“Reyk and I have decided to show something from the private handling of this Atheros copyright violation issue,” OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt began in a posting to the OpenBSD -misc mailing list referring to the recent relicensing of OpenBSD’s BSD licensed Atheros driver under the GPL. He noted, “it has been like pulling teeth since (most) Linux wireless guys and the SFLC do not wish to admit fault. I think that the Linux wireless guys should really think hard about this problem, how they look, and the legal risks they place upon the future of their source code bodies.” He stressed that the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false, adding, “in their zeal to get the code under their own license, some of these Linux wireless developers have broken copryright law repeatedly. But to even get to the point where they broke copyright law, they had to bypass a whole series of ethical considerations too.”
..but I dont think it can be justified morally.
Makes me sick to my bones seeing this in the community.
I would laugh out loud if BSD did what SCO couldn’t do – which is to successfully challenge the intellectual property foundations of Linux.
Honestly, given what’s at stake, the Linux developers in question should be extra, extra cautious and error on the side of safety. They need to back out that code in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Old news and already discussed to death on any other website. How about posting something new?
old news?:
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007
there is a nice little family atm between bsd and linux.
some snotty behaviour from the GPL side could destroy this, leaving poor sides poorer.
Edited. I was wrong.
Edited 2007-09-14 14:40
What snotty behaviour might I ask?
“””
some snotty behaviour from the GPL side could destroy this, leaving poor sides poorer.
“””
On the GPL side? To be fair, Theo *wrote the book* on snotty behavior.
I think that here Theo is really looking foolish in this case: his interpretation of dual licensing as an AND instead of an OR is controversial at best (false IMO), yet he acts like he is the only one to have the *real truth*.
Rational people ought to be more cautious when the subject is interpretation of legal wording!
Curious: I used to held Theo in high esteem for his non-compromising approach, but here he seems really to have lost his common sense..
Theo the Rat is part right and part wrong again, because he is focusing on the copyright of modifications and is confusing this with sublicensing original work.
The ISC, MIT and BSD-licenses allow for sublicensing without making any modifications so the Linux devs are perfectly within the license when they sublicense the original code under the GPL. Theo de Raadt is wrong here.
Theo may have a point in regard to the modifications being copyrightable. They may not be big enough atm. to warrant copyright. That however is not a copyright violation but just means the existing changes are not big enough to be under any license.
Theo is wrong about the license change only affecting source changes. It also affects the original source code because the licenses explicitly allow for this. If the licenses did not explicitly allow for this, he might have had a point here.
Again. From a legal point of view Theo de Raadt is rambling as usual.
Again. From a moral point of view I agree with Theo de Raadt.
Personally I believe there is no valid moral reason to sublicense source code under the GPL if it is already under a GPL-compatible license. If the software is under a GPL-incompatible license sublicensing it won’t work. Summasummarum. There is no reason to sublicensing software under the GPL. Only when software is optionally dual-licensed can there be a rational reason to choose the GPL.
The issue there is that two coders assert copyright on the code, when their contributions (if there was any from them at all) are far too small for them to legally assert copyright.
I’m not sure how you can see that as not being copyright violation.
I’m fully with Theo on this one.
Asserting copyright on your modifications when they are too small to be copyrightable is not a copyright violation of the BSD. Nor is it a crime. It is however a void copyright assertion and one can disregard it.
The question however is: When is a modification too small to be copyrightable? Theo de Raadt does not have the answer and nor do I – or you – for that matter. It is only the court who can decide that.
Inserting a possibly void copyright notice is not a copyright violation. It is just a possibly void copyright notice. But it is not a copyright violation in this situation. It is only a copyright violation if the license does not allow for modification of any kind.
Inserting a possibly void copyright notice is not a copyright violation. It is just a possibly void copyright notice.
Check out http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html paragraph 506:
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. – Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
If I take one of Floeters files, make a trivial change, and place my name alongside Floeters as copyright holders, I’m probably in violation of the law.
Now the Linux Atheros devs obviously did more work than that, and I’m not claiming that they are asserting copyright with fraudulent intent. But you do need to be more careful with placing copyright notices than what you suggested.
