong of course, Good points. But note that the linux community is divided on this, as on many other issues. And there is nothing to do about My impression is that the actions that started the debate was an unauthorized (possibly illegal) change that the linux community also rejected. With that problem solved, the debate turned to Clearly, there is the risk of less cooperation. Or some kind of licencing scheme that makes sure that code with bsd origin always can go back into bsd as long as it stays open. That would solve the problem - if such a scheme is possible. Helge Hafting
if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux community being satisfied eith it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire). so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why? you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil? many people honestly don't understand the logic behind this. please explain it. if you don't like what your license allows, change it. it's trivial for you to do so, all you need to do is to agree on a new license and start releaseing your code under it (the BSD license allows for derivitive works to be released under any license) make the new license match your real desires and this sort of problem can be avoided in the future. David Lang
NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc -- Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom.
Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence
since it doesn't defend that the code stays free.
Some people consider the BSD licence more free since NetApp or Linux or
Microsoft can take your code and never gove back.
Although I don't agree with it, I can understand the rationale of the
latter.
But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then
complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give
back is simply dishonest.
Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code
and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen?
And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free, regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code. The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400 Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code is being "stolen". Instead of worrying about Evil Corporation "stealing" their code, they're worrying about Evil GPL folks "stealing". Why don't you take a moment to email them with a reminder that whatever GPL group X does with their *copy*, all users of the code have the same rights. If they really believe in the BSD license they will then calm down and we can all go back to work. Regards, S.
They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
This was a mistake in one patch that had never been merged, and this
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
The legal restriction that people must not enter your house uninvited by smashing the door adds to your freedom, don't you think so? Hans
As this is a recurring argument in the present discussion, let's address it, even though it lies somewhat beside the main topic. What i wish and what i try to enforce by legal contracts are two completely different things. In particular, it is _not_ a smart idea to try to enforce all one's wishes by legal means. For example, i wish that as much as possible of the code i write be freely available such that others can use it, too, and i wish that others write useful code and make it free such that i can use it. When i publish code, i wish bugfixes to be fed back to me, and i hope that others might free their derivative works, too. Besides, i might hope that people at large behave in human and rational ways and refrain from doing harm to others. In particular i might wish the fruits of my work not to be abused to harm or oppress people. Quite probably, lots of software developers share similar wishes, whatever licenses they happen to be employing. But this doesn't imply i should be putting any of the above into the license for my code. Once people attach additional conditions to their licences, sooner or later i get stuck when trying to combine different code covered by different licences. However well intentioned, in practice, those additional conditions habitually turn out to be incompatible - even when, regarded seperately, all of them might appear to make some sense. Now doubtless, the two main additional conditions imposed by the GPL - derivative works may only be distributed if they are made as open and as free as the original - are among those making the most sense of all the additional conditions you might imagine, in the sense that nearly any developer of free software will wish that anybody holding the copyright on a derivative work would make that free. Still, when trying to combine code with different licences, even the GPL at times turns out to be a bother. This does not only apply to the case of non-free closed-source commercial code, but also to cases ...
There are two highly relevant angles to this that nobody is mentioning: 1) Does it make sense to share code, at a technical level? The fact is, BSD and Linux wireless stacks are quite different. Linux also has a technical requirement that "Linux drivers look like Linux drivers." This enables a vast array of source code checking tools like Coverity and sparse, as well as maximizing human reviewer bandwidth. Therefore, there is a strong /technical/ motivation for the source code to diverge. That's quite natural. 2) Information sharing is both rampant and healthy. Linux and BSD projects share a vast amount of hardware knowledge, information on how to properly program hardware. Linux folks use BSD code as /reference documentation/, and BSD folks do the same with Linux code. This is far more efficient in many cases, due to the natural divergence of the respective codebases. It is often easier to look at codebase A, and then mentally translate that into code for codebase B, than to directly copy and reuse code. Jeff
Indeed, that argument is often paraphrased in a way that makes it hard to understand. What i heard people say is not "If people make derivative works based on BSD code, they should make them less free instead of fully free", but it is: "If people caring nothing about free software in the first place are building their own commercial systems anyway, they should rather reuse BSD code than hacking up their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff." Granted, that's a different approach than taken by the GPL, which Be careful not to confuse "desires" with "legal requirements"... :-( Given BSD code, BSD-licensed substantial improvements make happier than restrictively licensed substantial improvements make happier than derived non-free closed-source software make happier than license violations. Besides, the Linux communities neither qualify as "caring nothing about free software" nor as "hacking up their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff" (hopefully ;-). So that argument simply doesn't apply to you. Probably, that's why Jacob talked Several people have already explained this nicely; the degree of happiness may also depend on the level of cooperation and understanding you expect from the people building on the code, given their own intentions and goals. I may well be thankful towards an enemy just for not killing me, but at the same time sad about a friend leaving me out in the rain. ( This just being stated in general; i'm not sure what the state of discussions in the various Linux communities is just now. )
Hello! Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant additions/changes*. However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever) license for the modifications/additions. *If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive Kind regards, Hannah.
