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.”
That is simply not the case. If a file is dual-licenced, then someone re-distributing it can choose which licence to obey (or both, of course, keeping it dual-licenced). Moreover, a derived work can be made under the terms of one or other licence (or both, again).
Theo is simply wrong on this one.
Are you sure? I think that in a dual licensed file you can’t remove any license without the permision of the owners. The dual lincense really sucks.
Depending on the dual licensing scheme you may or may not remove part of the license.
In this case the correct solution would be to add a statement along these lines:
(C) YEAR John Doe
This file was received under a dual license allowing for choosing one of the two following licenses. One is a modified BSD-license and the other option is the GNU General Public License version 2. The second option was chosen and since YYYYMMDD this file is distributed under the GPL v.2
I don’t think that is possible unless the licence that the redistributor chose explicitly allows removal of the other license. Otherwise the redistributor does not have the right to change the licensing terms.
It may be possible to create a new dual licensing scheme where it is possible, but with the existing BSD/GPL it is not. (Keep in mind that with a new licensing scheme, the terms of distribution would be different from both the BSD and the GPL, so reconsideration of license compatibilities would be necessary.)
What are you talking about?
My suggestion was not to remove the discarded license, but add a notice telling which license was chosen.
For this particular situation it goes like this:
The license chosen does not have to allow for removal of the other license, because the other license does not exist in any legal sense in the moment it is discarded. There is as such nothing that prevents removing the BSD-part (or the GPL-part), since it is not a legal document, unless it is chosen (in which case the other license is not a legal document). The license clearly allows for only one of the licenses and the copyright holder has told that the linux-devs were correct. This is because the code is licensed as BSD or GPL.
There is another kind of BSD/GPL dual license. That’s the normal one where the BSD-code is sublicensed as GPL. In those situations it is a copyright violation to remove the BSD-license because it is licensed as BSD and GPL.
The “and” and “or” makes the difference.
Remember, just because a license text is present in a file does not mean that license is valid. Especially not when talking about optional dual licensing.
The FreeBSD-team removed the GPL-part and OpenBSD guys did not complain.
The code from Sam Leffner is not BSD-licensed NOR GPL-licensed. It is licensed under a license saying you can choose BSD or GPL. It explicitly allows for discarding one of the licenses (but not discarding both). One can then choose to distribute as BSD or GPL or under the original license, passing the option along. But one doesn’t _have_ to do that. It’s your own choice. It explicitly allows for choosing the license terms ýou want (from the two options).
Theo is simply wrong on this one.
If it was only on this one…
Obviously he’s completely wrong (luckily for him and the OpenBSD project). Dual license means exactly what you say, and to make it clearer it should be put:
– Download this file under BSD lincese (insert download link)
– Download this file under GPL license (insert download link)
What bothers me most is that TdR is so concerned about people “stealing” their code. Well, the original (modified) BSD license says: “You can’t use this code for your project and you don’t have to contribute back your changes”. The GPL says: “you can use this code for your project but you must contribute back the changes.” If Theo wants the second option, he should choose the GPL as his license instead of using the BSD one and then start winning about people not contributing back. And if someone steals BSD code, it’s not Linux (who releases Free code to reuse by anyone under the GPL), but proprietary vendors!
One last thing: the other parts of that driver that were not dual licensed are not BSD but ISC licensed. The ISC license is used by the OpenBSD project now for their new code (AFAIK). This license is *not* equal to the BSD one.
The ISC License has copyleft, though it’s so poorly written that it’s hard to know what the person who wrote it meant. I hate these “simple” licenses that don’t explain anything and leave so much to be “guessed”. OpenBSD should drop this license and decide if they want the “normal” BSD License (no copyleft, derivative works can be closed source) or the GPL (strong copyleft). Or if not explain clearly what they want people to do with their code and what they don’t want people to do with their code.
EDIT:
I forgot to say why TdR is lucky to be wrong. If he was right and *both* licenses should be respected when you *distribute* the code, then the OpenBSD project would be illegal, since they would be distributing GPL’ed code without respecting the license.
Edited 2007-09-02 16:53
>it’s not Linux (who releases Free code to reuse by anyone under the GPL), but proprietary vendors!
What a crap. You cannot use this code anymore in a BSD project. So it’s indeed stolen code. But many proprietary vendors are supporting *BSD, so what’s the problem? Copyleft is no freedom at all, you’re paying “protection money” for your precious freedom.
Of course Theo is to blame, he didn’t know the Linux-hypocrites.
What a crap. You cannot use this code anymore in a BSD project. So it’s indeed stolen code.
GPL’ed code is Free code. You can use it, modify it and redistribute it under certain terms. If you don’t want to accept those terms it’s your *choice* not to do so. Nobody’s stealing anything here (specially because if you comply with the BSD license you’re not stealing, you’re just honoring the author’s will).
Copyleft is no freedom at all
I respect your opinion, but as I said, TdR here is complaining as if what he really wants is a copyleft license. AND, as a matter of a fact, he (and the OpenBSD project) has chosen a copyleft license (the ISC license) for all their new code. The only problem is that this ISC license is so crappy that it’s hard to know what it really means. Should you provide source code? Can you add further restrictions to the license or must it be redistributed *exactly* under those same terms? What about derivative works? Too many questions without answer…
the OpenBSD project) has chosen a copyleft license (the ISC license) for all their new code.
I read the incredibly short ISC license (it’s a “1-clause” BSD) and don’t understand your claim that it is copyleft. It says nothing about adding restrictions on the redistribution of derived works, which is the fundamental stipulation that makes a license copyleft.
As for what it means, here it is in all its glory, minus the copyright notice and standard disclaimer:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or 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.
Seems (extremely) straightforward to me. According to Wikipedia (grain of salt advised), it’s functionally the same as the 2-clause BSD because of language made redundant by the Berne Convention.
Seems (extremely) straightforward to me.
No, it’s not so straightforward. And it’s *not* the same as the BSD license (the one we all know as BSD license).
The ISC license says that you must keep “this permission notice” when you redistribute the code (and “this permission” includes permission to copy, modify and redistribute). The BSD license doesn’t say so, only refers to copyright and disclaimer.
So, can I get ISC code, change a couple of things and release it under a proprietary license? No, I need to grant permission to the person who receives that code to “copy, modify and/or distribute” it. I *must* keep that permission. Therefor, the code derived from this code must always remain Free (that’s the copyleft I mean).
It is debatable if I must provide the source code. The license says nothing about it, but can I give you permission to *modify* the code, but not give you the *means* to do it (i.e, the source code)? I’d say that if I give you permission to modify it, I *must* give you the means to do it (I think any court would interpret it this way, but go figure).
If this license is compatible with the GPL is also debatable. *strictly* speaking they are not compatible (the GPL doesn’t admit that you add that permission to it), but it could be argued that the spirit is compatible, etc…
Again, it’s a sloppy license. It leaves everything to be interpreted (unlike the GPL, which explains clearly its intention).
Wrong:
Note the this list of conditions.
Wrong:
Please, read the ISC license. Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license
I was quoting the BSD license, because you said:
…when it patently does.
(Not only do you fail to read the BSD license, but you also fail to read my comment properly, bravo!)
I was quoting the BSD license
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your post.
But you didn’t understand the point anyway:
BSD license says you must keep the copyright and the disclaimer, and yes, that “list of conditions”. But that list of conditions only mention the copyright and the disclaimer, i.e, their purpose is that further redistribution of that code also keeps the copyright and the disclaimer.
Now if you look at the ISC license you’ll see that they ask you to keep “this permission notice”, which includes permission to copy, modify and/or distribute the code. That is, further redistribution of that code (modified or unmodified) *must* keep the permission to copy, modify and distribute the code.
The ISC license is not a “permissive” license. It has copyleft. You can’t make ISC code non-Free. So it’snot a BSD-like license.
Do you get it now?
Right, so you’re arguing that in the following text:
The line reading “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:” is merely a preamble to the list of conditions and not itself one of the conditions?
It sort of makes sense, but it’s possibly the most bizarre argument against the BSD license I’ve ever heard (and I’ve heard an awful lot of arguments against the BSD family of licenses).
Here’s a question: has that conundrum ever been raised by an actual lawyer attempting to determine the suitability of a BSD-alike license for a company wishing to release some software, or in some other similar legal context?
The line reading “Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:” is merely a preamble to the list of conditions and not itself one of the conditions?
Yes.
It sort of makes sense, but it’s possibly the most bizarre argument against the BSD license I’ve ever heard
Why *against* the BSD license? It’s not an argument against it. It’s just the reason why the BSD license allows that you get the code and use in in commercial programs.
I *guess* this is the will of the people who use this license (FreeBSD, for example). Otherwise they would say out loud that this can’t be done and they would sue anyone doing it (Microsoft, Apple,…)
Here’s a question: has that conundrum ever been raised by an actual lawyer attempting to determine the suitability of a BSD-alike license for a company wishing to release some software, or in some other similar legal context?
Not that I know of. That’s why some companies are not comfortable using BSD licensed code. Though AFAIK people who use this license for their code do it because they want to give absolute freedom to others to use it. Otherwise, they could easily choose another license (like GPL).
Um, also…
First of all, the compatibility of the BSD 2- or 3-clause isn’t under any doubt, except perhaps by Theo who is only a different planet from the rest of us. You can satisfy all of the terms of the BSD 2/3-clause and the GPL simultaneously, ergo it’s compatible. The “original” BSD 4-clause license isn’t compatible because satisfying all of the terms of that license makes it impossible to satisfy the terms of the GPL, and vice versa.
Second, the BSD family of licenses aren’t sloppy in the slightest. The license is clear, concise and leaves very little to the imagination because there’s very little to leave to the imagination. The only issues that arise are either to do with philosophies (which don’t have any place in a legal instrument except where that instrument is being used to enforce the philosophy), or issues regarding open source licensing in general.
First of all, the 2/3-clause BSD requires the retention of the list of conditions. There was some controversy a while back about whether it’s required to retain the main grant, since it is arguably not a part of the list of conditions. But the BSD community dismissed this argument as nonsense.
If the BSD community is correct as to the above argument, and the main grant must be retained, then the retention policy is unchanged from the 2/3-clause to the ISC. If not, then the ISC closes a monster loophole in the BSD.
However, there is also a question of whether “granted” is the same as “permitted” with respect to exceptional conditions. The BSD has been interpreted in such a way that exceptions can be added to conditionally limit the permissions. But to grant something might imply some stronger notion that is immune to exceptions.
In other words, can I do this?
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or 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.
These permissions apply only to left-handed people who retain this sentence in all copies.
Hey, it’s my derived work, and I feel disenfranchised as a southpaw in a right-handed world. The license doesn’t explicitly say I can’t add my own conditions, and it’s unclear whether this can be inferred from the language.
So the ISC is plenty vague, but then again, so is the BSD. That’s why commercial vendors are scared to use it. IBM would much rather use the Apache, and I imagine that many projects would rather use the Ms-PL. At least it’s clear that these are copyleft licenses, and most commercial vendors are unwilling to open their code without a copyleft to protect their licensing terms.
Exactly, the license is vague and very poorly written. We can’t discuss on legal ground what it really means.
But your example of further conditions seems a bit too much. I’d say you can add further restrictions as long as they don’t contradict or fundamentally change the above ones. But again, how can we know?
It *seems* that ISC code should remain free – and by the way the OpenBSD people react when someone uses their code without giving back, I wouldn’t use any ISC licensed code unless I’m willing to comply with the most restrictive interpretation.
In any case, it’s the OpenBSD people who should decide what they want out of their code and choose a decent license that reflects their position clearly (I think GPLv3 becomes TdR’s ideas incredibly well – even in being incompatible with Linux’s GPLv2
Obviously he’s completely wrong (luckily for him and the OpenBSD project). Dual license means exactly what you say, and to make it clearer […]
Actually, a document falling under multiple licences can give you the opportunity to select a licence when it’s explicitly specified. While you can redistribute such document on the licence you accepted, it doesn’t give you the right to rip the other licences unless you were given the right explicitly.
Like dylansmrjones suggested, specifying the licence you have chosen could be a solution.