Actually not. It has to be with “fraudulent intent”.
Adding copyright on something that may or may not be copyrightable is not fraud. It is only fraud if it can be proved you could not be in good faith.
Deliberately inserting a void copyright notice is fraud. But deliberately inserting a possibly void copyright notice is not fraud. One is in “good faith” because there is doubt.
If I take one of Floeters files, make a trivial change, and place my name alongside Floeters as copyright holders, I’m probably in violation of the law.
No, you are not in violation of that law. Unless you know that your work cannot be copyrighted. If you know it cannot be copyrighted and you still claim copyright then it is fraud. But we have to prove you knew it could not be copyrighted. If there is doubt about that you cannot be convicted for fraud.
Actually not. It has to be with “fraudulent intent”.
Adding copyright on something that may or may not be copyrightable is not fraud. It is only fraud if it can be proved you could not be in good faith.
Deliberately inserting a void copyright notice is fraud. But deliberately inserting a possibly void copyright notice is not fraud. One is in “good faith” because there is doubt.
That’s essentially what Theo’s claiming. I do believe that the Linux devs acted in good faith, but you can find plenty of BSD supporters who don’t (Just read some of the comments on undeadly.org). Oh, and I don’t agree with “It is only fraud if it can be proved you could not be in good faith”. It is fraud if you did not act in good faith. Whether it can be proven to be fraud is another matter.
No, you are not in violation of that law. Unless you know that your work cannot be copyrighted.
That’s implied by “trivial change”, if my changes could be copyrighted they’re hardly trivial. To make it clear, if I copy Floeters file, changed one variable name, and distribute it with both my own and Floeter as copyright holders, I do believe he would win if he were to sue me.
Can you show me where “trivial change” is defined in copyright law?
Wouldn’t the license itself be giving you the right to make changes, however trivial anyway and then why would copyright law be concerned how trivial it is?
How does law and court define “trivial change”?
The BSD license does NOT allow for sub-licensing. It’s a common mis-conception because it’s so close to the truth that for almost all practical purposes, it’s a mute point.
The BSD license allows you to link BSD code with whatever code you want – GPL, proprietary, whatever. The BSD license also does not require you to transmit BSD-licensed source code to anyone receiving a binary copy.
This means that I can take BSD code and use it in almost any conceivable manner. I can take the code and build a closed-source application. BUT I haven’t relicensed that BSD code as proprietary. If someone could separate the BSD code from my proprietary code without having the source, they are still entitled to use it under the terms of the BSD license. It has NOT been relicensed.
For example. Let’s say I construct the sentence “I like baseball” and license it under the BSD license. Then you come along and decide that you’re going to make it “I would like baseball if I had a beer.” You’ve created a derivative work and placed it under the GPL. Well, sort of. Part of that code is under the GPL (the addition of “would” and “if I had a beer.”), but the rest of it is under the BSD license. For almost all practical purposes, that means anyone receiving it must comply with the GPL. EXCEPT for the copyright notice/license inclusion part. That is the ONE restriction of the BSD license and unless you remove the “I like baseball” from it, you must comply with that condition.
So, a work combining BSD and GPL code must comply with BOTH licenses. The BSD license just has so few restrictions that for practical purposes you just have to worry about the GPL. NO WHERE does the BSD license say that you can ignore its requirements by changing the license. Its requirements apply to anyone using the code. Just because they are lax requirements, doesn’t mean you can ignore them.
Partially, I think this is the BSD community getting annoyed that the Linux community gets so angry about people abusing the GPL yet has no respect for anyone else’s license. But they are right that you CAN NOT relicense BSD code as GPL. You can LINK it to GPL code, but then you must obey the terms of BOTH licenses – including keeping the copyright and license notice in tact.
The BSD-license allows for sublicensing of the source code.
It explicitly grants you ALL RIGHTS as long as you don’t remove the copyright notice and the following conditions.
Adding your own terms to the source code DOES NOT violate the conditions. The ISC/MIT/X11/BSD licenses all allow for sublicensing. Adding a license DOES NOT change the original license. It just adds another license creating an “AND” situation. And just goes for the WHOLE file unless otherwise specified.
