"Reyk and I have decided to show something from the private handling of this Atheros copyright violation issue," OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt began in a posting to the OpenBSD -misc mailing list referring to the recent relicensing of OpenBSD's BSD licensed Atheros driver under the GPL. He noted, "it has been like pulling teeth since (most) Linux wireless guys and the SFLC do not wish to admit fault. I think that the Linux wireless guys should really think hard about this problem, how they look, and the legal risks they place upon the future of their source code bodies." He stressed that the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false, adding, "in their zeal to get the code under their own license, some of these Linux wireless developers have broken copryright law repeatedly. But to even get to the point where they broke copyright law, they had to bypass a whole series of ethical considerations too."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-07
If you had read that thread, you'd know perfectly well some of the facts surrounding it, including that Michael Buesch was being a complete asshole about it from start.
Kind of like how Theo has been an asshole from the start? By the way, this doesn't sound very rude to me:
"We're not out for blood, just for a fair resolution."
Compare that with what Theo said:
Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
* 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.
How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
maybe you should go back to reading, and try to actually understand what they were about and how they were handled.
I think you should take your own advice and read up on exactly what this is about.
Member since:2006-03-20
If I remember correctly, the __author of the code__ had already stated that it was licensed under:
"... BSD license ... ... OR the GPL v2 ...".
What part of "... BSD license ONLY ..." did I miss in the original post?
BTW, it was also confirmed by the author that the proposed changes in the first submission (that were rejected, BTW) were legal based on the dual "OR" license clause he had put in the code.
But, to keep with the good intentions, the kernel group only accepted the code after the BSD clause was left in.
As someone noticed in another thread, it's interesting that Theo only made the "... brothers in code at the GPL camp ..." comment after being shown he was incorrect in his interpretation of the license statment in the code.
Member since:
2005-08-26
That case was actually resolved. By the developer simply deleting all code in question.
If you had read that thread, you'd know perfectly well some of the facts surrounding it, including that Michael Buesch was being a complete asshole about it from start.
You'd also know that Marcus Glocker despite all that tried to talk about it, but was completely ignored until he posted 11 hours later that he chose to give up completely.
The current case is (as of article submission time) not resolved despite it being weeks in the brewing. If you don't see why, or the differencies between the two cases, maybe you should go back to reading, and try to actually understand what they were about and how they were handled.
You should also take special note of Reyk's posts in the thread you supplied.