Yes, agreed. I was being sloppy. In actual practice, the GPL is more restrictive, aod so the terms of the GPL are what tend to have more Yes, although actually, the place where the BSD license must be honored is in a binary distribution, since the BSD license and copyright attribution must be distributed as part of the binary distribution. (Even Microsoft does this when they use BSD code.) For a source distribution, retaining the copyright attribution and permission statement in the comments is sufficient to meet the BSD license requirements, and since the open source world normally deals mostly with source, we sometimes get sloppy with how we phrase things. Regards, - Ted
Such as a patch? Hardly IMHO, a patch is not a work but an output of an automated tool. The copyright is not about fragments of works. You may add a copyright _notice_, not a copyright (a right). The author of a derived work automatically has copyright to the whole derived work, not only to the "fragments" he has created. MS Windows is "Copyright Microsoft", not "Microsoft and others". You can add any licence (not copyright, as it's automatic) to your (derived or not) work. If it's a derived work, you must comply with the original licence(s). Of course, the original work is copyrighted by its original author and licenced under its original conditions, and nobody is able to change that. Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs a licence from the original author to create a derived work. Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-) You do need a licence from the original author to use the original work, e.g. unmodified original work distributed by third party. I.e., you don't need a licence to use MS Windows from the retail shop, you need it from MS. Where exactly? Have you seen MS EULA maybe? Look at MS EULA, does MS Windows in your opinion have such a mixed licence too? :-) -- Krzysztof Halasa
Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a bit differently but get the same effect.) If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable element in that work. If the work were under a GPL or BSD type license, only the original author of each individual element could grant you such a license. Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not), only the original author can grant that to you. It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in the derivative work, that means he can license the work. He cannot license anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement. The GPL is explicit that it is not such a license. That's what the "from the original licensor" language in section 6 means. The BSD license is not explicit, but it couldn't work any other way. When you receive a Linux kernel distribution, you receive a GPL license to every protectable element in that work from that element's individual author. Nobody can license the kernel as a whole to you. DS
Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows. Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told Seems fine, your point? In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work), the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original author. It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue you like in the SCO case. If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't Of course. BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't receive additional rights. Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work. Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single company, though derived from other works, it's (C) MS and you get a licence for the whole MS Windows from only MS. You may have some additional rights and MS may have to acknowledge additional contributors, based on their licences granted by those contributors (such as using the original UCB licence). -- Krzysztof Halasa
No, you do not need a license to use MS Windows. Microsoft may choose to compel you to agree to a license in exchange for allowing you to install a copy, but that is not quite the same thing. If you read United States copyright law, you will see that *use* is not one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder. Every lawful possessor of a work may use it in the ordinary way, assuming they did not *agree* to some My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and the work he received. C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C. Again, read GPL section 6. (And this is true for the BSD license as well, at least in the United States, because it's the only way such a license could work.) Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual license a work is offered under by the original author. In fact, they could not give you this right under US copyright law. Modify the license *text* is In practice it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have a single fixed form or expression that contains creative elements contributed by different people potentially under different licenses. The issues of whether it's a derivative work or a combined work and whether the distributor has made sufficient protectable elements to assert their own copy really has no No, he can't. He can only license those protectable elements that he authored. There is no way you can license protectable elements authored by another absent a relicenseing agreement. The GPL is explicitly not a relicensing agreement, see section 6. The BSD license is implicitly not a relicensing A license is not just a promise not to sue, it's an ...