What you CANNOT do is removing the copyright notices and the list of conditions. That would be a copyright violation.
EDIT: BTW. In this situation the Linux devs have NOT removed the original condition and copyright notices. They are left intact as you ask for. So there is no copyright violation.
Edited 2007-09-14 15:55 UTC
It explicitly grants you ALL RIGHTS as long as you don’t remove the copyright notice and the following conditions.
That’s not true. It only grants you rights to *distribute* AND *use* for any purpose. You have no right to relicense that code. Unless you can assert a copyright claim on your part which only happens if you make enough modifications AND it’s not valid on original work.
It’s clear. But Linux developers are too selfish to admit that now.
So: not just distribute and use, but you can copy it too. That is what has been happening for many years, and the BSD people never have objected to that kind of use, from proprietary distributors or GPL-ing ones.
And modify.
Read following post. Permission to “modify” is not permission to relicense. You’re just plain wrong.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <organization> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Copyright notice and terms are followed by a disclaimer!
Summasummarum: One can sublicense BSD-code (add extra terms) with or without modifications to the source code provided one does not touch the original license text.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
I don’t know how to spell it clearer than this: redistribution IS NOT (C# !=) (VB.NET <>) relicensing.
Summasummarum: One can sublicense BSD-code (add extra terms) with or without modifications to the source code provided one does not touch the original license text.
I wouldn’t do that but of course do what you want.
But “use” is. I can use it as I want to, including sublicensing (or relicensing as some call it, mistakenly though, since the BSD-license is untouched) – as long as I don’t remove the BSD-license.
If one does that we have a compound license (BSD+the_other_license). There are lots of those in *BSD.
BTW: It is != in all C-like languages. Not just C#. Don’t know about VB. It’s not a programming language
So: not just distribute and use, but you can copy it too. That is what has been happening for many years, and the BSD people never have objected to that kind of use, from proprietary distributors or GPL-ing ones.
Sorry. Though English is not my mother language, this English looks very clear to me. Permission to “copy” is not permission to relicense. Permission to “modify” is not permission to relicense. It’s very clear (and it belongs to common-sense too) that you can’t change terms under which a work is released by its author. And he/she should *explictly* give you permission to relicense for you to be allowed to do that, which is not the case.
Even when you modify a work enough to get a copyright on it, original work is still covered by original license and your copyright applies to your changes only. That’s the basic of copyright.
Now, if you decide to ignore that, that’s your problem.
and the BSD people never have objected to that kind of use, from proprietary distributors or GPL-ing ones.
I’m not part of either camp (though I released some code under BSD). It looks like BSD guys got angry because of past fights and they have their right to force other people to comply with their terms. Maybe they didn’t use to care about it but now they do. You can’t blame them, blame people not complying with rules.
I agree maybe BSD people has been very lazy in forcing others to comply with their license and maybe people then thought that BSD stick can be ignored but that’s not the case.
Ironically, GPL guys are breaking that rule, that is the community which was very noisy about people complying with their GPL-thing. Ironic, isn’t it?
Of course the original code remains under the original license. But BSD always maintained it was NOT copyleft, so if you added code, it didn’t automatically mean that the derived code would also be under the BSD license. Theo’s contention is, that if you are able to attain (shared) copyright on a file, you are able to relicense. This is the “modifiy” bit. The “copy” bit means that you can just copy any code, and use it however you want. The traditional understanding of the BSD licenses was that you can distribute the copied code under any license you please, because of the celebrated BSD freedoms. Of course the original code remains available under the original license as well. What else could it mean by copying??
What else could it mean by copying??
Copying is … permission to make copies. For example, you cannot make copies of your Microsoft software (I’m referring to usual MS software lik Windows, Office etc.). And that’s it. Permission to copy is make copies and (possibly, because you’re allowed to redistribute) give them to others. Copying is not relicensing.
But BSD always maintained it was NOT copyleft, so if you added code, it didn’t automatically mean that the derived code would also be under the BSD license.
All the freedoms we liked from BSD are true and are there. You can do *MANY* things with BSD code but among the few things you cannot do there’s relicensing unless specificly allowed by author.