Actually, a document falling under multiple licences can give you the opportunity to select a licence when it’s explicitly specified.
This is not correct.
You can’t distribute a file under two licenses. When you dual license a file you give the person who receives the file the option to choose *either* one or the other license.
Note that the GPL license doesn’t allow you to distribute code under the BSD license, and so, if you were distributing a file under *both* licenses at the same time, you would be violating the GPL license and therefor it would be an illegal distribution.
Incorrect. It is possible to distribute a file under the combination of two or more licenses. There’s quite a bit of code out there under the revised BSD-license AND the GPL license. This is perfectly legal.
There are two kinds of dual licensing.
1) A licensing scheme where you can choose one of the licenses and discard the other one. That’s what we usually consider dual licensing.
2) A combination of two licenses. Like taking a MIT-licensed file and sublicensing it under the GPL. There’s quite a bit of that in GPL’ed projects. This is possible ONLY when the licenses are compatible. The revised BSD-license is compatible with GPL.
Incorrect. It is possible to distribute a file under the combination of two or more licenses.
If by combination you mean actually merging two licenses under one, then yes, you can. But this is not the case. And it couldn’t be.
This is possible ONLY when the licenses are compatible. The revised BSD-license is compatible with GPL.
BSD is compatible with GPL meaning that by complying with the GPL you are also complying with the BSD license. However, note that if you comply with the BSD you are not necessarily complying with the GPL, and so it is not possible to dual-license in the way you mention.
As I said, if what you say is correct, then OpenBSD would be an illegal project for distributing GPL’ed code without complying with it. It’s not the case, anyway, since they distribute that code under the BSD license *exclusively*.
BSD asks for one simple thing : include the copyright license when using the source. This notice grants everyone the right to use the code under the same conditions :
“- * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
– * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
– * without modification.”
This is exactly what the GPL-guy stripped out. By removing the notice, he not only violated the license under which he had received the code, but he *duped his users* by taking away from them a right explicitly granted to them by the author and placing on them the restriction of only having access to this code under the GPL.
You CAN include BSD code in GPL code, you CANNOT then strip out the BSD copyright because you think the GPL grants you this right, that’s circular reasoning.
Edited 2007-09-02 18:18 UTC
That’s true to the extent that BOTH licenses apply at the SAME time. This is not the case here, so your argumentation is moot.
BSD asks for one simple thing : include the copyright license when using the source. This notice grants everyone the right to use the code under the same conditions
Which is exactly why they should have NOT dual-licensed the code, if that was their purpose.
This is exactly what the GPL-guy stripped out. By removing the notice, he not only violated the license under which he had received the code
He didn’t “violated” any license because the file was dual-licensed. He choosed one of the two licenses offered by the copyright owner
From your POV, if I choosed to use this code for a propietary product, I’d also be breaking the GPL!
In fact, from your POV nobody should dual-license code because it’ll be illegal most of the times
you CANNOT then strip out the BSD copyright because you think the GPL grants you this right
You can if the code is dual-licensed. If the author didn’t wanted this to happen, then he should just have NOT dual-licensed it, period.
I feel like i’m on slashdot here. Has *anyone* on this thread read the fine article ?
Theo de Raadt replied pointing out that there are two parts to the driver, one part written by Reyk Floeter, and another part written by Sam Leffler, “Reyk’s code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. He has explicitly stated that his code is not dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He’s the author, he said so. None else can add a GPL to it.”
Reyk’s code was licensed under the ISC-license and that part got fixed as soon as the OpenBSD team complained.
This is not about Reyk’s code which is licensed under the ISC-license – and in the Linux kernel also sublicensed under the GPL – which is perfectly legal.
The error in removing the ISC-license was fixed within hours.
Why should we believe you? No one here’s a lawyer, but Theo de Raadt has more on the line than OSnews comment score in regards to legalities like this. And one thing’s for sure – wrong or right, there’s nothing simple about this problem. While what he says about the totality of the author’s rights is clear (it’s the center of copyright law), dual-licencing is a gigantic mess that has (to the best of my knowledge) never been probed in the courts – which the only way to establish the ‘right’ view on it.
My own opinion? You can distribute it under either of them – but you STILL must obey both of them, which means keeping the legal notices intact (what’s that the GPL said about passing on all your rights?).
“My own opinion? You can distribute it under either of them – but you STILL must obey both of them, which means keeping the legal notices intact (what’s that the GPL said about passing on all your rights?).”
So do you believe the dual licensed files cannot be made closed-source? I’m sure the GPL folks are more than happy to leave in those precious BSD attribution clauses if it also means that dual licensed files can’t become closed-source 🙂
The copyright holder disagrees. Besides that – such a BOTH-licenses-at-the-same-time would be GPL-incompatible.
The passage in the GPL about passing on all your rights does not mean you can pass on restrictions or add extra clauses. Such clauses would make the license GPL-incompatible.
That only applies in this specific case, what he says doesn’t magically make that the precedent for dual-licensing (it doesn’t even make it for this one, it just means he can selectively enforce/ change around the licences he’s using).
In addition, the BSD licence is LESS restrictive than the GPL, and you (the distributor/ editor) aren’t adding extra clauses, you’re keeping the ones that are there, there. If you took something that was gpl and then added the bsd licence to the entire code, that’s where you’d hit that block.
No one can lock you out of the code you wrote. You just don’t accept GPL code into your project if you dont want it to be GPL’d. Its a very simple concept. This guy needs to get a clue.
Fight a silly copyleft with a even sillier copyleft, how bright …
it all boils down to either being free to give up freedom, or being forced to be free…
“””
it all boils down to either being free to give up freedom, or being forced to be free…
“””
It all boils down to choosing the license for your code carefully.
Because, even in the most optimistic scenario, people are going to take you at your word, and follow the letter of the law. You can’t release under a license that doesn’t say what you mean, and expect people to know and follow whatever it was that you meant.
If you license under BSD, you need to be sure that is what you want. If you license under GPL, you need to be sure that is what you want.
It may make sense to start by erring on the restrictive side, since its easier for the author to grant new rights than to take away existing rights which have already been granted. In fact, he can’t. Only by evolving the code and releasing the later versions under a different license can restrictions be added, in a practical sense. Unless, of course, you are the FSF, and have conned a lot of people into giving you the power to change the rules anytime you want. 😉
Edited 2007-09-02 16:24
“Unless, of course, you are the FSF, and have conned a lot of people into giving you the power to change the rules anytime you want. 😉 ”
Do you hurt inside! Do you have problems at home! Did a guy called Richard once dump you for a younger model.
This concerns the KERNEL. I’m absolutely certain that this is not FSF.
Now if you are referring to the sining over copyright I suspect you have to *sign* the damn thing. Think about that for a moment. I guess its their choice about trust in what the FSF does. The bottom line is if you agree with what the FSF does why not. Dick has been 100% consistent in his beliefs.
By the way sorry to here about you and Dick. I thought you were perfect together.
This concerns the KERNEL. I’m absolutely certain that this is not FSF.
This is nowhere near about the kernel, this is about licenses and issues regarding GPL and BSD licenses and as such it’s pretty much ok to mention FSF in the discussion. Besides, it was a joke.
And please, that last line was pretty lame and very much off-topic.
“This is nowhere near about the kernel, this is about licenses and issues regarding GPL and BSD licenses and as such it’s pretty much ok to mention FSF in the discussion. Besides, it was a joke.”
The topic was offensive, this *is* about licensing you are right, but its *definitely* about the kernel you simply haven’t read the post.
I’m perfectly happy to discuss the FSF, I’m more interested in sbergman27 unhealthy obsession with them when the link is tenuous, and I’m tiered of his lies.
There is something deeply psychologically wrong there. It must be family or relationship thats the only thing I can think of.
Ever occurred to you that sbergman27 just might not like FSF? And I haven’t yet seen any lies spread by him/her. Oh, and it’s pretty rude to even suggest that someone you don’t even know might have some psychological issues. Can’t you keep such remarks to yourself and for example talk about the topic at hand?
“Ever occurred to you that sbergman27 just might not like FSF? And I haven’t yet seen any lies spread by him/her. ”
Really I 100% certain that it inferred some subterfuge on the acquirement of copyright over code added to FSF projects. In a topic related to kernel developers.
These people created software I use everyday, and protect a freedom in software you either care about or don’t. These people clearly are a bunch of crooked bastards.
Whereas we have Microsoft buying a standard *openly* and it is seen as acceptable behavior.
I’ve read these BSD vs GPL arguments for days and they are a storm in a teacup.
Read my comparison of FSF vs Microsoft. It is clearly unhinged.
Edited 2007-09-02 17:21
“””
Ever occurred to you that sbergman27 just might not like FSF? And I haven’t yet seen any lies spread by him/her. Oh, and it’s pretty rude to even suggest that someone you don’t even know might have some psychological issues. Can’t you keep such remarks to yourself and for example talk about the topic at hand?
“””
WereCatf,
Thank you for a very reasonable post.
I’m ambivalent about FSF. I really like their motivations. I have reservations about their strategies. And I have grave concerns about some of their fundamental beliefs. Namely, that licensing one’s code as one sees fit can be immoral. (i.e. releasing under a proprietary license.) It can be undesirable to the community at large. But it’s just not immoral. As to strategy… a frontal attack works when you have the overwhelming advantage.
Cyclops suggesting that I have psychological issues is probably in poor form. But I don’t mind it, really.
There are five kinds of peole in this world:
1. People who admit that they have psychological issues.
2. People who deny it and are lying to themselves.
3. People who deny it and are lying to others.
4. People who can count.
5. 😉
Edited 2007-09-02 17:57
That would make me the sixth kind, I guess…
There is no number for you, dylansmrjones. 😉
I’ve heard something like that before
Thanks for the humor. It’s needed in this thread. 🙂
I’m perfectly happy to discuss the FSF, I’m more interested in sbergman27 unhealthy obsession with them when the link is tenuous
I believe this
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/
is the link you are looking for. Not so tenuous.
This has nothing to do with it.
“””
“””
No.
“””
“””
I do need someone to come in and clean this carpet.
“””
“””
No. My first lover left me for an older model, and then decided he’d rather be by himself, and then died. My second also left me for an older model, and then also died. My third found someone who was better for him, after much prodding from me, and is likely happier for it. I hope so, anyway.
None of the persons involved were named Richard. There was a Dennis, a Keith, a Charlie, a Doug, a Byron, and a… “what’s his bucket?”. There’s only so much that one can take over a 22 year period. So I must be lashing out at anyone. Even Richard, who is not my type at all! 😉
Actually, though, I was referring to the “or later” clause. Thanks for bringing up the copyright attribution issue, though. I’d forgotten about that. And it is a better example than what I was originally referring to. 🙂
Edited 2007-09-02 17:00
Theo needs to wake up and stop selling his ideas as fact. Just because he chooses to interpret dual licensing in this manner does not make it any more real.
I really think this is not about code being ‘stolen’ at all. I think this has allot more to do with what happened with GPL’d code in the OBSD CVS branch. Sure, that and this situation where both mistakes but freaking out about both does not give the guy any credibility.
Theo looked like an ass last time he kicked up a fuss about code issues. What makes him think he isn’t gonna look like one this time?
Edited 2007-09-02 16:24 UTC
Have you noticed how Theo keeps contradicting himself in his interpretion of the dual licensing scheme?
I hadn’t but I’ll certainly be looking out for it, now that you mention it.
Frankly, Theo was completely off my radar up until about 3 years ago. Beforehand, I didn’t much interest myself with the affairs of the BSDs. Now, the guy seems to be everywhere.
I’m sure that, considering all the publicity he is generating, OpenBSD is getting allot more mind share. I only wish he could go about it in a less antagonistic manner.
Like Linus and his interface Nazis (aka Gnome developers) or his outburst about the experience toward BSD developers?
It would be rather nice to see how many licenses the Linux-crowd just erased in the kernel and relabeled them with the GPL. I don’t think Theo has got a problem, it’s a problem of this Linux-crowd, they don’t understand licenses at all and they have not got any respectful behaviour against other *free projects*. You’re “free” only if you’re following Linux and the GPL, axe the other *free choices*.
