OpenBSD project creator Theo de Raadt detailed his concerns regarding BSD-licensed code and Dual-BSD/GPL-licensed code being re-licensed under only the GPL (as previously discussed): "Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to... Break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact." Regarding the concern that the BSD license allows companies to steal code, Theo reflected: "GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope - the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-01
A linux dev proposed on a mailing list to change a license that he had no rights to, and he was promptly called on that. The same happened with an OpenBSD dev for the BCW driver, where it was in fact committed to the CSV development tree. Were they also stealing?
Mr. Buesch, thought some functions look the same and the driver itself did not work and it was not being used. but knowingly removing the whole BSD license and putting the code under the GPL is far worse then a couple of functions looking identical.
I appreciate you linked the site of the linux kernel code, but many might have the taught, after this fiasco that not all is being published what is included in the the linux kernel for a covering up of stolen IP.
Edited 2007-09-03 13:32
Member since:2005-07-24
Happycamper,
The people involved, in both cases should have been given some time to work things out before the all the news stories were published. The stories regarding both "news" items were sensationalistic. And they were gossip.
Let's just note that and go back to talking about more important stuff.
Member since:2006-01-08
I appreciate you linked the site of the linux kernel code, but many might have the taught, after this fiasco that not all is being published what is included in the the linux kernel for a covering up of stolen IP.
So where do you think this "unpublished" linux kernel resides?
Member since:2006-01-08
Mr. Buesch, thought some functions look the same and the driver itself did not work and it was not being used.
Whether some code code works or is being used has no bearing on whether a copyright violation has taken place.
but knowingly removing the whole BSD license and putting the code under the GPL is far worse then a couple of functions looking identical.
It's not far worse, they're both plain copyright violations.
Member since:2006-01-01
It's not far worse, they're both plain copyright violations.
i respect your point of view. but i will put anthoer way how this may differ. lets say you see somebody else driving a car that looks like yours, that happen to be the same color, year,etc. you cant say hey that is my car.you are using my car, but when somebody actually takes your car and says it is theirs that is stealing that is what the linux dev was trying to do take BSD code.
i agree with sbergman27, we have to talk about more important stuff then continue this discussion.
Member since:
2006-01-08
> what you link is a site with what suppose to represent what is in the linux kernel, but that needs to be verify, if what is on the site matches with what is in the kernel.
I linked to the site where I think the source of the Linux kernel can be found. If you disagree, where do you suggest we can find the kernel?
> to see if what is on the site is not really covering up stolen IP.that is in the kernel. remember a linux dev was caught stealing, naughty, naughty.
A linux dev proposed on a mailing list to change a license that he had no rights to, and he was promptly called on that. The same happened with an OpenBSD dev for the BCW driver, where it was in fact committed to the CSV development tree. Were they also stealing?