The fact is BSD license has always been considered a “do-what-you-want” license. In many ways, that’s true but you should never forget copyright applies to BSD stuff too. The fact is original authors reserve any rights he/she doesn’t surrender. And BSD license doesn’t surrender right to relicense code while it surrenders many other rights, including copying, making derivative work out of it, distributing and so on.
And no, incorporating BSD code inside your code and then selling that product according to other terms is not relicensing because that specific code still is (and will always be) BSD.
I understand what you’re trying to say, it’s the same thing that Theo is now focussing on: as long as you don’t have copyright on a derived work, you are not allowed to put the work under another license. So this is modifying/adding. Of course the copyright will always apply. If you copy BSD-licensed code, the copyright needs to be maintained. And the specific code will always be (licenced under) BSD..? This sounds like copyleft, and not like BSD. I’ll have to read more about this.
The wannabe-lawyers will vote you down, after the school is out. It’s an unwritten law of every Internet platform.
Btw. full ack.
lol I knew that but had the feeling you can’t always let the kids run on their own 😉
Thanks.
Please note: This comment deals with the GPL literally added to the license terms, which the BSDL allows by your argument (and I think you are right there). I am NOT talking about dual-licensing.
If you add the GPL, wouldn’t that make a “compund” license that contradicts to itself? First it says (from the BSDL) that you may copy/modify the source code preserving only the BSDL lines, then it says you must relicense under GPL. That’s simply a contradiction in itself.
Besides the fact that if you relicense the whole under GPL only, you remove the BSDL lines which they say is not allowed.
No. Not only the BSDL lines, – but ALSO the BSDL lines. You cannot remove the BSD-license. That’s very much wrong. Bad bad boy (or girl).
No, for the BSDL does not say it must be BSDL only. It just says it ALSO has to be BSDL.
It will quite correct result in a compound license (GPL+BSD). This is possible because the BSD allows for adding extra terms and does not contain terms incompatible with the GPL. This is of course not true with the old 4-clause BSD-license. That one cannot be combined with GPL. But the revised BSD-licenses can be combined with GPL.
You cannot legally relicense BSD-licensed code under GPL only. It has to be GPL+BSD unless otherwise specified. In Reyk’s files there “otherwise specified” isn’t there, therefore the ISC-license CANNOT be removed and it cannot be GPL-only. It can however be ISC+GPL.
But nobody are talking about GPL only. Theo claims that you cannot sublicense BSD-licensed code. E.g. you cannot use it in proprietary products or in GPL’ed projects. He is attempting to turn the BSD-license into a viral license.
>E.g. you cannot use it in proprietary products
This isn’t sublicensing, it follows the terms of the license.
So you claim that it is legal to use BSD-licensed code in a product with a proprietary license, while it is illegal to use it in software under the GPL?
If your interpretion is correct then ISC/MIT and BSD-license is incompatible with GPL and therefore both OpenBSD and Linux are illegal.
Frankly, seeming how the issue is actually fixed, TdR is talking out of his rear end.
Arguing the morality of a mistake that has been rectified, due to it being considered wrong by everyone concerned, is, IMO, best described as an exercise in bloody single mindedness.
I am in full agreement with his description of the event as being amoral, but then again so does everybody else, including those that are responsible for vetting such code in the Linux kernel in th first place.
The only thing I hear from TdR at the mo is him displaying his continuing lack of understanding for duel license terms. Even the copyright holder pointed out that relicensing his duel license code solely under the GPL was perfectly legal, i.e. what he has been saying this from day one.
I wonder if, had the case back in April not been about TdR needed to backtrack on some of his statements in defense of that particular mistake, TdR would be quite as aggressive about shoving his, at best arguably relevant, point of view down everybody else’s throats!
More importantly, it’s Friday! Man I need a beer! 😉
Crap.. I’ve only got one left. I’m suffering from ølfrygt now. Damn you
EDIT: Opened now. My last gold beer. Sláinte!
Edited 2007-09-14 16:10 UTC
I can’t believe I got modded down for my comment. Oh well, i’m not gonna cry over spilled beer.