“Like Linus and his interface Nazis (aka Gnome developers).”
WOW just WOW
Do a little Google on Linus and Gnome.
This really is Digg
If you haven’t noticed, any website that allows free commenting on stuff is going to have a HUGE noise to signal ratio. Digg, OSNews, /., Arstechnica…
youtube… I think youtube is in a class of its own when it comes to idiotic comments.
“Try to post a comment on YouTube that is so ridiculous it won’t be taken seriously.
Here’s a hint: you can’t.”
Actually that was his recommendation from Eben Moglen, the former lead counsel for the Software Freedom Law Center.
Do you have a link to the recommendation from Eben Moglen? I can’t find it anywhere.
FYI: That guy does a *lot* more work than he gets credit for. Most of the things he does is behind closed doors.
I don’t doubt that. I was merely curious
Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed
What’s the point of dual licensing it then at all? :O That’s just like saying that both licenses apply at THE SAME TIME and as such they both apply to any derivative works too! :O How can GPL and BSD licenses apply at the same time I wonder..
PS. If you don’t want the code to be used exactly the way BSD license was meant to allow one doing then why are you using it?
Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed
What’s the point of dual licensing it then at all?
It’s only the file… The point of dual-licencing is to be able to mix said file with GPL-only stuff and distribute the resulting objects under GPL, or to mix it with BSD-like stuff and distribute the resulting objects under BSD licence.
But that particular file will remain dual-licenced. I.e., even if you distribute it under the terms of GPL, the licencee will still keep the right to re-distribute it under BSD. Again, only _that_ file.
Quentin Garnier.
No, the particular file will not remain dual-licensed.
It is not licensed as BSD and GPL. It is licensed with an option for YOU to choose one of the licenses, but not BOTH simultaneously. And those who receive the file from you, only receives it with the license you choose. They don’t get the same option that you do, unless you decide to give them that option. However, you don’t _have_ to give them that option.
That’s also what the copyright holder (Sam Leffner) made _very_ clear.
The next person in the chain will definitely NOT receive the right to redistribute under the BSD if the first person chooses to distribute the file as GPL. The best solution would of course be to distribute with the same options the first person received it under, but the license explicitly allows for NOT doing that.
Didn’t the programmer behind the driver source code that started this mess say he was fine with derived works of his code being licensed exclusively under the GPL? I think he did, but I’m too lazy to find the email on the mailing list.
As for distributing BSD derived source. Theo says:
This is just plain wrong. What he is trying to suggest here is that the BSD license is viral when it comes to creating derived works. It isn’t.
The BSD license states that the license text cannot be removed, it does not explicitly state that derived works must be licensed under the same conditions. There is a subtle difference, It means you can quote the original BSD license and copyright notices and make it clear that your derived work is based on those who are mentioned in a certain set of copyright notices.
If this difference didn’t exist the biggest and most debated distinction between the GPL and the BSD license would not exist and Theo would be supporting the GPL!
Edited 2007-09-02 16:34
In reply to my own comment. I *DO* appreciate Theo’s idealogical view and agree with him that this is tough on the BSD projects but if you have this strong idealogical view and choose to allow some others not to follow your ideals, I don’t think he should be making an exception and be forceful just because Linux is big and successful.
Let Linux/GPL developers come to their own conclusions of what is fair just like you do with everyone else. Thats what this ‘true freedom’ mantra BSD license advocates tout is about isn’t it?
Only the author can change the license, this is true in the USA and many other countries!
In a few of the files that the license was changed on, the guy on LKML that changed them was the author. The files that the author wasn’t the sole copyright owner were the ones that he shouldn’t have changed.
>Only the author can change the license
This is true for both of them.
Ok, I understand how both the GPL and the BSD licenses work and that when choosing either one of these licenses you should be fully aware of what people can, can’t, and will do with your code.
I think what Theo is saying and I fully agree with him, that it doesn’t have to boil down to the license in question but more a moral stance of keeping things open and compatible between all of the FOSS community (BSD and GNU/Linux).
Maybe I don’t fully understand both but there should be a way that either licenses can play nicely together, from a users perspective and from a developers perspective, to keep things flowing between everyone without locking each other out. After all, we’re all technically on the same page when it comes to wanting to create the best fully open OS.
What people seem to think though is, just because the BSD license allows proprietary closure of source code and no legal obligation of releasing the newly modified source with the binaries doesn’t exactly mean the BSD people want this sort of thing to happen, they have just chosen a license that, in their minds, gives you that freedom if you choose to do so. Which is why people say the BSD license gives you more freedom…
The BSD expresses no sense of morality. It says simple, “do as thou wilt”. That is not a moral statement — it is a free-for-all. The GPL says, “share-and-share-alike”. That IS a moral statement. Theo is completely talking out of his ass on this one. On the one hand, he seems to want to stay committed to the BSD (perhaps out of sheer inertia and pg-headedness) but on the other he is crying for the types of protection that the GPL ensures. Case closed — he made the wrong ethical choice in terms of licensing — he just isn’t capable of admitting it. RMS was right all along.
I don’t understand why BSD community bothers to maintain any relation with GNU/FSF/GPL community. Gcc ? Anyone can use gcc. License allows that, it is the way they wanted it. Many companies do, I know about Nortel. GNU is a separated, isolated world, incompatible with anything outside itself. Whenever I think of GNU I can’t help remembering freak called Hugo Chavez. Let them enjoy their isolation.
Aren’t you going a bit too far comparing GNU with crackpot dictator? Even the most rabid opponents of GNU would probably agree that at least GNU means well. You might not agree with their tactics, but you can’t say their intentions are evil.
Hugo Chavez on the other hand is a populist dictator encouraging cronyism while riding the hydrocarbon wave. By being such an asshole, he is potentially depriving millions of people of sustained prosperity, democratic rights and an efficient government.
There really is no need to compare GNU with Chavez.
Hugo Chavez on the other hand is a populist dictator
This is OT, but…
Hugo Chavez is a president that has been elected just as democratically as any United States president.
May he become a dictator in the future? Sure, but for now he’s a democratically elected president. You don’t like that he’s been reelected? Well, it’s your problem. You don’t like that he likes socialism? Fine, me neither, but socialist economies are not prohibited. You don’t like the RCTV issue? Fine, me neither, but it was all legal. You don’t like that he hates USA? Fine, but….
I wouldn’t like to turn this into a flamewar, but fe. Bush has killed several civil rights, Chavez has not done anything like that. He’s just a bad president that will get kicked in a future election.
Hugo Chavez is not Stalin or Bin Laden or Zawahiri. He is a dictator, he might be foolish, but he respects the laws and international regulations. Yes, he creates the laws, but those laws can be reversed some day, in the same way they are introduced. He still plays by the rules, although we might not like the way he does it. He is doing his country more harm than good, and the same goes for GNU. I don’t say that GNU is evil, just not worth bother with. Leave them to their own, separate, ways and interact with them as little as possible. I believe that, deep down inside, it is exactly what they want.
There are obviously some opposing concepts that people (including Theo) are getting confused about.
First: dual-licensing. This can, it seems, mean two different things, though most of the world only really goes with one of the definitions. Theo apparently goes with the other. Either:
1) Licensed under two licenses wherein you can choose whether to opt for license A, license B, or (if you want to perpetuate the dual-licensing) both
2) Licensed under two licenses wherein you must adhere to the terms of both
The former case is what people usually mean when they talk about dual-licensing. Theo’s statements about it being illegal to remove one or other of the licenses are simply incorrect, not least because there’s no alternatively sane way to indicate that a fork has opted for one license over the other.
The latter case is something that’s happened relatively frequently with BSD code, including (but not by any means limited to!) code that’s ended up in the Linux kernel and glibc: a file is licensed under a permissive license (2/3-clause BSD, MIT, X11, etc), and a fork is made which adds new licensing terms (such as the GPL, APSL, whatever). This only works if the two licenses are “compatible”, obviously, but you have to adhere to the terms of both licenses—you can’t just pick one.
The second issue is the whole “taking and not taking back” one. A lot of BSD folks make a distinction between “using the code” and “enhancing the code”, even where “using the code” means “rolling it into a proprietary software program resulting in private changes never being given back to the rest of the world in source form”. Most BSD people don’t care about this kind of usage of their code (if they did, they picked the wrong license). What some do care about is where enhanced versions are released under different licensing terms, which is a double-whammy because it effectively snubs the original authors: not only can they not make use of the improvements (because they’re licensed differently), but the newer code is now in competition with the original version!
Whereas the GPL-supporting folk have a particular philosophy, the BSD have one too: use our code, use it however you like, but if you’re going to improve on it, it’d be nice if you gave it back to us. Unlike the GPL, the BSD family of licenses don’t spell this out: the GPL is naturally pessimistic because it’s set up to protect everyone from each other, whereas the BSD family is naturally optimistic, and assumes people have some sense of common courtesy towards one another. Both have pros and cons (not wishing to get into a GPL versus BSD debate, here), and it’s really down to the personal philosophy of the developer of the original code and their own degrees of pragmatism.
When BSD-code is enhanced by someone who chooses to license that modification under the GPL, the intention is that it then cannot be closed. So naturally, a BSD-license is seen as undesirable. I can understand why that has happened in that wireless-driver case. A GPL-favouring author will not want to use a BSD-style licence, and the BSD license allows this.
here’s what Sam Leffner, the author of one of those dual BSD/GPL licensed files has to say about it:
“I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
Sam”
From http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0709.0/0159.html
“I’ve yet to see “FreeBSD people” speak up so again you’re just spouting jibberish. I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.”
–Sam Leffner
Indeed, but the Linux crowd, especially Adrian Bunk, doesn’t get it. He is the author, he can allow or disallow it.
Thanks for the posting
Yes, Sam made it clear why he choose the dual license: he specifically wants to permit one set of developers to fork a GPL only branch of his code (note that this branch doesn’t allow a closed-source only distribution), another a BSD only branch (this branch does), and a third branch to continue with dual licensed code (this branch also does). All this at the developers own discretion.
What Theo says is that all branches must continue to carry the dual license text. This would make any GPL-only branch impossible/superflous, since a dual license text would still allow closed-sourcing that branch. By insisting on always carrying the intire dual license text, Theo wants to keep all branches effectively BSD-only (since the GPL closed-source prohibitions are rendered moot by the dual license text).
The insidious thing about this is that Theo is trying to supplant the authors’ wish (that a GPL-only branch that cannot be closed-sourced may be forked) with his own wish (that all brances are effectively BSD licensed), using some psuedo-legalese (“It’s illegal to modify a license…”) seems to have impressed a lot of his supporters on the OpenBSD journal (http://undeadly.org/).
Edited 2007-09-02 18:05
Except that Sam Leffner is saying the same as the Linux-devs.
The Linux devs says the license gives them the right to use the source code under the GPL only. And Sam Leffner says the license gives them the right to use the source code under the GPL only.
So Sam Leffner agrees with the linux-devs and disagrees with you and Theo.
That would be nice if he were the only only author here :
Theo de Raadt replied pointing out that there are two parts to the driver, one part written by Reyk Floeter, and another part written by Sam Leffler, “Reyk’s code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. He has explicitly stated that his code is not dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He’s the author, he said so. None else can add a GPL to it.”
Again. Reyk Floeters code has nothing to do with this.
The ISC-license in Reyk Floeters file was added back as soon as the OpenBSD-team complained.
However, it is wrong to claim that it cannot be sublicensed as GPL. Of course it can. The ISC-license allows for that. One can add a license to it, but not remove the existing license.
Microsoft has many times taken BSD-code and added a proprietary license to it.
Have you ever noticed all this licensing fights always involve the GPL? We never fight over the Apache license, nor the Mozilla license, nor the MIT or BSD licenses, etc. Everybody gets along with everybody… except for the GPL guys.
Simply put the GPL is too restrictive and have too much religious baggage to play along with the rest of the open source world.
Say NO to the GPL.
“””
“””
Yes. Copyleft invites such wars. GPL all the more, since it’s so popular.
