On Thursday 13 September 2007, Jason Dixon wrote:
> It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about
> ? installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms
> are quickly eroding away. ?The rights and recognition of one of our
> own developers (reyk@) have been molested, and all we've done as a
> community is to participate in useless flames and blog postings. Theo
> has thrown himself, once again, against the spears of the Linux
> community and their legal vultures in order to protect our software
> freedoms. ?How many of us can say we've done our part to defend truly
> Free Software?
>
> You don't have to be a lawyer or OpenBSD developer to make a ?
> difference. ?Email the SFLC and FSF and remind them that Free ?
> Software consists of more than the almighty penguin. ?OpenBSD is ?
> arguably the most Free and Open operating system available anywhere.
> ? The SFLC and FSF need to remember that they were created to protect
> victims, not thieves.
>
> Your donations are important for keeping the servers running, but ?
> your voice is necessary for keeping our freedom alive.
>
>
> Contacts:
>
> Eben Moglen - [email protected]
> Lawrence Lessig - [email protected]
> Bradley M. Kuhn - [email protected]
> Matt Norwood - [email protected]
> ????????
Hi Jason,
I admire your intentions but there are a few things which you need to
understand a bit better. First off, I do not know Lawrence Lessig or
his involvement, so I do not understand how he made your list.
On the other hand, Eben Moglen is arrogant and unscrupulous. His stated
goal is to steal as much software as possible and put it under the GPL
even when doing so is illegal. If you give him a valid and sound
argument why the "legal advice" he has given is obviously illegal, the
very most you will get from him is a facetious reply asking where you
are licensed to practice law. -I know this from experience because it
is the exact reply I got from him after emailing him this:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118901954525700&w=2
Whether they realize it or not, the other two clowns on your list,
Bradley M. Kuhn and Matt Norwood (as well as Richard Fontana and Karen
Sandler who also signed off on it) are really nothing than expendable
cannon fodder for the FSF war against reality. Eben being crafty and
cowardly, he decided not to put his name on the list of FSF lawyers
signing off on the code theft. Since anyone could easily complain to
the Bar Association about lawyers giving out bogus legal advice, and
possibly cause them to be disbarred, cowardly Eben is letting others
take the fall.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
Signed-Off-By: Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]>
Signed-Off-By: Matt Norwood <[email protected]>
Signed-Off-By: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
Signed-Off-By: Karen Sandler <[email protected]>
Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took some GPL
code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that cases
was just as illegal, just as immoral and just as wrong but it was
corrected when it was discovered in one of the dev branches of cvs.
In the case of Ryek's code, the reverse is true but instead of admitting
the mistake and making the needed corrections, FSF has pulled out their
lawyers in hopes of getting away with the theft. All of this is being
done *intentionally* in hopes that no one will put up a fight.
Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and
relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep, you
betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with a lot of strong
arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots.
The main thing you need to grasp Jason is the people behind the illegal
license replacements are doing it *intentionally* so voicing your
concerns to them will fall on deaf ears. I'm cc'ing all of them not
merely for the antagonistic pleasure but because I want them to know
that people do see past their shifty, illegal and immoral ways. Their
modus operandi is very simple; keep stealing code until they get
busted, go to court, and then go back to stealing as much code as
possible.
All of their nonsense marketing about freedom and fairness is nothing
more than a lie to cover their real intentions; enforcing the
insane "share or be punished" manifesto of their delusional and
deranged leader Richard Stallman.
"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they
restrict the use of these programs."
The "GNU Manifesto" by Richard Stallman can be found here:
http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/GNU/info/GNUGNU
If Stallman actually believed a word of what he wrote above, he would
still be dedicating all of his works to the public domain since it
would have no restrictions. In short, Stallman is a liar. Stallman may
be intelligent, persuasive and deceptive but he is neither rational nor
wise. A rational man knows deceiving or forcing people to share will
only causes resentment, and a wise man knows that the true value of
sharing is best taught by example and is corrupted when taught by force
or deception.
I wish it was otherwise but they insist on pushing their forced-sharing
agenda in every manner possible until someone fights back. As sad is it
might seem, the only "reason" they will listen to is what they know and
teach, namely force; a court decision awarding punitive damages for
criminal infringement and getting all of their incompetent and
unscrupulous lawyers disbarred.
Jason, if they really insist on having a brawl, then it's time to take
the gloves off, kick their ass in German court where copyright
infringement is a criminal offense, and then break their legal fangs so
they never try it again. It will be a very sad loss for everyone.
Yes, I can reasonably expect to get plenty of vitriolic hate mail from
all the "true believers" on the linux kernel mailing list an elsewhere
who think the above is a troll worthy of it's own bridge. None the less
I'm tired of watching Stallman, Moglen and other charismatic, deceptive
nutjobs hand you little cups of koolaid as "practice runs" in the form
of new versions of the GPL and each time you drink it down without a
second thought... -I hope you learn to think twice about it, and
reading a bit of history about cult figures will do you some good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown#Mass_murder-and-suicide
kind regards,
JCR
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:33:18AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
<the clearest public analysis of the situation yet>
thank you. I've tried but I get too pissed.
