Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Apr 2007 13:14 UTC, submitted by detonator
OpenBSD "I, Michael Buesch, am one of the maintainers of the GPL'd Linux wireless LAN driver for the Broadcom chip (bcm43xx). The Copyright holders of bcm43xx (which includes me) want to talk to you, OpenBSD bcw developers, about possible GPL license and therefore copyright violations in your bcw driver. We believe that you might have directly copied code out of bcm43xx (licensed under GPL v2), without our explicit permission, into bcw (licensed under BSD license)." The entire thread can be found here.
Thread beginning with comment 228422
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: re
by deanna on Sat 7th Apr 2007 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: re"
deanna
Member since:
2006-10-01

This is actually the most offensive and inflammatory comment I've seen in this whole fiasco, and I'm pretty sure I've read nearly all of them, all across the net.

I would have voted it down, but was surprised to find that I can't, because it's coming from an OSN Staff member.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: re
by Adam S on Sat 7th Apr 2007 13:21 in reply to "RE[12]: re"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

This is actually the most offensive and inflammatory comment I've seen in this whole fiasco


Oh, right. I'm sure. Because any comment that disagrees with your stance is "offensive and inflammatory."

I would have voted it down, but was surprised to find that I can't, because it's coming from an OSN Staff member.


Actually, users CAN mod OSNews Staff members. You could vote on my comment if you had earned enough trust on the site, except your peers haven't judged *your* comments as worthy enough. So let that speak for itself.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[13]: re
by Adam S on Sat 7th Apr 2007 13:27 in reply to "RE[12]: re"
Adam S Member since:
2005-04-01

This is actually the most offensive and inflammatory comment I've seen in this whole fiasco, and I'm pretty sure I've read nearly all of them, all across the net.


The more I read this, the more it infuriates me. I want to understand the mentality of the open source zealot: if you steal my code - knowingly or not - and commit it into a public CVS tree that anyone else knows is BSD licensed and therefore could - at this very moment - be using it in a proprietary driver or application - am *I* wrong for calling it to your attention? Or am I just wrong if I "cc" too many people in my reply? What is the acceptable amount of people for the first notice?

Am I less right for calling you out if I've embarrassed you for your massive screw up?

This whole thing is absolutely RIDICULOUS, and the people who are ignoring blatant copyright infringement should not only be ashamed of themselves, they should not be trusted to ever touch, write, or release Linux (GPL), OpenOffice (LGPL), and most GNU apps. - they obviously have no respect for these licenses.

Edited 2007-04-07 13:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[14]: re
by animus on Sat 7th Apr 2007 14:33 in reply to "RE[13]: re"
animus Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't think this is a matter of someone trying to steal someone else's work and pass it off as their own.

This is a matter of someone using someone else's code temporarily and pushing it off onto a CVS repository without thinking about the consequences (allow us all to re-read this statement multiple times, less we should forget it again).

am *I* wrong for calling it to your attention? Or am I just wrong if I "cc" too many people in my reply? What is the acceptable amount of people for the first notice?

Right and wrong can be argued to no end (as philosophers have been doing for eons), and there are so many varying shades of grey, however, I myself would have chosen personal (private) contact first, so that I could find out what was going on before potentially making an ass out of anyone (myself included) -- and as far as I can see, Michael Buesch's approach, only served to show the worst side of everyone, both those involved and uninvolved, himself included -- although I doubt that was his original intention -- and I wonder if any of us can look at this objectively enough to learn from it?

And in the end what have we really gained? Michael does not have his recognition, the OpenBSD driver was deleted, Marcus is publicly humiliated, and everyone has gotten needlessly worked up over spilt milk. Good lord -- we're talking about a wireless network driver here, in fact, only a portion of it, one that does not even work, yet we treat it as the oncoming of the Third Reich. Some fights are worth fighting, I am doubtful that this is one of them.

It seems to me the original issue could have been remedied, and the subsequent lynching prevented, had personal contact been made first. To accuse someone of stealing without first investigating and talking to them is a demonstration of a true black and white mentality -- the very same mentality we see taking extremely polar view points in these comments. It is for these reasons that our respective countries have chosen judicial systems that separate the victim from the process, and presume innocence before guilt.

Let us not forget that this was a work in progress, and the fact that it didn't work certainly provides evidence to support this claim. Marcus was not actively going around distributing the code pretending it was his -- yes -- it was on a CVS server, but as mentioned before, CVS servers require you to go out of your way to get anything off them. They are a passive system of distribution (you have to want to get something off them, know how to do it, and know what you want), so I think it's easy to see how one can mistakenly commit something without thinking they've done anything wrong.

YES, proper recognition should have been given, even if the code was only going to be used temporarily, however, I don't think that anyone here would want to be in Marcus's position -- and to be publicly labelled a thief, with no real investigation, trial, or conviction beforehand.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[14]: re
by openwookie on Sat 7th Apr 2007 15:15 in reply to "RE[13]: re"
openwookie Member since:
2006-04-25

The more I read this, the more it infuriates me. I want to understand the mentality of the open source zealot: if you steal my code - knowingly or not - and commit it into a public CVS tree that anyone else knows is BSD licensed and therefore could - at this very moment - be using it in a proprietary driver or application - am *I* wrong for calling it to your attention? Or am I just wrong if I "cc" too many people in my reply? What is the acceptable amount of people for the first notice?

Am I less right for calling you out if I've embarrassed you for your massive screw up?


For one thing, the code wasn't "stolen", it wasn't attributed properly. And the idea that someone could close source it and use it is ridiculous. The driver isn't even close to functioning yet.

The point is that yes, there was a screw up, but the way which the issue was raised was entirely inappropriate. This was an incomplete driver. It has not shipped with any oBSD releases. It was well known that the developers were going to use the linux driver as a reference (http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20061121194620)

A simple email directed to the developer and Theo would have fixed the issue rather quickly. Michael Buesch *KNEW* that cross posting that email would cause a fire storm. He is an absolute idiot if he thought otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 4