I’m a GPL fan. I generally prefer seeing code put under it. But the really important thing is that code authors be satisfied with the license that they choose. It’s their hard work. And they are the ones who have any sort of right, if anyone does, to be happy with the licensing of the code.
GPL is great because it allows authors to require that others interact in a “tit for tat” fashion. But other authors prefer a license with less in the way of restrictions. And that’s OK. BSD can be a better choice, even from a strategic viewpoint… because it makes code reuse easier. Even RMS agrees with that.
The whole GPL vs BSD thing is so very nonsensical. Choice of license is a personal thing. What’s wrong with treating it as a personal thing?
Edited 2007-09-02 17:59
Have you ever noticed all this licensing fights always involve the GPL? We never fight over the Apache license, nor the Mozilla license, nor the MIT or BSD licenses, etc
Maybe because GPL is far more popular?
“Maybe because GPL is far more popular?”
You have enigmatic leaders advocating *their* license, for a verity or reasons. In reality it adds to a healthy ecosystem.
Simply put the GPL is too restrictive and have too much religious baggage to play along with the rest of the open source world.
I happen to agree with you. But be careful of using the term “religious baggage”. I got ripped to shreds over it in the “FreeBSD Foundation Newsletter: GPLv3 Concerns” story.
The funny thing here is that it is the GPL-guys who are pragmatic and the OpenBSD guys that are religious.
Oh, cry me a river, Molly.
The reason you got ripped to shreds was because you decided to attach negative connotations to ideas you were disagreeing with, while providing no logical justifications for such connotations. Do yourself a favour and don’t try to rewrite the history we’ve all lived through to suit your needs next time, OK?
MollyC tried to link religion to GPL through the mutuality of morals. the real reason she and others want to link religion to GPL is so that they can label it with religious fantisicm. basically, when they have no logical arguments to stand on, they resort to smearing campains.
when defending this statement, MollyC tried desperately to argue that since religion incorporates morals, then FSF which includes morals in their views on software must therefore be religious.
so what MollyC is saying is that if you make decisions made upon your views of what is right or wrong, in other words your morals, then you are de facto religious.
speaking for myself, I’ve employed morals in my decision making my entire life, both in personal and business matters and yet I’m not the least bit religious.
having morals is not about being religious, perhaps if MollyC had some she’d know the difference.
“having morals is not about being religious, perhaps if MollyC had some she’d know the difference.”
You clearly misunderstood my point, and most likely intentionally so, in order to make your strawman argument.
I didn’t equate morals with religion. Morals has nothing to do with religion, period. An athiest can be just a moral as the Pope. Go read the 10 Commandments some time, and you’ll see that almost half of the commandments are not about morals, but are about religious doctrine/rituals (like not working on the Sabbath, for example).
I didn’t talk of morals in isolation. I talked of morals based on religious dogma, as set down by a higher being such as a messiah.
I also included in my comparison the Satan aspect and the Messiah aspect (GPL folk regard Bill Gates as their Satan and RMS as their messiah, chief prophet, etc). There’s also the “infidel” aspects (on slashdot, many regard GPL to be the only ethical OSS license, so users of other OSS license would be akin to “infidels”), the prostilaltyzing (sp?), the devoutness of the followers, the almost blind faith in their messiah and cause, etc.
Edited 2007-09-03 17:02
“I also included in my comparison the Satan aspect and the Messiah aspect (GPL folk regard Bill Gates as their Satan and RMS as their messiah, chief prophet, etc). There’s also the “infidel” aspects (on slashdot, many regard GPL to be the only ethical OSS license, so users of other OSS license would be akin to “infidels”), the prostilaltyzing (sp?), the devoutness of the followers, the almost blind faith in their messiah and cause, etc. ”
This really is Digg.
Now do one where Richard is Col. John “Hannibal” Smith, and Linus is “Faceman”, and Eric is “Howling Mad” Murdock, and That Cox bloke is B.A. Baracus and like Microsoft is the Military Police.
“I love it when a plan comes together”
MollyC wrote:
–“I didn’t equate morals with religion. Morals has nothing to do with religion, period.”
you did not? you state that “Most religions include moralistic judgements, and that “there is no software guru that’s more moralistic regarding software than RMS”, you then claim that GPL is based upon a religion.
but do tell, if it was not RMS view on software morals that made you claim that GPL is based upon a religion (despite you being the one to make the connection between morals and religion in the first place), then what was it?
for your recollection, this is some of what you wrote under the headline of “BSD == open source without religious baggage”:
Tivo, et al, should dump GPL software and instead use software whose license is not based on religion.
-“Most religions include moralistic judgements, and there is no software guru that’s more moralistic regarding software than RMS himself, who has gone so far as to say that closed software itself is “unethical”. GPL3 was crafted specifically to punish “wicked sinners” like Tivo and Novell/Microsoft, which used GPL2 in a “sinful” manner.”
MollyC wrote:
–“I also included in my comparison the Satan aspect and the Messiah aspect (GPL folk regard Bill Gates as their Satan and RMS as their messiah, chief prophet, etc). There’s also the “infidel” aspects (on slashdot, many regard GPL to be the only ethical OSS license, so users of other OSS license would be akin to “infidels”), the prostilaltyzing (sp?), the devoutness of the followers, the almost blind faith in their messiah and cause, etc.”
and in other news, Microsoft zelots regard Bill Gates as their Messiah and RMS as their Satan, with exactly the same ‘almost blind faith in their messiah and cause, etc’.
picking out extremists in an attempt to smear a large group of people is an old dirty tactic. although I don’t always agree with your opinions MollyC, I practically always find them insightful and above all factual. but these past comments have really left me dissapointed. your religiously tinted smear campaign against GPL comes off just as fanatic as those who on principle attack everything that has anything to do with Microsoft.
Good grief. You guys are acting like I’m the first one to use “religious” to describe the baggage of GPL and the fervor of GPL’s followers.
Just look in this very thread, where cyclops is ripping sbergman27 a new one with each and every one of his posts, while sbergman27 is trying to play nice. That’s what I’m talking about. cyclops’ devotion to GPL/RMS/FSF is so strong, that it’s akin to religious devotion. His furor is what you’d be hearing from a devout Muslim if he perceived that someone verbally attacked Mohammed (remember the uproar regarding Mohammed being mocked in a Danish comic strip?), or a Christian being outraged at someone questiong Christ as the true Lord and Savior.
Hey, you don’t think there’s a religious-like component to the fervor of many FSF followers, or a “righteous” tennant to many of RMS’s writings and sayings, which are the basis of GPL itslef, then fine. So much bandwidth wasted over nothing.
“picking out extremists in an attempt to smear a large group of people is an old dirty tactic. although I don’t always agree with your opinions MollyC, I practically always find them insightful and above all factual. but these past comments have really left me dissapointed. your religiously tinted smear campaign against GPL comes off just as fanatic as those who on principle attack everything that has anything to do with Microsoft.”
Sorry you’re disappointed in me on this issue, but I call them as I see them, and when I see cyclops (who I like, BTW), continuing to trash sbergman27 for no apparent reason other than he questioned some of FSF’s policies, I, like any human, will naturally compare such actions with something I’m familiar with, and religious fervor fits the bill.
Note that I have never even said that religion is “bad”. It’s those objecting to the term that seem to think of religion has having negative connotations, since they’re spending so much time distancing themselves from that label.
Something just occurred to me: Does nobody here understand the concept of simile and metaphor? Of course I don’t think that GPL adherance is an actual “religion”, I was using the term “religious” metaphorically (or, as a simile in other cases). I wouldn’t think that I’d have to explictly explain that like I’m talking to 3rd-graders. I assume everyone here has a reading level of at least 10th grade, and can recognize metaphor when they see it. So, while you may be disappointed in my recent comments on this, I am disappointed in people taking every word uttered literally and throwing fits as a result. It’s like people are *looking* for *any* excuse take offense.
I guess whenever I use *advanced* rhetorical devices in the future (like metaphor, simile, hyperbole, sarcasm), I’ll have to explicitly say so (which ruins the effect of the rhetorical device itself).
Edited 2007-09-04 01:18
Thank you for addressing me. I feel honored. I am glad you have read my post, but have failed to read the one regarding me not being a advocate of Linux/FSF/Microsoft etc etc or a believer in any one license. I’m pretty much an individual.
I find you choice of words disturbing and enter a world of politics I find so frightening you would not believe.
The fact that you are drawing an apology
Muslin=Bad
Muslin=FSF
FSF=Bad
That is so scary…never every call anyone a zealot *EVER* that is f–ked up.
Seriously thats just plain wrong.
“””
Just look in this very thread, where cyclops is ripping sbergman27 a new one with each and every one of his posts, while sbergman27 is trying to play nice. That’s what I’m talking about. cyclops’ devotion to GPL/RMS/FSF is so strong, that it’s akin to religious devotion.
“””
Gotta agree with you there. 😉
But on the topic of Open Source and religion. Religion is not a dirty word. I happen to be atheist. But my enthusiasm for this whole, exciting and uplifting, Open Source movement is strong enough that it could reasonably be described as “akin to religious”. It is a motivating factor in my life. And I consider that to be a good thing.
I think that it is sometimes more useful to frame things in terms of effective vs ineffective strategies… rather than religious vs secular.
That’s why I care about Cyclops’ strategy. I think his heart is in the right place. But we can always improve our strategies.
“Gotta agree with you there. 😉 ”
Learn to read.
“I am rubber, you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
My comments about you are not meant to be insults, you need to see someone.
Edited 2007-09-04 02:32
Too bad we can’t add sounds clips to our posts. You could have ended with a rimshot! 😉
I’ve read your post and the only words that go through my brain are.”f–k f–k f–k”, thats seriously f–ked up.
That post you made is as close to religious fervor as I have ever seen. I will actually choose the words Microsoft-Zealot.
I still can not get over how extremist your post is, how fanatical. I’m shocked.
“cyclops’ devotion to GPL/RMS/FSF is so strong, that it’s akin to religious devotion.”
Show me my devotion to any of these. I have made hundreds of posts please show me.
Be very careful about using me as an example, you moved from making clever posts to scapegoating and thats *very* dangerous. Its a mistake Microsoft is making. The bottom line is there are an awful lot of Christians and Muslims that would object to your posts. Perhaps you advocate “cultural genocide”
Edited 2007-09-04 02:51
“”cyclops’ devotion to GPL/RMS/FSF is so strong, that it’s akin to religious devotion.”
Show me my devotion to any of these. I have made hundreds of posts please show me.”
So you aren’t a follower of FSF/RMS/GPL? Fine, I’ll retract my statement. But your attacks on sbergman27 in this thread would be what I would expect from an *unquestioning* devotee of RMS/FSF/GPL. But if you say you’re not about that, fine. But I’m not sure why you were attacking sbergman27, then.
“Be very careful about using me as an example, you moved from making clever posts to scapegoating and thats *very* dangerous.
The bottom line is there are an awful lot of Christians and Muslims that would object to your posts.”
Oh really? What have I said that Christians and Muslims would object to? That Muslims and Christians would be upset at somebody questioning the divinity/legitimacy of Mohammed and Jesus or someone questioning their belief system? Well, not all Muslims and Christians would care, in fact, most wouldn’t, but the more strident definitely would care, and we’ve seen such in real life.
BTW, you don’t know anything about me regarding my own religious beliefs, so don’t jump to conclusions that I’m anti-Muslim or anti-Christian or even anti-religion.
“Perhaps you advocate “cultural genocide””
You must have me confused with ESR.
MollyC
I’m certain that your hate talk about Muslims and Christians and Jews is the very definition of the person you are in its unfortunate that this site has become about this.
You people with your hate talk are dangerous
Edited 2007-09-04 04:05
“I’m certain that your hate talk about Muslims and Christians and Jews is the very definition of the person you are in its unfortunate that this site has become about this.”
My “hate talk about Muslims and Christians and Jews”???
Are you insane? What in the world are you talking about? First, I never mentioned “Jews” at all. Second, where is any evidence of hatred against Muslims or Christians? You need help, seriously.
“My “hate talk about Muslims and Christians and Jews”???