Skoal! (don’t have the right set of characters on my keyboard, sorry!)
No problem. I’ve once tried to find it on a german keyboard O_o … I failed big time
Danes (and Scandinavians in general have a work-around):
Aa (or with all letters in caps: AA – but only with ALL letters in caps – otherwise it is Aa) for Ã…, aa for Ã¥, OE/Oe for Ø, oe for ø, AE/Ae for Æ and ae for æ.
Who said Danish was difficult
Cool! I had to look up the way we spell it in English, which kinda defeats the point. Next time, I’ll use your handy rules.
Theo’s latest claims are subtly different from his last ones about dual licensing. He’s now claiming that making small changes to BSD-only licensed code and then slapping the GPL text on top (without removing the BSD text and original copyright attribution!) is also illegal. As minor changes do not warrant copyright protection in themselves, Theo’s reasoning is that a minor variation on BSD code cannot be relicensed (which slapping the GPL-text on top of a BSD file effectively does). That right belongs to the original copyright holder.
This is an interesting reading, as an enormous amount of code is based on the understanding that a BSD license does allow this. This is what is often meant when people say that BSD code is GPL compatible: that as long as you leave the BSD text and original copyright attribution in the file, you can do essentially anything with it, including slapping the GPL text on top and thereby making it effectively GPL (that is, protected from being closed-sourced). The text of the BSD license does appear to allow it (the following is actually the ISC license, which is preferred by OpenBSD):
Copyright (c) 4-digit year, Company or Person’s Name <E-mail address>
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.
DISCLAIMER OF ALL WARRANTIES, BLA BLA
But Theo’s latest take is interesting, he asserts an explicit licensing right exclusive to the original copyright holder and outside the scope of the “modify” clause in the BSD license itself. He essentially argues that to base GPL software on code that was originally BSD, the differences must be large enough that they would themselves warrant separate copyright protection. I’m not sure if this will hold up, but if any court would side with him, this would have huge implications for may GPL projects.
Edited 2007-09-14 15:25
The projects that have found submissions that have been incorrectly edited, have been actively fixing those mistakes. What is the issue?
The issue is that Theo and the Linux devs disagree about the correct way to fix the non-issue.
A great way to make all open source developers look like idiots 🙁
When are they going to cut the crap and continue doing actual work? As if this driver is the center of the OS universe. So much buzz and fuss.
I’m not sure why the “I’m sick of this” comments are being modded down. Personally I would hope that the BSD would have quality code to shout about rather than this minor *possible* infringement in one driver. Given the tiny time frame to resolve the issue.
What is clear to me after this, and the compiz discussions(sic). I will not let another comment about BSD being about any kind of Freedom go. exercising that right clearly does not expand to others who want a different kind of freedom for their code. The Odd thing is the complaints could be solved by using a copyleft license…although that would defeat the point of locking up any changes in binary code.
The funny. I say funny I mean strange, if you step beyond Theo you get to see BSD developers talking about it, and they seem pretty reasonable. I have newfound respect for them and understand the license more, and why someone would choose it.
…but this just seems to be about the *one* true license. Hell just pick one of the 50 or so available that suits your needs. Linus *did* the FSF *did*, but don’t get upset when someone exercises their rights of those licenses, let alone the hypocrisies of those rights only applying to binary code.
You can see why the big upset *anything* that is included in BSD will always be a little better in GPL with next to no effort. The BSD project can *never* be as good as the GPL one. The difference between Linux and BSD is a smaller market place and well everyone will chooses the better one…In the meantime Apple and Microsoft Cherry Pick BSD code. The sad thing is it is those markets BSD should be aiming at…the 95% of the pie, not the 2-4% they *share* developers with.
Edited 2007-09-14 16:05
I didn’t even know until now that the concentration of bullshit in one article can exceed 95%. You have made it, congratulations.
>I will not let another comment about BSD being about any kind of Freedom go. exercising that right clearly does not expand to others who want a different kind of freedom for their code.
Your so-called different kind of “freedom” is a mockery of freedom at all. Think first about the word freedom, before badmouthing other people who actually live *real freedom*.