Of course you can. What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made available (under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object... You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee, something like "do what you want but I will do what I want with But he may have received only binary program image - or the source under NDA. Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public. Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD, Sure you can :-) that doesn't mean it would protect me from Disney, I'm told in the USA use = copying from disk to RAM = distribution, isn't it true? :-) I don't compare them (though you can). You don't get a licence for Yes, but it isn't automatic. Imagine you have received something from MS, under more permissive licence (I think such things did happen). How do you, for example, recognice boundaries of the elements, IOW what additional rights do you have to each line in the code or pixel in the font? The file itself only states: (C) MS portions (C) e.g. Bitstream licenced under their special agreement What extra rights do you receive from Bitstream? Perhaps you should ask them if they have given you some licence? :-) Or another example, redistributable runtime libraries. What extra rights do you have? What you write is true for GPL, but it doesn't mean it's true everytime. It's just that clause in the GPL. -- Krzysztof Halasa
You are equating what rights I have with my ability to exercise those rights. They are not the same thing. For example, I once bought the rights to publically display the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". To my surprise, the rights to public display did not include an actual copy of the film. In any event, I never claimed that anyone has rights to a protectable element that they do not possess a lawful copy of. That's a complete separate issue and one that has nothing to do with what's being discussed Sure, *you* can grant a BSD-style license to any protectable elements *you* authored. But unless your recpients can obtain a BSD-style license to all protectable elements in the work from their respective authors, they cannot modify or distribute it. *You* cannot grant any rights to protectable elements authored by someone else, unless you have a relicensing agreement. Neither the GPL nor the BSD What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you just trying to be deliberately dense or waste time? Is it not totally obvious how the principles I explain apply to a case like that? Only someone who signs an NDA must comply with it. If you signed an NDA, you must comply with it. An NDA can definitely subtract rights. It's a complex question whether an NDA can subtract GPL rights, but again, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about here. Sure, you can have the right from me to do X and still not be allowed to do This is a misleading statement. The phrase "entire work" has two senses. The license definitely does not cover the "entire work" in the sense of every protectable element in the work unless each individual author of those elements chose to offer that element under that license. If by "entire work", you mean any compilation or derivative work copyright the "final" author has, then yes, that's available under whatever license the "final" author places it under. But that license does not actually permit you to distribute the work. This ...
Gentlemen, please remove your wanking selves back to the gutter you've crawled from. This is not slashdot[1]. This is not gnu.misc.discuss. This is not alt.sex.cartooney.sue.sue.sue. This is a technical maillist and that dungpile doesn't belong here. If you insist on hitting vger, ask davem to create a new maillist (linux-kooks@... would fit that kind of traffic nicely) and for pity sake, do fuck off already. Enough is enough. [1] the spews from nerds, the spews that splatter...
Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the BSD license those not hinder them in any way. Now comes the funny part, as the BSD code in NetApp is available from public sources -- for example from OpenBSD -- it is actually not covered by the NDA. NDAs can only cover information that is not publicly available -- you can only forbit disclosure of information that is secret in the first place. Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their code just because the used some of my code.
Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and
I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are*
putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications ---
which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do
(modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution
which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of
using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL
sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their
proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a
GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still
So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code
and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't
use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the
difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary
license is better?
- Ted
You assume a lot about what NetApp did. While they can use BSD licensed code in their system without any issue they can not slam a new copyright on that code unless the changes create a derivative work. If you just do an adaption of the code you have no right to add an additional copyright. You need to make substantial extensions to the original work. Now adapting code to make it run under linux is in my opinion not a substantial work. It can be compared to translate a book to a different language -- which neither allows you to assign copyright on the result. I very much doubt that WAFL is a simple adaption of UFS/FFS. So it should be clear that this work has it's own copyright. Maybe some parts of their code is using BSD work that they just adapted. On that code they can not add an additional copyright as the modifications are not substantial Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil" companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright.
Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier versions. No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED. Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the HAL --- if people would only take a look at http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/n... And yet, the BSD folks seem to continue to nurse the above mantra (which was true, but quickly corrected) combined with the "and the Linux folks aren't listening", which is manifestly not true. We might not agree with everything you are saying, and we might think you're In the original BSD 4.3 code, if I recall correctly, /bin/true was 12 lines of AT&T copyright and the standard "this is proprietary non-published trade secret" legalease with the standard threats of bazillions and bazillions of damage due to AT&T's irreparable harm if the file was ever disclosed.... followed by "exit 0". :-) Personally, I find that issues of copyright are much more easily discussed if people keep a sense of balance and humor. - Ted
from latest ath5k_hw.c: * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> [snip rest of BSD license] The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the developers. The rest is, as you say, history. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
ath5k_regdom.c and ath5k_regdom.h seem to be missing the no warranty part of the license. I am not sure if this is a problem though. Cheers, Dries
OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off", and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not like anything won't be "given back". Whether or not they have made enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may differ from one jurisdiction to another --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later --- does it really make a difference? Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit than they deserve? Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is given proper credit, right? - Ted
Yes, quite an improvement, considering how it all started, dont you think? Pity it took so much pushing and dragging to get people to do the right thing. As a programmer, you sure would know what difference any "two lines" would make on your program. When it comes to law, you seem to lose Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except* these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they sure can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here? I have seen some academic papers, where the first author did all the work, the second author is the professor who funded the work, and the remaining five "authors" are just coming along for a ride. You know what the difference is? The original author *allows* them to put their names as authors. Here, you are adding names, and say "why not". It is both unethical and As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask. If, at the beginning, Nick and Jiri, and others asked Reyk to be included in the Copyright for the adaptation work they did on the HAL. I do not believe he would have refused. I can not talk for him, but things would be have been resolved in a much nicer and positive way. Instead they chose to push Reyk for months to dual license his code, then attempted to change the whole license. Even now, when there is just a small issue left, people are still dragging and resisting. I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once such a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place) some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they are doing is wrong. Right from the start. I now see this is not how things work around here. Senior developers are either too busy or reluctant to get their hands dirty. In OpenBSD, (which, I accept is a much smaller community) when ...
Please define "Sufficient contribution". And in what juristiction that definition applies. -- Len Sorensen
Please note that I am not a lawyer. It would be best if you do your own research, and consult a lawyer. Please look up the definition of derivative work. Even Wikipedia would do for some basic definitions. The copyright laws in most countries adhere to the "Berne Convention", yet another phrase to look up. From my own research, one guideline I would consider is: "The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself." But, again, if it comes to that, the lawyers will decide and we can have no more say on the subject. Let me, instead tell you how we handle this when working on BSD code: We communicate. If we feel we did some extensive changes to a file, we ask. Get OKs from other senior developers, preferably the authors and then add our name. During our license audits of the OpenBSD tree, a couple of years ago, our developers went into great pains to locate the authors and clarify the questionable licenses that were our tree. We are actively working on replacing the remaining non-BSD licensed code in our tree. Not by slapping on our own licenses, but by asking the authors nicely to relicense, finding replacements with an acceptable license, or by rewriting them. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.
In a purely open development environment, even personal developer trees are made public. That's the way we _want_ development to occur. Out in public, with a full audit trail. Your implied ideal scenario is tantamount to guaranteeing that mistakes are never committed to a public repository anywhere. Mistakes will What you are seeing is an example of mistakes that were caught in review, and corrected. That's how any scalable review process works... the developer reviews his own work. the team reviews the developer's work. the maintainer reviews the team's work. the next maintainer reviews. and so on, to the top. Jeff
So, here is the actual commit of the code in Linville's wireless networking development tree: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=commitdiff;h=fb3... It I am not mistaken, it was Sunday afternoon, so probably 5/6 or more of this thread consisting of more than 110 messages (according to my inbox) to LKML was after this time. As this already had the BSD license ... Anyway, as for the changes, I am not going to check the original, but from the first commit up to now is here: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=blobdiff;f=drive... Running a diffstat shows: ath5k_hw.c | 344 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------- 1 file changed, 165 insertions(+), 179 deletions(-) But not having the original version, and as the other two lines are already present, I am not going to look closer at the changes. <snip> However, the question I wanted to ask, was this: Can all those that still feel that there is a problem, please go and look at the original, compare it to the current, and then determine (ie, go ask a lawyer or some other appropriate person if need be) if the changes is enough of a contribution *BEFORE* posting again? Pretty please with sugar on top? Thanks, M
if that is true and stays that way - excellenty! -- Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
That's it; that easy.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_ _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so they should have their names listed in the headers. In other words, all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. - Ted and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.