Are you insane? What in the world are you talking about? First, I never mentioned “Jews” at all. Second, where is any evidence of hatred against Muslims or Christians? You need help, seriously.”
So your an old fashioned racist.
Cyclops, you’re the definition of a troll. You find one little thing and extrapolate it onto people. You’re the same person who accused me of being either a Novell employee or a stake holder of some sort. What was your evidence? You checked out what kind of topics I posted in which were mostly Novell related.
When pressed to actually provide real evidence and when I actually provided evidence to the contrary, you disappeared and ran away with your tail between your legs. Try to bring something of substance once in a while, otherwise do the rest of us a favor and save your misappropriated ranting for irc.
Edited 2007-09-04 11:51
“When pressed to actually provide real evidence and when I actually provided evidence to the contrary,”
🙂 I clearly didn’t I pointed out that every post you have made *ever* was about novell, and those *predominately* about GPL anyone can simply check these posts. I think I posted a list.
I’m 100% certain now you are *promoting* an Novell agenda. Why be embarrassed?
Although I am slightly amused that your upset by being associated with Novell. I’ve always pointed out how good they have been to the open-source community. Does Novell really have such a stigma.
A troll by its very definition is one who raises a off-topic contentions point. I have only replied to others. sbergman27 could be originally accused of a troll, albeit I suspect unintentionally. MollyC definitely one. Now you are one.
But again I’m happy to discuss it again whats with only talking about Novell and GPL?
I’m only embarrassed that I’m taking the time to argue with you…on the internet.
Upset? Is my text parsing out on fire or something? I think it’s more a matter that you were making a claim with no real evidence beyond you reading topic titles taken completely out of context. If that’s all it takes to convince you, I’ve got this friend in Nigeria who has a great money making deal for you.
There’s a solid definition of an internet troll? Hey, that’s news to me!
I don’t.
“There’s a solid definition of an internet troll? Hey, that’s news to me!”
I’m glad you learnt something.
The bottom line is if you don’t understand why. I would be somewhat surprised at the sheer *volume* of Novell and GPL comments over a long period, and why I would question it. I can’t help you, but again I’m sorry if your upset by labeling you as having any association with Novell. Clearly this is a major insult.
but clearly your running away with your tail between your legs.
Edited 2007-09-04 12:46
Thanks for learning me something skippy. You should add it to wikipedia so it will be official.
I don’t remember saying much about the GPL itself. My comments about Novell are primarily based on the fact that I work in a Novell environment(Netware, zenworks, groupwise, Suse Linux). Like I said before, I’d be happy to rip plenty of things about Novell. You ignored that little tidbit before, and you’ll probably do it again.
Clearly, I’m still here.
Edited 2007-09-04 12:54
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
“An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, has come to mean someone who intentionally posts messages about sensitive topics constructed to cause controversy in an online community”
WOW it matches my description. Strange that.
“I don’t remember saying much about the GPL itself.”
Seriously there is a button where you can read you posts and mine for that matter. And well all of them. And you have a seriously large number about Novell and GPL. Thats an irrefutable fact.
I’m happy for you to justify this strange posting. It could be “I use Novell products and network with many other Novell users. Its the main topic of conversation. GPL3 is a big deal to me personally, Its what everyone is talking about. I’m really just a reader here, but I have a lot to say on this topic”
I pointed it out. It wasn’t a big a thing. I don’t like subterfuge. As I’m sure you have noticed. The name “PlatformAgnostic” frustrates me. I actually think you make a stronger case without it.
The fact remains though that you are still upset by being called a “Novell Employee” Months after. Thats a little strange. I’m compared to a Terrorist in this thread. Its not in the same league.
The bizarre thing is I know very little of Novell. I used to use their networking stuff…and it well worked. I’ve never used their Distribution. The only other think I see is online Mono documentation which is excellent. I am aware of their input into a verity of different software products…and take advantage of those.
I’m not strong on the patent stuff. I’m just not sure…and I say so regularly. I don’t even try to be a backseat lawyer. The only think I can say is making a deal with Microsoft is the kiss of death for companies. One thing that Microsoft can do well is make a deal.
So I have next to nothing to say about Novell. Thats the irony.
Now if you are going to talk about “walking away with a tail between your legs” thats the problem I have with sbergman27 in this thread. Is I couldn’t just walk away. To be fair he opened the door. When in reality the exchange was a couple of posts.
Now from reading this you know what I’m saying is 100% true. You can decide how to end this. MollyC crossed a line, and exposed her own views about race, and I loved it, and wanted to continue with that, because MollyC is normally a clever poster, but she is making a big mistake with this. Instead I’m wasting time on your delicate sensibilities of being called a “Novell Employee” when at the very least your livelihood in part depends on the fortunes of the company, so cannot claim to have no vested interest.
Bottom line is what else have I to say on this lame topic. From now on I am happy to repeat these very same sentiments Over and Over and Over again, because we can’t have you try the old “walk away again”
No shit, and again I reiterate that you can’t take the subjects of the posts out of context, which you did in my case. You can find a post of mine supporting Novell, and then two more ripping something stupid they did. That bothers me far more than being called a Novell employee.
Cyclops, is English your native language? It’s a serious question and I’m not trying to hurl a lame insult at you.
@IanSVT
You should re-read my post. I haven’t made many posts in this thread that I’m particularly proud of…but that one is pretty good. If you really are looking for something to continue this discussion with I can’t see it. I’ve pretty much closed all the doors. I’ve already said everything.
Edited 2007-09-04 14:09
I did, which is why I’m again asking you if English is your native language, because clearly neither of us are getting what each other is getting at.
I’ll try again. You claimed I was a Novell employee or a stake holder of some sort. Your evidence to support it was how many Novell topics I’ve posted in compared to other topics(which I’ve never denied). I explained why, and further explained I’d be happy to rip into Novell for various things(which I have in the past here). You continued to ignore this choosing to take the topic titles as the only measure and disregarding what I actually said in those topics. It doesn’t matter that you don’t think it is an insult. I didn’t take it as an insult or get upset. I personally don’t care what you think about Novell within the scope of this issue. It’s irrelevant to the issue.
The fact is you were and still continue to be completely wrong about me being a Novell employee and your evidence otherwise is flimsy at best. It’s cut and dry. No emotion, no getting upset. You’re just flat out wrong about it.
I have reread my comment a couple of times other than some silly mistakes like “think”=”thing” and “you”=”your” and a phrase or two which is a bit slangy. Its pretty good and a solid response to this comment.
If your not happy with it I can’t help you. Its a good response.
“MollyC crossed a line, and exposed her own views about race, and I loved it, and wanted to continue with that, because MollyC is normally a clever poster, but she is making a big mistake with this.”
OK, I’ve twiced advised you to seek therapy. I now also advise you to work on your reading comprehension skills.
But I’m also calling on you to explicitly cite any reference to my being anti-Christian, anti-Jew, or anti-Muslim, or being a racist. This is getting ridiculous. Those are very harsh charges to make without backing it up with anything.
And your charges, besides not being backed up with anything, are so all over the place.
First, you claimed I was anti-Christian/Muslim. Then you claimed I was anti-Christian/Muslim/Jew. Then you claimed I was anti-Muslim but pro-Jew. Which is it? And where’s your evidence?
Ah, to hell with it, I’m done with you on this.
IanSVT is right; you’re the troll, at least on this occasion.
I’m just going to sit back and laugh at your ridiculous posts on this matter.
Edited 2007-09-04 14:28
Thank you Molly.
I’m sorry I cannot include I smiley at the end of my posts because this is serious. My reading comprehension skills are excellent, and my understanding of motivations are pretty good.
The reality of the FSF, is its an organization more in line with well *other organizations* like those that protect wildlife; or human dignity; or privacy groups. It just has a computing twist.
My comments regarding sbergman27 are actually quite simple. sbergman27 is anti-FSF. I don’t know why. In fact the two posts between us that shouldn’t just be deleted are his weak justification, and my rebuttal. In reality I’m no wiser to his stance. The flaming(sic) started because he used a technique of making a genuine on-topic comment, followed by an off-topic attack. I’m sure you are aware of this technique.
You have taken upon yourself to use this to push your pro-Microsoft stance. You do so in a way I have always objected to, comparing others who use alternative OS to terrorists. The reasons for doing this is transparent. You do so by trying to align and I’ve stress again users of a non Microsoft Platform to groups that some people associate with Hating and Fearing. To marginalize them.
I added Jews to the end of the comment especially for you. Because I knew you how you would respond. For you it is culturally acceptable to have hate speech against scapegoat groups. I am saying now, it is not acceptable. It is not part of my culture. The society of my country looks down on people like you, my culture is one where all races and cultures are respected…and celebrated. Not just some of them.
To paint every Muslim as a terrorist; Every Cristian as a someone who burns abortion clinics is evil, and twisted to give a false view of those religions. Its simply bizarre to associate a minuscule minority of these groups with *all* of that of a group that talks about software freedom.
Edited 2007-09-04 15:46
“””
To paint every Muslim as a terrorist; Every Cristian as a someone who burns abortion clinics is evil, and twisted to give a false view of those religions. Its simply bizarre to associate a minuscule minority of these groups with *all* of that of a group that talks about software freedom.
“””
That is so very true.
In fact, a question that has been on my mind for the last couple of days is what more reasonable members of our open source community, who try to respect and understand others’ points of view, and try to work effectively with others, can do to ameliorate the negative PR effects which the fanatics in our community generate.
One of the things that I do is to point out that fact that the extremists are in the minority, but are also quite vocal, making them far more noticeable.
Edited 2007-09-04 17:42
“I added Jews to the end of the comment especially for you. Because I knew you how you would respond. For you it is culturally acceptable to have hate speech against scapegoat groups. I am saying now, it is not acceptable. It is not part of my culture. The society of my country looks down on people like you, my culture is one where all races and cultures are respected…and celebrated. Not just some of them.
To paint every Muslim as a terrorist; Every Cristian as a someone who burns abortion clinics is evil, and twisted to give a false view of those religions. Its simply bizarre to associate a minuscule minority of these groups with *all* of that of a group that talks about software freedom. “
LOL
I know I said I’d just sit back and watch, but this is too much. I never mentioned “terrorism”, “abortion”, or anything even remotely resembling anything in your post. LOL
I asked you to explicitly cite a reference of my “hating” anyone (Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc), and you have failed to do so, yet again (because such a reference simply does not exist). If you can’t back up your accusations with any evidence, you should think about stop making them.
BTW, did you notice that your posts on this issue have been modded down into oblivion?
We’re talking -7’s and -6’s here. Maybe that should give you a clue that your off your rocker on this one.
Edited 2007-09-04 18:49
My response to you is accurate. I felt uncomfortable making it. Its not what I want to talk about. The world is changing and you are out of step, and its a better world for it.
I will repeat and improve on it in other threads you try to spread your sickness.
I’m actually shaking with emotions I cannot properly express. I pity you.
The society of my country looks down on people like you … (unlike you) my culture is one where all … cultures are respected…and celebrated. Not just some of them.
I can guarantee this is not true. If you claim to 1) respect all cultures and 2) look down on those who don’t respect all cultures, you make a liar out of yourself since some cultures don’t respect other cultures. Either you respect such cultures, disproving assertion 2, or you don’t respect them, disproving assertion 1.
[Reductio ad Hiterum/Argumentum ad Nazium] Surely your culture doesn’t respect and celebrate the Nazis. In admitting this, you admit that there are some cultures you don’t respect. Therefore it is a fallacy to say you respect all cultures. [/Reductio ad Hiterum/Argumentum ad Nazium] (this doesn’t invoke Godwin’s law since I haven’t compared anyone to Nazis, but rather held them up as an example of a group I’m pretty sure cyclops doesn’t like)
In short, some cultures don’t respect other cultures, and according to you, you don’t respect such cultures, which means you are not telling the truth when you say you like respect all cultures. You can’t claim to respect all cultures and say at the same time that you don’t respect some of them.
You try so hard to be feel good lovey dovey, but reality won’t let you get away with it. Sorry.
There’s no logical way around this, so perhaps I’m destined to receive some good old argumentum ad hominem based on a particularly loathsome group I mentioned in passing as I built an argument.