Your “freedom” is actually dictatorship, ready to wipe it through any different-minded people. Welcome to the GPL-slavery, if I hear GPL-people talking, I’m actually hearing Bushs rhetoric. Thanks for all the fish, but I’m not ready to pay the ‘GPL-protection money’.
>I will not let
This is the saying of a true follower, the GPL will not allow any other freedom beside the very own dogma. Hypocrites!
Please make yourself and your guru RMS happy, vote me down. It would be a pleasure to see more of this mockery of freedom, the GPL-fetish. Quod erat demonstrandum.
I’m glad you derive pleasure from my comment. So I will make this simple RMS has little to nothing to do with the kernel. In fact this we are are mainly talking about a tit-for-tat that Linus talks about…and thats the bottom line with all of this Theo complains long and hard that BSD doesn’t get the tit-for-tat. In fact you will see that he argues tit-for-tat for moral reasoning.
So here is the *bottom* line. BSD is simply the wrong license for Theo, what he needs if he wants to force his morals on others is a license that ensures that *his* code is used the way he wants.
In fact I agree with you 100%. I think that individuals should choose a license for *their* code, to be used the way they want. People shouldn’t blindly license their code however enigmatic their leaders are. Unfortunately for BSD, Theo advocates a license that does not enforce *his own* morality(sic).
…but then unlike yourself I believe that it up to the individual to choose a license their code to reflect how they want it used.
Edited 2007-09-15 03:27
“””
“””
Cyclops,
I *so* agree with you!
Isn’t that amazing? 🙂
If what one really wants is a license with teeth… one which enforces his wishes with regards to the use of his work, he should choose a license which does that.
I respect people who put their work under a copyleft license, if that is what they really want. I equally respect people who put their work under a permissive license, if that is what they really want.
But people who put their work under a permissive license, and then whinge unrelentingly when someone follows the terms of that permissive license… are just pathetic.
I can see making the mistake once. But over and over again?
-Steve
I didn’t think BSD guys gave a rats ass about the moral/ethical/political issues and just wanted to nobly give code….so whats the problem?
So is he saying I cannot retain copyright on changes made to BSD code?
Maybe we should revisit the old unix ownership case and try that one again with him saying that changes made are still the ownership of the original owner….
Theo is indeed a man with a stubborn mind and I appreciate that. He’s done a lot of good for the open source world and continue to do so. OBviously, many people (with their own agenda) thinks he’s wrong. Well here’s someone who thinks his right.
I keep seeing these Linux fanboys to shout about proprietary code being wrong and everyone else is wrong etc etc.
GPL has for the longest time been accussed of being viral, now I’d say that it seems the users are viral too, trying any method possible to apply it to places where it simply doesn’t belong.
CAn anyone of these Linux fanboys behind this whole mess simply stand up and tell me what’s wrong with BSD licensed code, and how they expect to be respected when they constantly disrespect all other peoples choices.
That said, no matter how good Linux is, I’ll still never use it due to the fact that the entire community behind it is a mess…..
Who says there is anything wrong with BSD-licensed code? Or anything wrong with the BSD license?
Doesn’t it depend on the intent with the sources?
The Haiku project primarily uses the MIT-license because they want the code to be used as much as possible – in GPL’ed as well as proprietary products. And with such an intent the MIT-license (or the ISC/X11/BSD licenses are perfect choices).
“Who says there is anything wrong with BSD-licensed code? Or anything wrong with the BSD license? ”
If you actually read this article and the previous on the subject you’ll see that this entire issue is about GPL fanboys trying to change the BSD licensed code into GPL licensed code. So when you ask “who says there is anything wrong with BSD-licensed code?” I’ll give you a straight answer. Obviously Eben Moglen and his crew and those working from the Linux community on the Atheros driver.
No? Don’t agree? Well, then just read the article and I’m sure all will be clear!
I read the article before it was submitted to OSNews.
Eben Moglen and FSF have nothing to do with this, despite Theo’s conspiracy theory about being “trapped by FSF”.
The fact that the Linux-devs have chosen to sublicense the code in question doesn’t mean that they think there is anything wrong with the BSD-license.