are you publicly stating that you have checked, and found the amount so you don't mind if a couple of us go around adding say 10 lines of code to files you authored, and then put our copyrights under your name? good! i am glad to hear that. a bit of additional "undeserved credit" is always welcome anyway. would look good in my cv. it is not just a bit of undeserved credit. the (c) owners will be asked in the future regarding any legal aspects of the files they hold copyrights to. i don't think those 2 gentlemen have earned that yet. -f -- dum spiro spero -- as long as i breathe i hope
and did they really do enough? if those names shouldn't be there, why and what so petty is there? who can show what those two added to the original work so that according to the law they are allowed to put and who really cares about why you did this or did that? this OT sentence sounded like real childish BC. if you want to have fun while coding and share it with others - do it, if you want also to play contract games - do it; choose BSD or GPL and go with it. however, whatever you do you must respect laws. if the law says you can put your name in only if much of work is done, so it must be. there are no other variants. and everything will come back to you no matter whether it is good or bad. if you ignore laws using somebody's work, the same P.S. Let's just say that BC like that is why I decided to work with BSD instead of Linux 11 years ago.
Its simple; this is illegal. Those two fruitcakes didn't do jack and can therefore not claim copyright. Would be the same as me taking the linux kernel and adding myself to each file. I am pretty sure some I don't make the laws and I did not break any so you call it whatever Where it belongs. Again you don't get a cookie for doing what you are supposed to do. Just like you don't get a cookie for taking care of your kids; you're supposed to do that.
copyright assertion == claim of ownership, or posession. posession is 9/10 of the law. was it petty of UCB to claim copyrights over code USL claimed ownersip of? was it also petty of Novell to claim that they, and not SCO, owned the copyright to UNIX? sorry, but calling attribution claims of any sort "petty" is nothing short of dangerous ignorance. -- jakemsr@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Says a man who has a .sig of "SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org" Well sdf.lonestar.org claims to be NetBSD so might I suggest your dangerous ignorance starts at the Unix trademark. And please take this where it belongs which is the relevant wireless list. Better yet leave the dispute to those it actually involves, which is not most of the OpenBSD community, nor the Linux kernel team, but a small group of developers in the OpenBSD wireless world and a few people in the ath5k GPL project.
Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose The licence in question was: <-- snip --> /*- * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer, * without modification. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer * similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any * redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially * similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution. * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names * of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free * Software Foundation. * * NO WARRANTY * ... <-- snip --> Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for Is it really ethical to use a licence that does not require to give back, but then demand that something has to be given back? Why don't you use a licence that expresses your intentions in a legally You could also see it from a different perspective: If you like that the GPL enforces that everyone has to give back, do you also want to see your code BSD licenced without this protection? But the truth is a bit less harsh: In reality most Linux kernel developers might not mind to give back - and e.g. much of the ACPI code is BSD/GPL dual-licenced, and there doesn't seem to be any problem with this. But Theo's wrong accusations regarding ...
Hi! It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course. Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is* I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are probably right. Value judgements like "you should give code back" (when the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course). Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes, probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in IMO Theo didn't demand (as in try to enforce with legal pressure), but state it'd be the *morally* right thing to do even if *not* legally Because BSD people don't want to enforce it in every thinkable case. And BSD people don't want to enforce it using as much text as the GPL needs. But still I think it'd be the (morally!) right thing to do with respect As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies Kind regards, Hannah.
On which legal grounds do you base this statement?
And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
void?