I don’t feel lovely dovey. You can see from my posts I’m not the cute and cuddly type.
There are places in the world where prejudices; intolerance; exist, but I don’t live there, and I’m very grateful I don’t.
I write “exist”; not because its 100% true, but because people on a whole are average; ordinary; decent; tolerant.
If I lived in 1940’s Germany you might have had a point.
MollyC wrote:
–“Hey, you don’t think there’s a religious-like component to the fervor of many FSF followers,”
if there is, then that same fervor is equally evident amongst FSF antagonists and (insert your favourite brand here) advocates. I could name quite a few right here on OSNews.
MollyC wrote:
–Note that I have never even said that religion is “bad”. It’s those objecting to the term that seem to think of religion has having negative connotations, since they’re spending so much time distancing themselves from that label.
even if you had brought up anything but the negative aspects of religion when attributing it to the GPL, the label would been equally misplaced.
“even if you had brought up anything but the negative aspects of religion when attributing it to the GPL, the label would been equally misplaced.”
I brought up certain aspects of religion, didn’t say whether they were negative or not, found similar charateristics in much of the GPL movement, made metaphorical comparison, and concluded that if Tivo wanted to avoid the “religious baggage” of GPL, by which I mean, having to jump through hoops that RMS has set up as a means to effect his utopia, then Tivo should move to BSD.
I even offered to retract the “religious” adjective in one of my posts, and replace it with “utopian”, as in “utopian baggage”, so offended was someone at being called “religious” like it’s a slur.
That was in a different thread. Someone else introduced the term “religious baggage” to describe GPL in this thread, not I, I merely quipped that I was ripped in the other thread for use of it. Just a glib side comment said jokingly, for which I was ripped all the more in this thread. LOL
Do a web search for “religious devotion to”, and after the first two pages (most of which refer to actual religion), you’ll see “religious devotion to” science, money, duty, software, games, movies, etc. Like Star Trek “Trekies” have a religious devotion to the Star Trek universe, and so on. And these aren’t necessarily negative things.
Or how about this, do a search for “religious GPL” and you’ll find many references, including by Linus himself! He even uses the term “infidels” and “crusading”.
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3301105877.html
“”I think that one of the main reasons Linux has been successful is that I don’t think that the Linux community really is into crusading (some small parts of it are, but it’s not the main reason). I think Linux has made the GPL more ‘socially acceptable,’ by being a hell of a lot less religious about it than the FSF was.” To me,” Torvalds continued, “the point of the GPL is not the ‘convert the infidels’ logic, but something totally different: ‘quid pro quo.'””
And like I said, a web-search turns up many references to GPL/religion/religious, etc. Again, I’m not the first to ever use the word “religious” regarding this matter.
Good grief, in this very thread, others have used the term “schism within the OSS community” regarding BSD vs GPL. Hmm, I wonder where else I’ve heard that term used most often? Oh, that’s right, The Western Church vs the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Protestants vs the Catholics, and the Sunnis vs the Shiites. Hmmm, those are all religions. Guess I’m not the only one seeing the comparisons with religion.
Some here, like cyclops (and maybe even you, to my disappointment) have described my posts as an attack on religion, or that I’m anti-religion (or even anti-Christian/Muslim/Jew, according to the deranged mind of cyclops). That’s far from the truth, in fact, I’d venture to say that I know more about the Bible, can quote more scripture, than nearly anyone here. I once read the Old Testement straight-thru up to Psalms, and have read the New testament straight-thru up through Acts, and have read Revelations straight-thru as well.
I’m not anti-religion when it comes to spirituality (though in today’s world, religion seems to be the basis of strife and warfare more than it is about “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, and self-control” (those are the “fruit of the Spirit”, as listed in the New Testament book, Galatians)), but I am against it when it comes to software.
I don’t have any devotion, religious or otherwise, to a particular model of software. I don’t care if my DVD recorder uses GPL software or not (I think it uses Linux). I don’t care if my computer’s drivers are open source or not, etc. But go to a place like slashdot, and see the horror that a hardware vendor might have the gall to keep his driver software source code closed. Or behold the righteous indignation that a piece of open source software uses a license that’s incompatible with GPL (seemingly oblivious to the fact that license incompatibilities are usually due, not to problems with the other license, but due to the fact that the GPL is so restrictive and convoluted due to the “ideals” (I was going to say, “religious ideals”
) that encumber it, which makes it one of the most unfriendly licenses around when it comes to getting along with the other licenses; which was the point of this whole frikkin’ sub-thread, entitled “The GPL is the problem”!!).
OK, I’m done. Valalla, I like you, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
Cheers.
Edited 2007-09-04 12:32
“cyclops (and maybe even you, to my disappointment) have described my posts as an attack on religion”
“cyclops (and maybe even you, to my disappointment) have described my posts as an attack on religion, or that I’m anti-religion (or even anti-Christian/Muslim/Jew, according to the deranged mind of cyclops)”
please re-read my comment I said “racist”. The second you paint muslims as fanatics and yet are offended when Jews are used. Its quite clear what you are. People like you should not be tolerated
“please re-read my comment I said “racist”. The second you paint muslims as fanatics and yet are offended when Jews are used. Its quite clear what you are. People like you should not be tolerated”
Wow. Just Wow.
Get some therapy, ASAP.
MollyC wrote:
–“OK, I’m done. Valalla, I like you, but we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. “
ok, let’s do that. and for the record I like you too. I may disagree (sometimes to a great extent) but I do not harbour any ill will against you (or any others I argue with), I hope you do not percieve it that way.
Edited 2007-09-04 14:44
As suggested[1] above would a better statement of intent[2] clarify what was being sought after. It still includes the Copyright notice be specifies the intent for future use and distributiion/
[1] http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=18554&comment_id=267851
[2] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/69
It is really mean-spirited to take code, modify it, and prevent the original author or originating projects from enjoying the benefits of the modification. I really wish that Free Software and OSS people would stop trying to play lawyer (I always see so much half-misunderstood licensing crap in OSS discussions). Just write software as open source in whichever way you find to be ethical and treat each other decently! All this stupid license sniping is just sapping the energy of OSS and possibly driving away potential contributors.
I don’t like the FSF or GPL-zealot crowd because they care too much about how other people license their code. For them it’s GPL copyleft or nothing. They complain when someone else releases open source code that they “can’t use” because it’s not GPL-compliant. Have they ever thought that it might just be a problem with their side minding other people’s business too much? If you want to use someone else’s code, change your license so that you can use it. If you’re taking from them, they should have a reasonable right to take something comparable from you (it is the golden rule, after all). And it’s not like you have lost that which is taken.
Rather than improving the world’s software, some of these people only care about what they can put into their own software, and how they can lock out every other form of licensed software. It really is quite rude, and I hope Theo is also right that such actions are illegal.
The problem is that Theo’s interpretion of the dual license is GPL-incompatible. And the BSD-part of the license is also GPL-incompatible because the wrong clause was deleted, leaving it with the ad-clause.
So in order to use the code in the linux-kernel they have to use it as GPL-only.
The ISC-licensed files however, should not have been relicensed. That is truly mean-spirited.
Have you even read what we’re discussing here? It’s not about GPLing BSD-only code. It’s about GPLing dual licensed code that allows you to choose to distribute it as GPL-only (or BSD-only) if you wish. The author of one of those file has even come forward to state that that is specifically permitted. How is it mean spirited to make such a choice then?
That’s a nice write up, PlatformAgnostic.
Look, sometimes, it’s better to be permissive, and allow some breakage-of-the-law for the greater, common goal. Both the BSD and Linux crowd do have a common, greater goal: to create the best, freely available, open-source operating environment. So, people, stop bitching, and start cooperating – even if it means breaking a license here or there.
If the GPL and BSD folk can just agree to share *shock gasp horror* bits of code for the common good (like drivers, for instance) the open source world would be a whole lot prettier to look at. Instead, we get this pointless, silly fighting that does nobody any good.
allow some breakage-of-the-law … even if it means breaking a license here or there … just agree to share … silly fighting that does nobody any good
Wow, Thom! Is my sarcasm filter set too high, or are you actually arguing that both communities just ignore copyright?
If free software (of any flavor) is to succeed, it needs to be on firm legal grounds. Have we learned nothing from the SCO case?
If we aren’t extremely diligent, this entire body of work–billions of lines of code–is in jeopardy. That does nobody any good.
“””
If free software (of any flavor) is to succeed, it needs to be on firm legal grounds. Have we learned nothing from the SCO case?
“””
Groklaw turned The SCO case into a sporting event. That was good. It drew a lot of people in. People *love* sporting events.
But I agree. Copyright is the ground that we walk on. If it gives way, we are dead.
Edited 2007-09-02 19:09
Okay… is it now I’m supposed to utter “Copyright is no right” ? Or should I wait a couple of posts?
. o O ( My timing is seldom right
)
20 minutes, give or take. 😉
Copyright is no right
“””
“””
You were late. ;-0
Heeey! It was give or take! .. cheater!
“””
Heeey! It was give or take! .. cheater!
“””
Oh yeah? And you’re just lookin’ for a damned loophole! 😉
I showed that bastard up, didn’t I. 🙂
It was “20 minutes – give or take” without any indication of timeframe for “give or take” meaning that the margin is indefinite. As such any time is within the margin and I was therefore not late.
. o O ( Heehee… a loophole! A loophole! )
“””
It was “20 minutes – give or take” without any indication of timeframe for “give or take” meaning that the margin is indefinite.
“””
The “give or take” part was added by an underling, who did not have the authority. He’s been… eliminated. Expect a letter from our attorneys. 😉
What about the BSD-zealots who care too much about how other persons license their code? And what about project leaders that don’t understand copyright law?
The copyright holder (Sam Leffner) has stated that Theo is wrong. The other dual licensed file was relicensed by the sole copyright holder, so no problem there.
It is really mean-spirited to take code, modify it, and prevent the original author or originating projects from enjoying the benefits of the modification.
If you have a GPL-compatible licensed piece of code, as BSD code is, then it can be incorporated into GPL code. That’s what the BSD license allows.
If you’re taking from them, they should have a reasonable right to take something comparable from you (it is the golden rule, after all). And it’s not like you have lost that which is taken.
You’ve just described why the GPL is a good license to use if you are worried about that sort of thing ;-).
“””
“””
PlatformAgnostic,
One thing that I have learned, and this comes from my discussions with the FSF advocate b3timmons here on this site, is that you have to make a distinction between what RMS, Eben Moglen, and the FSF says… and what their followers say. I have often criticized the FSF based upon what their fanatics claim. B3timmons noted that and set me straight.
That said, I understand your distaste of code being horded into copylefted projects. On the balance, I generally prefer seeing code released under copyleft.
But BSD is OK, too. Code reuse is still the problem. It’s hard. Anything that makes code reuse harder must be considered a wart.
So I guess that makes the GPL a wart covered diamond. 😉
“I have often criticized the FSF based upon what their fanatics claim. ”
To be fair you openly lie about them. PlatformAgnostic is Vista user. Microsoft are openly corrupt.
You troll FSF to a degree that shows some kind of mental instability, you language says it all.
They advocate software with the four freedoms. They are the reason I have an *enjoyable* computing life.
You have a problem. I think you need to see someone…nothing, and I mean nothing the FSF has done could warrant such hatred and lies. You need to see someone.
“I’m ambivalent about FSF” you need to look up that word, seriously. I’d change it to “frothing at the mouth”
Edited 2007-09-02 18:51
Cyclops,
There is no hatred, here. Just honest criticism. I’m glad you have an enjoyable computing life. Though, to be very frank on the issue, you seem about as happy as the average piranha fish.
-Steve
Edited 2007-09-02 18:57
“There is no hatred, here. Just honest criticism. I’m glad you have an enjoyable computing life. Though, to be very frank on the issue, you seem about as happy as the average piranha fish.
”
Hatred is the wrong word, peoples motives here are usually transparent. PlatformAgnostic is just a Vista User, who for whatever reason is fearful of a healthy computer ecosystem maybe people of his ilk are simply not good enough to change, or is working for a Gold Partner(sic).
