Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:12 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Legal "After years of encouragement from the OpenBSD community for others to use Reyk Floeter's free atheros wireless driver, it seems that the Linux world is finally listening. Unfortunately, they seem to think that they can strip the BSD license right out of it." Update: The issue has been fixed, but sadly, lkml.org is down, so I cannot give any links just yet.
Thread beginning with comment 266522
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Flash back to April 2007...
by dcbw on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:05 UTC
dcbw
Member since:
2006-08-31

An OpenBSD developer committed a lot of Broadcom 43xx code to OpenBSD CVS in April and stripped _out_ the GPLv2, under which the bcm43xx driver was exclusively licensed. Ostensibly this was a "mistake" as the developer was going to "rewrite" the driver, but chose to replace the license first.

http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/bcm43xx-dev/2007-April/004370.htm...

In the current case, the code was _dual_ licensed, which allows you to _choose_ what license to use the code under.

So people should listen very closely to Theo de Raadt to see what an ass he is, and if he gets hypocritical at all and brings up the bcm43xx stuff. And if he does, call him on it.

Edited 2007-08-29 13:05

Reply Score: 9

RE: Flash back to April 2007...
by SReilly on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:11 in reply to "Flash back to April 2007..."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

So people should listen very closely to Theo de Raadt to see what an ass he is, and if he gets hypocritical at all and brings up the bcm43xx stuff. And if he does, call him on it.

Theo does get allot of peoples backs up. Thing is, both situations seem to be genuine mistakes, I don't see the point in starting a grudge match about it.

Come to think of it, starting a grudge match over Theo's inability to be civil has kinda been done to death ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Flash back to April 2007...
by fsckit on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:16 in reply to "Flash back to April 2007..."
fsckit Member since:
2006-09-24

There was quite a difference there. The BSD developer used a very insubstantial part of the code as a placeholder, while developing within the CVS tree. Was this a mistake? Obviously. Did the linux johnnies goes entirely overboard? You bet they did.

In this case, the developer took the BSD code, relicensed it wholesale with the GPL, and even replaced attribution with his own name. It's unclear if this guy even wrote one line of code before doing this. Was this a mistake? Yes. Does it seem it was intentional? Absolutely. Did the OpenBSD developers publicly call this guy a thief? Nope. It was only discussed within the OBSD lists and happened to get posted on undeadly.org (read only by OpenBSD users/devs and the occasional troll from slashdot).

Reply Parent Score: 4

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

even replaced attribution with his own name


Incorrect. He NEVER replaced attribution with his own name. He removed the BSD-license from two dual-licensed files. Perfectly correct of him. The dual-license allows for this.

The problem is the three files not under the GPL and not under the BSD. There is no stealing of BSD-code because the BSD-code was also under GPL and he could freely choose which license to use. The three files under the MIT-like non-BSD license did however have their conditions removed which is a copyright violation. But the attributions were NOT removed.

Stop lying.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

In the current case, the code was _dual_ licensed, which allows you to _choose_ what license to use the code under.


You get to chose license for your derived work, you dont get to remove the BSD license from the file.

So people should listen very closely to Theo de Raadt


Indeed they should even though he can be harsh.

Edited 2007-08-29 13:24

Reply Parent Score: 4

tristan Member since:
2006-02-01

In the current case, the code was _dual_ licensed, which allows you to _choose_ what license to use the code under.

You get to chose license for your derived work, you dont get to remove the BSD license from the file.


Yes, you do.

Take the dual-licensed file. Choose to use it under the GPL. Edit the source to remove the BSD licence text (perfectly legal under the GPL). Voila.

Reply Parent Score: 9

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You get to chose license for your derived work, you dont get to remove the BSD license from the file.


Well, wrong sort of. You have the right to use, modify and distribute the file under the license you choose.

You don't have to make modifications to the sources only.

Besides, removing one of the licenses create a derivative anyway, so your argument (which is copied directly from Theo) is moot ;)

Theo is wrong on this one, and won't admit it. That's the negative part of his strong mind, which I usually admire.

Reply Parent Score: 2