It is just a bunch of brainless BSD-fanatics that want us to believe that is the case. Theo has been changing his explanation constantly in his Holy Crusade against the Linux-devs. Theo is the one that hates the BSD-license because he is trying to change the meaning of it. He’s trying to turn the BSD-license into a viral license.
many people (with their own agenda)
does anyone not have a agenda? Certainly trying to make linux look like a kludge, hack and full of stolen code would be a agenda….woudn’t it?
If Theo is correct, then Microsoft is in trouble, as they have BSD-based code with their own modifications, and they ship some of that code to partners under their “shared source” licensing. According to Theo this is illegal.
What’s weird is that Theo is asserting a kind of copyleft, though a milder version like the LGPL.
He’s claiming that if you give anyone source code, it must be BSD with no extra restrictions, even if you modified it.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1558
That case was actually resolved. By the developer simply deleting all code in question.
If you had read that thread, you’d know perfectly well some of the facts surrounding it, including that Michael Buesch was being a complete asshole about it from start.
You’d also know that Marcus Glocker despite all that tried to talk about it, but was completely ignored until he posted 11 hours later that he chose to give up completely.
The current case is (as of article submission time) not resolved despite it being weeks in the brewing. If you don’t see why, or the differencies between the two cases, maybe you should go back to reading, and try to actually understand what they were about and how they were handled.
You should also take special note of Reyk’s posts in the thread you supplied.
And Thom acted like an asshole. Both parts actually f–ked up royally about that.
Aaah well.. The “Thom” should’ve been “Theo”. What the heart is filled with will pass the lips (or how it translates into English).
If you had read that thread, you’d know perfectly well some of the facts surrounding it, including that Michael Buesch was being a complete asshole about it from start.
Kind of like how Theo has been an asshole from the start? By the way, this doesn’t sound very rude to me:
“We’re not out for blood, just for a fair resolution.”
Compare that with what Theo said:
Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn’t you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means “you may not delete it”.
maybe you should go back to reading, and try to actually understand what they were about and how they were handled.
I think you should take your own advice and read up on exactly what this is about.
If I remember correctly, the __author of the code__ had already stated that it was licensed under:
“… BSD license … … OR the GPL v2 …”.
What part of “… BSD license ONLY …” did I miss in the original post?
BTW, it was also confirmed by the author that the proposed changes in the first submission (that were rejected, BTW) were legal based on the dual “OR” license clause he had put in the code.
But, to keep with the good intentions, the kernel group only accepted the code after the BSD clause was left in.
As someone noticed in another thread, it’s interesting that Theo only made the “… brothers in code at the GPL camp …” comment after being shown he was incorrect in his interpretation of the license statment in the code.
Maybe he’ll just
delete the driver and quit even trying, because you chose to cc so
many people, and malign him. Maybe he’ll simply replace every single
line that looks similar, and then he could rightly not even mention
any of the efforts of people like you.
So next time, talk to the specific people, so you don’t come off
as being mean, ok?
Given that all these programs are both free as in beer and free as in freedom – here’s a crazy *****ing idea
How about do away with all this licensing bullshit and trying to impose restrictions on ‘free use’. You KNOW ‘licensed open source’ is utter bullshit when they try to ‘sell’ (figuratively) restrictions as freedom.
Again, take a que from Hipp
http://www.sqlite.org/copyright.html
Public domain – WHAT A CONCEPT!!! or as I like to call it, if you are going to give something away to share freely – for **** sake just GIVE IT AWAY.
This is becoming VERY lame and old! IMHO Theo has been wrong from the start: I am NOT a lawyer but as I see it, the BSD license DOES allow you to add things to it, be it restrictions or not. And as GPL license is a subset of BSD license it’s perfectly legal. Besides, the original author (!) already said everything is OKAY why does Theo still keep arguing about this?! This is none of his business even! 😮
I just wish he would drop it and concentrate on something actually important and worthwhile. This doesn’t help anyone.
Couldn’t agree more, I think Theo has done a lot of good but this time he is way off base. I will say that he is a man that will fight to the end but when your wrong your wrong and you should let it go.