You stick out in the crowd because you have a sickness. I do not use this word lightly. You have *only* one point that is both basic and has its pro’s and con’s. Copyright being signed over to the FSF is you want your code added to there branch of their code. I do not have to point out the advantages or the disadvantages of doing so. You simply have one point and its weak.
Whats worse in a week that marked a new *low* in how corrupt Microsoft is, your attacking a group that working towards *better* computing for me.
The sad thing is that BSD developers when talking about their code, and I was surprised at how strong their spirit was…good intentions. I can’t think of the right word. I think descent is the closet word.
Your not even fit to comment on their code.
“””
You stick out in the crowd because you have a sickness.
“””
“””
Your not even fit to comment on their code.
“””
Cyclops,
What is it, specifically, about my posts that you do not like? I try to maintain a relationship based upon mutual respect with others here on OSNews. Even when we don’t agree on things. Hell, I think I even got through to NotParker once or twice.
You and I probably agree more than disagree, all things considered. So I’m just going to throw out some random points, and we can discuss how we stand. The alternative would seem to be that we continue trading personal attacks. OK?
—
1. I use Linux 100% in both my work and at my home.
2. I have a fondness for Fedora and CentOS. Ubuntu is good too, and is what I recommend to new users.
3. I dislike the schism between OS and FS and think it is a bit artificial and silly. But I prefer the term “Open Source” to “Free Software” because it’s just an easier sell to customers. It sounds more professional, and more credible.
4. I generally support FSF’s motivations. I sometimes disagree with their strategies and tactics. And I comment upon it when I do. I also am not above joking about them.
5. In general, I prefer copylefted licenses. But permissive licenses are OK, too. The important thing is that the code author(s) be happy with the terms under which their code is offered.
5a. I believe *very* much in the author’s right to license as he sees fit. I believe that FOSS licensing is more desirable and beneficial to The People. But I do not view releasing software as closed source to be immoral.
—
Now, I would ask to you refrain from offering me free psychiatric evaluations for a bit and actually comment on where we agree and where we might disagree. Feel free to add other points significant which I might have left out.
Edited 2007-09-03 10:08
Bless. Unlike Vista users who try to marginalize, pioneers in lets face it an *alternative OS* that has an *alternative selling model* and an *alternative development model* and an *alternative release cycle* by turning it into some kind of religious thing.
You have a personal problem. I have not seen in any way form or substance *anything* to justify your witch hunt, which is relentlessly.
If you use Linux, then you use GNU. I don’t care about your preferred way it is packaged. Its about 60% GPL, and it exists because of people like Richard Stallman. Its really pathetic that you even comment on something like “free” vs “open” when in reality these terms actually accurately describe, the driving force behind how a particular piece of software is licensed. From a marketing point of view I think they are both about as successful as the Tux logo. The market that GNU exists in has changed to most users its just software, free, fun, and exciting. Its now a complete Desktop solution.
You do not “Joke” about the FSF you actively *lie* about them, and twist their motivations which are 100% consistent. In a topic that is completely unrelated to the FSF apart from the using their expertise to resolve what is a trivial dispute. In fact you expose some kind of personal vendetta which goes beyond Vista Users namecalling so far I would say there is something *wrong* with you.
The bottom line with the FSF tactics and strategies is they are out there advocating what they believe in, as well as focusing on projects essential to the Desktop something Linus and others “don’t”. The reality is they are successful in doing so. The sad think is in a week where Microsoft have *openly* bought a standard. You words at best are empty, and I suspect have no real grounding to reality.
Absolutely an individual should license their software however they seem fit. The only *interesting* point it the *moral* aspects. Which again you have to look at *why* its immoral. Oddly the reasons why its immoral mean that they have created a license for *users* which is remarkable, and as a user of their software. In fact I object to the irony of the word *free* simply because it makes the *free* part makes software more valuable, and I mean to companies. Free is the wrong name *anti-lock-in software* may be a more attractive term to companies or *future proofed software*. Personally I think open-source is *not* as easy to sell simply because of it loses these valuable properties reducing it to simply a collaborative development model albeit a good one.
My words are quite clear. You have shown no reason at all for your malice. Attacking *any* individual or group without just cause makes me to think you are a sociopath.
Cyclops. I’ve tried to have a reasonable discussion with you. And I’m sorry to have to conclude that you are one of those overly enthusiastic advocates of the software which we both use, like, and want to promote, who actually does more harm than good through your bad advocacy techniques.
If you care about FOSS (and I know that you do) please tone it down and consider the power that diplomacy could bring to your efforts.
Edited 2007-09-03 16:52
You are mistaken in *any* belief that I am a FOSS advocate. I am simply pro-computing.
I dislike diplomacy, as *you* mean it, which involve subterfuge and lying as you do. In fact the reason for my repeated posts is because of your Diplomacy.
The bottom line is my view of your posts is that you have a personal/psychosocial problem with the FSF. Which has nothing to do with advocacy.
As you have shown no posts justifying your comments. I think you have something twisted in your mind.
I think you need to take a look at yourself.
“””
I dislike diplomacy, as *you* mean it, which involve subterfuge and lying as you do.
“””
No. What I mean by “diplomacy” is seeking out a common ground with people with whom we have disagreements, and working from there.
I don’t always practice diplomacy as well as I should. But I *do* try. And I sincerely believe that when I do, I get better results. And I get a more fulfilling experience back in return.
Can we agree to disagree on FSF matters? With the understanding that we can both call each other on any improprieties in the future? 😉
Because if we can do that… perhaps we have a chance of learning from each other. And when you get down to it, isn’t that the point of being here in the first place?
Edit: Hey Cyclops. I don’t know if you use OSNews v4. I don’t, normally. But if we transferred this to the private messaging system there, do you think it would be better? It seems a bit rude for us to continue this off-topic sub-thread here.
Edited 2007-09-03 19:05
I understand words like “compromise” and “common ground” and their true meanings.
I will make it quite clear. The FSF have made *their* position clear. It actually can only survive by sticking to their guns.
I find it bizarre that anyone would have a bad word to say about them, let alone the torrent of abuse from you. The simple fact that you lie about them is even more strange.
Xorg 7.3 is being released imminently its not under the kernel its not part of the FSF its mainly under a BSDish license. Its going to be big.
GNU or whatever the given name is growing up. It does not have one license but many. It has many organizations ; companies ; individuals driven by verity of reasons.
You have the FSF foundation pushing the four freedoms…and for companies and individual users *they* are good ones, but to actually lie about them when they are so clear about what the do, and their motives…you have to be cracked.
OSNews is nothing but a smackdown site, and any discussion it once had, is lost to mob rule, with people making unrestrained comments…including myself.
I have no *high* ideals myself over any software freedom. I’m in it for the excitement. I find it difficult to understand your comments as you simply lie. When you lie like you do their is no common ground . Just a big question marks to *why*. If you were a Vista user they would be transparent. So it only leaves personal/Mental problems, you deny both…and yet do not offer an alternative.
“””
but to actually lie about them when they are so clear about what the do, and their motives…you have to be cracked.
“””
“””
I find it difficult to understand your comments as you simply lie. When you lie like you do their is no common ground . Just a big question marks to *why*. If you were a Vista user they would be transparent. So it only leaves personal/Mental problems,
“””
I fear that there is only one thing left to say:
“I am rubber, you are glue. Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.”
Please take that in good humour. 😉
. o O ( Darn.. a one-eyed windmill… )
You’re right… Cyclops is simply not worth the time. Maybe he’s king in his own group of friends, but in my world the one eyed man is just halfway-blind.
To whomever modded my post down:
Please elaborate. I’m genuinely interested in hearing from you.
-Steve
First of all, although there were clearly some procedural misunderstandings on the part of the Linux kernel community, the BSD permits redistribution under a derivable license such as the GPL. Eben Moglen is aware of the situation and will help ensure that this process is conducted with full respect for the BSD license.
Once these issues are sorted out, Theo’s argument boils down to “let’s be friends”. I’m sure that most everybody in the Linux community is interested in maintaining a friendly relationship with the OpenBSD project. Why not? The reality of the licensing situation makes this frustrating, but not impossible.
I sympathize with Theo. I believe that the most important aspect of free software is collaboration. That’s part of the reason why I recommend the GPL for most projects. The BSD doesn’t say anything about reciprocity. It doesn’t even require corresponding source code.
Theo somehow believes that BSD code going GPL is worse for his project than it going proprietary. It’s the same thing, or possibly slightly better. The BSD allows the redistribution of code under the BSD or under a derived license without giving anything back. Whenever anyone takes advantage of their generosity, they suffer.
So I sympathize with Theo. It’s tough standing up for “real freedom” and making the corresponding sacrifices, especially when you’re the small fish. When bigger vendors and projects with more resources take the ball and run with it, the little guy often gets hurt. That’s free as in free market.
While the Linux community would be well within their rights to say “tough luck, get a stronger license” to the OpenBSD project, I hope that the mutual interest in friendly collaboration will prevail. That’s why I expect that the result of this situation will be dual-licensed BSD/GPL code in the Linux kernel.
There are two ways to make BSD code redistributable under the GPL so that it can be included in Linux. The first is a simple concatenation of the two licenses. Since the BSD is a subset of the GPL, the union of the licenses is semantically equivalent to the GPL. In this approach, OpenBSD would not be able to incorporate derived works in their project.
The other way is introduce a disjunctive clause to create a BSD/GPL dual-license. This allows the code to be redistributed in both Linux and BSD and allows two-way code sharing as well. The side-effect is that the disjunction of BSD and GPL is functionally equivalent to the BSD, as it is the more permissive license. So this code can be made proprietary or otherwise redistributed in ways that impede collaboration and freedom.
However, as the code did originate from OpenBSD, and this notion of “real freedom” is their intention (for better or worse), I think it’s fair to honor this intention. In the interest of collaboration and friendship, it’s arguably acceptable to soften reciprocity in exchange for useful code.
I’m not sure if Linus will agree. Although he is often painted as a ruthless pragmatist, the guarantee of reciprocity is very important to him. This is the “tit for tat” that he speaks of when explaining his preference for the GPLv2. This is the primary mechanism on which his pragmatism relies.
So there are essentially three options: 1) wrap the code in the GPL and give a token apology to the OpenBSD community knowing that they have no way of withholding code under the BSD anyway, 2) dual-license the code so that two-way sharing can take place and hope that some wireless router vendor (for example) shares their improvements, or 3) avoid the code altogether, duplicating the effort to create an original driver under the GPL.
License fragmentation sucks. There’s always a tradeoff and never a slam-dunk solution for all parties. In a perfect world, everybody would use the GPL, everybody would share their code, and everybody would be able to use their computers in freedom. But until this happens, the GPL is a bubble of perfect collaboration protected from a universe of heterogeneous inequality by a frustrating one-way valve.
i suppose that if i had spent as much time testing and optimizing the code as Theo had I’d be just as upset. However, the nature of the bsd license is such that you can’t stop people from using your code and even making it commercial. Now if you can make it commercial what’s to stop you from changing the license to gpl instead? And yes it sux that any potential improvements would not be usable in openbsd but hey this is far from making it illegal. And also linux developers are really becoming anal about this gpl licensing. for crying out loud what is someone uses this portion of code in their projects? Do you really think this is the very piece of code that makes or break ANY project? Plus if they really need the functionality they can use your ideas and patch up the openbsd code since it is under a more permissive license.
IMO it’s about time that the devs stop pissing people off and remember the fact that OSS is not about making money or protecting intellectual property.
This has nothing to do with the BSD-license.
It has something to do with the dual licensing scheme. The modified BSD-license in this case is GPL-incompatible which is why it is dual-licensed, so it can be used by GPL’ed projects.
Theo hasn’t spent any time optimizing the code in question. He just has a warped sense of copyright.
What the heck are you talking about? The modified BSD-license is compatible with GPLv2, see:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_3Clause.html
You are thinking about the standard revised BSD-license.
According to Theo de Raadt and other persons the BSD-license in the dual-licensed files differs from the revised BSD-license (which is compatible with GPL).