And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when
his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make
his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and
BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text
If anything can be called relicencing, then the act of choosing one of
the licence. And this happens one level above the actual licences, and
You confuse two completely different situations.
The SFLC talks about how to incorporate *not* dual-licenced
It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
licence is that it does not require you to give back.
Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not
require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that
something has to be given back.
The majority of Linux developers might have never read the complete GPL
text, and the same might be true for some licence expressing the
intentions of the OpenBSD developers. But it would document in a legal
I don't know the background of this one, but besides the already
expressed point that it wouldn't bring you much for technical reasons
(the Linux code will quickly switch to Linux conventions), there might
As said above, keeping void terms neither makes sense, nor does there
cu
Adrian
[1] the original code is of course still dual licence
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to give back.
|
| Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not
| require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that
| something has to be given back.
Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey,
they don't require it, so we don't have to".
It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least.
No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
back ? Why not do it yourself ? By not giving back you're giving a
strange signal.
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
PS: Yes, I know .. but your "giving back" attaches new strings that
weren't there in the first place.
+++++++++++>-]<.>++[<------------>-]<+.--------------.[-]
http://www.weirdnet.nl/
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less
protection for the code than the GPL does.
If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything
back on moral grounds.
If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being
available with less protection.
In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an
author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written
driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey, | > they don't require it, so we don't have to". | >... | | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less | protection for the code than the GPL does. It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not mean you in person] | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything | back on moral grounds. I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal. I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being | available with less protection. If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL]. If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open source developer some respect and give back as freely as ...
If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can force them to do so. BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the GPL because it allows to take without having to give back. When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" they are using the wrong licence. Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back. And BTW: Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms of the BSD licence. And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and that giving code back in these cases would be friendly. I for one consider it important that the Linux kernel is protected by the GPL - but whether some contribution I send also becomes available cu Adrian [1] http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/ -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
The BSD license promotes goodwill. The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical that the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate greed, while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and non-redistributable drivers. It will bend over backwards for closed-source vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with "binary blobs
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
I never said they don't have any problems. They have plenty of problems. They refuse to do anything proactive about them. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: | > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD | > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should | > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak | > for them) trying to make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of | > the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code. | | GPL has a "share and protect" nature. Yes, and I was talking about the 'share' part. The protect part is fine with me, I understand the reasoning behind it. I would not choose it as my own licence, but that is a matter of personal choice. | > I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL]. | > I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of | > respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take | > BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you | > should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use | > GPL'ed code without giving back, btw). | | If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can | force them to do so. The exact same is true for the BSD Licence. If a corporation (or anyone else for that matter) violates the terms of the BSD licence, courts can make them stop these violations. It's just easier to violate the GPL, because it has more restrictions. [I'm still not a lawyer, btw] Big Evil Corps can however use GPL'ed code without giving back and without violating the GPL. Also the same as with the BSD licence. | BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the | GPL because it allows to take without having to give back. | | When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" | they are using the wrong licence. Why ? BSD people give their code away for free. They put hard work into writing quality software and they have their own ethics or morale. They do not *demand* getting code ...
Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code. The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors. Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author offered it under. You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor of code you did not author. The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under That's true. DS
The licence text we are talking about disagrees with what you claim:
<-- snip -->
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
* without modification.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
* similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
* redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
* similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
* 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
* of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
* from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
*
* NO WARRANTY
* ...
<-- snip -->
We are talking about dual-licenced code, not about BSD licenced code
incorporated into GPL'ed code.
That other people can distribute the original dual-licenced code
dual-licenced or BSD-only, and that you can get the code under this
licences from there, is without a doubt. But *the author* allowed me to
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Regarding "Linux Kernel developers," false. _I_ have posted. ath5k, wireless, and net driver maintainers have all sent emails. License and code fixes have been committed. As for the FSF: It has been repeatedly stated that the FSF has zip to You are failing to observe that changes have been made in response to criticism. Given that Linux Kernel devs have responded both with code changes and emails, "silence" and "inaction" are provably false. And since the changes go ath5k->linville->me->linus or ath5k->linville->me->davem->linus, I am a step in the approval chain. I do know what I'm talking about. :) Jeff