According to Theo de Raadt and other persons the the dual-licensed files are under a 3-clause BSD which retains the ad-clause and therefore incompatible with GPL.
However, after studying the patches it seems to me that Theo de Raadt is wrong about the modified BSD-license. I’ve been misled by Theo de Raadt. Not only is he wrong about the dual-license. He is also wrong about the BSD-license. I wonder what he’s been smoking
He’s not been smoking anything, he’s trying to convert dual licensed files into effectively BSD-only files, using some bizarre pseudo-legalese. The guy clearly has an axe to grind with Linux/GPL people.
I think you are right, but I wouldn’t rule out the option that he has confused himself. Or have some very interesting weed
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118836617815218&w=2
That mail of his is one big contradiction. I’d like to see his reply to Sam Leffner, and see what he thinks of the FreeBSD-team who removed the GPL-part of the dual license.
His point is :
You are (quite) free to do what you want with BSD code.
If you make a tiny change (like a bug fix) and relicense it under the GPL (or a similar BSD incompatible) License), your improvements are forever lost for the BSD community (from a developper point of view, this is worse that people taking BSD code and making proprietary code from it as those people may still contribute stuff to the BSD community).
So, please pretty please, consider licensing your changes under the BSD license so that the BSD community could profit from your work too.
It would be fair and ethical but..well..you are free to choose not to do it…
In that case, If you choose a license that prevents the BSD community from profiting from your improvements and if you ask for help from the BSD community…it might get awkward…
this sounds pretty sensible to me.
We are all profiting from the BSD code and TDR is fighting so that we get more from it so I wonder why so many people like bashing him…
I’ve already spelled out why I’m bashing Theo: he tries to twist the meaning of the dual licensed files to make them effectively BSD-only. By insisting on retaining complete text of a dual licensed file in all forks, he tries to defang any GPL-only branches (since those can still become closed source thanks to the dual-license text, thus thwarting the entire point of the GPL).
Theo is trying to impose his world-view (that all forks of dual-licensed code should be effectively BSD) against the wishes of the authors of the dual-licensed code (which is that GPL-only forks are permitted).
Nobody prevents me from releasing my fix under the GPL to the GPL’ed fork, and under the BSD to the BSD-licensed project. I can also release it under a proprietary license, thereby triple licensing my code
It has happened several times that code contributed under the GPL to Linux has been simultaneously contributed to *BSD under the BSD-license. Just like some companies are sending code back to *BSD so does Linux-devs on occassion.
EDIT: Fixed some speeleng eroors.
Edited 2007-09-02 19:49 UTC
I agree, it is a sensible approach. Though, in addition to what pxa270 is saying, the fact that TDR consistently chooses to piss, moan, bitch and whine does not promote such a climate.
I wish the BSDs had a joint legal body that could sort out these things with SFLC in a professional manner.
Really, The OpenBSD team reverse engineers hardware (Notable the HAL component of this card..) which is no easy task, I doubt any of you can actually fathom the complexity of any reverse engineering project.
I’ll make this clear for some of you, The Atheros driver is made up of various components – worked on by a handful of people, many said components were written by Reyk of OpenBSD.
Reyk’s code was not dual licenced, but the Linux community modified his licence and declared it as GPL.
It’s simple, I don’t know why some of you are so damn blind.. Is it illiteracy?
YOU CANNOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REMOVE OR ALTER SOMEONE ELSE’S COPYRIGHT!
Is that clear? take this scenario..
You’re writing something.. release it.. and someone strips the licence from your file and adds a new one, wouldn’t you be a little steamed? I think so!!
Linux and GPL zealots are simply stealing someones work.. like “Thanks for all your hard work! We’ll take over now.. buh bye now~!” it’s immoral!
Edited 2007-09-02 20:50
The problem with creating news items from mailings lists is that they move very quick & the actual news item is not updated to reflect the current state of list activity or changes .
well like poster pxa270 points out – the issue seems already mostly resolved .
Edited 2007-09-02 22:46
alternatively == OR
There is no purpose in multi-licensing code if you have to follow the requirements of all of them, or release modifications under all of them since the one with the most requirements/restrictions would have to be followed every time and would make the other license choices moot.
There is no legal issue to be resolved and there is no moral/ethical issue involved since you were given permission to choose a license.
Edited 2007-09-02 23:38
I think the whole idea of having a licence to use a program or source code silly, conditions perhaps, but to have a licence…
I’d rather my source code free of $ and free of licence with the condition that it remains free and is NOT wrapped up in anyone’s licence (including a final product).
if this is the part that is being debated then once again there is no legal issue and there is no moral/ethical issue involved.
* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */
/* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $ */
/*-
* 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
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
* “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
* AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
* THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
* OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
* SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
* INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
* IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
* ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
* THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
*/
to my understanding, linux devs are basicly adding tons of BSD code into linux and trying to get credit for the code, when in reality they did not write it.
So, I guess it’s time to audit the linux kernel and see what we find. I have a hunch we won’t only find microsoft Ip but also some BSD code with the BSD license strip.
Where do you get that understanding from? Sources please. You are claiming that the Linux-kernel is full of BSD-code where the BSD license has been stripped. That’s quite an accusation, and there is nothing to back it up.
Where do you get that understanding from? Sources please. You are claiming that the Linux-kernel is full of BSD-code where the BSD license has been stripped. That’s quite an accusation, and there is nothing to back it up.
this is what this discussion is about: a linux dev was tring to use bsd code and trying to strip the Bsd license and put that same BSD code under GPL only in the linux kernel as a wireless driver. Anyway in this thread a lot of stuff is bing said without any facts. so lets audit the linux kernel to see if the BSD code that is in there is not getting the bsd license strip and we know there is BSD code in the linux kernel because this is what started this mess.
Edited 2007-09-03 02:58
So, I guess it’s time to audit the linux kernel and see what we find. I have a hunch we won’t only find microsoft Ip but also some BSD code with the BSD license strip.
Ok then, here’s the complete source: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ please post back when you find any infringing code. Otherwise, vague allegations of possible nonspecific infringement is pure FUD-spreading, exactly what SCO and Ballmer have been doing.
Edited 2007-09-03 06:35
pure FUD-spreading, exactly what SCO and Ballmer have been doing
it’s not pure FUD-spreading, how can i be spreading FUD when a Linux dev was caught in the act of striping the BSD license from BSD code. that will make a lot of people think if this was done before and if there is a chance there is stolen BSD code in the linux
kernel. data from that link may not represent what is actually in the linux kernel, you know that.
Edited 2007-09-03 09:28
> it’s not pure FUD-spreading, how can i be spreading FUD when a Linux dev was caught in the act of striping the BSD license from BSD code. that will make a lot of people think if this was done before and if there is a chance there is stolen BSD code in the linux
First, this was a proposed patch on the kernel mailing list, and it was prompty retracted on the same list when they saw that that some of the files were ISC-only, not dual-licensed. Second, a few months ago the same thing was found with GPL code in the OpenBSD BCW driver, and that wasn’t a patch proposal, it was in the actual CSV development-tree. Did I hear anyone calling for an audit of the OpenBSD source? What makes you think the chance that there is infringing code in the Linux source is higher than in the OpenBSD source?
> kernel. data from that link may not represent what is actually in the linux kernel, you know that.
Are you dense? What I linked to is the Linux kernel. What you’re saying is there might be some unspecified infringements in some unnamed files in some hidden Linux tree. How is that not FUD spreading.
Edited 2007-09-03 09:46
Are you dense? What I linked to is the Linux kernel
please keep the insults to yourself it makes you look profane and vulgar, you know uneducated. 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. 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.
Edited 2007-09-03 09:52
> 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?
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
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.
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?
Indeed. The open source fish bowl that we live in has its pros and cons. And we should not have to deal with claims of our hiding things as an additional con. Even The SCO Group did not go that far with their claims!
So where do you think this “unpublished” linux kernel resides?
on a linux dev pc.
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.
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.
“””
we have to talk about more important stuff then continue this discussion.
“””
Yes. We do not have to let ourselves be manipulated by the media. We have that choice. 🙂
Edited 2007-09-04 02:45
It’s probably a waste of my time to write this, and I haven’t read through all the comments (give me a break, I just worked 12hrs straight, and I’ve got better things to do than read squabbling), so this might have already been said, but:
My interpretation was that the dual licensed code was more on a per-file basis. Some files might be covered by x_license, and other files by y_license.
So, if you want to mangle with x_file you adhere to x_license, and if you mangle y_file you adhere to y_license. Does this make sense? I don’t think I have to connect the dots any further.
If you’re stripping copyrights off files then that’s wrong (as defined by the law), and Theo is not an ass**** for pointing this out. He has a valid point about the hypocrisy of certain GPL supporters.
* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */
/* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $ */
/*-
* 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
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
* “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
* AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
* THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
* OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
* SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
* INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
* IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
* ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
* THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
*/
Obviously it gives you the right to make the code GPL only.
Happycamper: we know there is BSD code in the linux kernel because this is what started this mess.
Except that code was never in mainline. It was a commit to a development branch and got caught quite nicely. Shows the odds of something like that getting through into Linus’ tree to be rather slim.
animus: If you’re stripping copyrights off files then that’s wrong (as defined by the law), and Theo is not an ass**** for pointing this out. He has a valid point about the hypocrisy of certain GPL supporters. (emphasis added)
I love it how when it goes the other way (back when some GPL code was wrongly used in a BSD CVS tree) Theo’s response to having it pointed out was:
You publically attacked another open source developer for a specific purpose. You are an inhuman asshole, out to make a public fuss about something, when you had a choice to tell him in private. – Theo De Raadt (emphasis added)
But it’s OK for HIM to do the same thing a couple months later. And then he talks of hypocrisy?
None of that has to do with the core issues of course. In both instances the situation was quickly corrected, and now we have twin teacups with mirror image storms. It’s all rather amusing.
The comments here are both boring and meaningless. The meaning of licenses and how thay apply to various situations is clearly subject to interpretations. These interpretations do not totally depend on the exact wording of the license but upon (perhaps differing) legal opinions and usage conventions. Get used to fact that interpretations will vary from location to location, jurisdiction to jurisdiction and time to time.
* 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.
Edited 2007-09-03 13:27
* 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.
And now read THAT ONE:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
* without modification.
GPL guys area all illiterate or they have delusion that GPL is only license that matters?
And you, good sir, are not able to understand the first word.
ALTERNATIVELY
You DO know what an alternative is, do you?
If not then here’s a small hint for you:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alternatively
Quote:
I’ve even marked the important words here. You can find the definition on the same site.
Edited 2007-09-03 19:53
ALTERNATIVELY
Reyk Floeter’s code was never dual licensed. It was always BSD and BSD only.
That’s probably why the diff on the damn LKML had the dual-licensed-clause already in it! DUH
Here’s the diff for you. The clause is already in it. And it says alternatively (see above)
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157
I don’t really care if the code was ORIGINALLY under a BSD-only license. The code that was used in the Linux-diver was already the dual-licensed one and Jiri changed it to the GPL-license since the text ALLOWS EXACTLY THAT THING.
I’m not sure if this is a good or a bad idea to to this, but it definately is completely legal.
Edited 2007-09-04 00:59
Most everyone is missing the real point. The post was about community developers working together and respecting one another. I don’t care which camp you come from, if you think your way is the only way, you aren’t helping anyone. No need to draw any parallels here, they should be obvious.
But if working together’s not your bag, see here: [url]www.itorches.com[/url]
Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/1C28 Safari/419.3
I’ve been wondering about this kind of situations since long before this fuss.
So, please, let me ask:
If I take a BSD-licensed source file, rip-off, say, 50% of its contents and paste them in a work of mine, with my own copyright notice and license, does it qualify as a derived work? Or is it a “modified and tampered” version of the original file? Where is the boundary?
If I can’t rip-off any of the BSD-licensed file for my derived work, how does the BSD license differ from a copyleft license like the GPL? If I can rip off some code and use it in a closed-source program, not releasing any source code at all, does that mean the BSD license is more tolerant of closed-source derivatives than GPL derivatives?
I thought not.