--
[email protected]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Sep 15, 2007, at 06:33:18, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and
> relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep,
> you betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with a lot
> of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots.
OH COME FREAKING ON!!!! Can you guys DROP it already? There was NO
VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!! The patch that
Jesper submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!! Nobody
needs to argue/flame/spam about anything because there is no change
in the code.
My god this has been said 30 times by 30 different people at this
point. I swear it feels like talking to a wall.
EXHIBIT #1:
On Sep 03, 2007, at 10:50:53, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter <[email protected]> -----
>> - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion
>> about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't
>> they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important
>> things?
>>
>> I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to
>> think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has
>> been solved in the linux tree.
>
> To clarify this myth once again:
>
> The patch that mistakenly changed BSD-only code to GPL has never
> ever been in the Linux tree.
EXHIBIT #2:
On Sep 02, 2007, at 13:57:41, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Marc Espie wrote:
>> After reading the current email exchanges, I've become convinced
>> there is something VERY fishy going on, and some people there have
>> hidden agendas. Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some
>> code, puts it under a dual licence, and goes on vacation. While
>> he's away, some other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the
>> copyright and licence on the file he's mostly written. Without asking
>
> Dude, you have got to put down the conspiracy juice. NOTHING IS IN
> STONE, because nothing has been committed to my repository, much
> less torvalds/linux-2.6.git. A patch was posted, people
> complained, corrections were made. That's how adults handle
> mistakes. Mistakes were made, and mistakes were rectified.
>
>> Reyk. Without even having the basic decency to wait for him to be
>> around.
>
> Demonstrably false: you cannot make that claim until the code is
> actually committed to Linux.
EXHIBIT #3:
On Sep 03, 2007, at 12:12:28, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200, Marc Espie said:
>> Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
>> under a dual licence, and goes on vacation. While he's away, some
>> other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the copyright and licence
>> on the file he's mostly written. Without asking Reyk. Without even
>> having the basic decency to wait for him to be around.
>
> And we collectively told Jiri where to stick that.
>
> So let's recap:
>
> 1) Jiri submitted a borked patch that changed the licenses.
> 2) We didn't accept said patch.
> 3) There's then a whole big fuss about a *NON EXISTENT PROBLEM*.
>
> I could see where the *BSD people could complain if we had
> *accepted and distributed* said patch. But it was wrong, we
> recognized it was wrong, and the system is working as designed. So
> let's quit the flamefest already.
CONCLUSION:
You guys are spamming our mailing list for NO GOOD REASON!!!! Can we
*please* get back to actual useful development now?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2007, at 06:33:18, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and ?
> > relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep, ?
> > you betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with a lot ?
> > of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots.
>
> OH COME FREAKING ON!!!! ?Can you guys DROP it already? ?There was NO
> ? VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!! ?The patch
> that Jesper submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!!
You are wrong.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous
statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly
misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?
jcr
J.C. Roberts wrote:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
Link with outdated info.
> http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
Link with outdated info.
> I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
> completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous
> statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly
> misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?
Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process.
A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git
but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and
HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
(official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here)
Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are
actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly seen
by the changes being made over time.
So let's everybody calm down, ok?
Regards,
Jeff
There's no need to CC all those FSF people on this as I'm sure
they're plenty busy with other things, have lots of people to dispel
FUD for them, and certainly don't need the excess email in their
inboxes.
On Sep 16, 2007, at 03:52:43, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
>> On Sep 15, 2007, at 06:33:18, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>>> Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and
>>> relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep,
>>> you betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with a lot
>>> of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots.
>>
>> OH COME FREAKING ON!!!! Can you guys DROP it already? There was
>> NO VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!! The
>> patch that Jiri submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!!
>
> You are wrong.
Well you seem to have CCed the linux kernel mailing list, so I am
talking about the linux kernel sources, not stuff hosted on
madwifi.org or other places as I have no knowledge or control over
what those maintainers accept or do not accept. If you aren't
talking about the Linux kernel itself then you should get your
flamewar off this list as nobody here cares.
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
> http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
I see these very out-of-date URLs showing people making changes to
some already-problematic licenses in various files in some other non-
linux-kernel repository. Please note that the Linux kernel does
*NOT* contain an atheros driver right now! Therefore this doesn't
seem to be the patch posted to LKML I was talking about:
Original patch:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157
Responses:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/304
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/171
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/69
The "madwifi" site is not a linux-kernel branch at *all*. The stuff
that gets imported there is totally under the control of the madwifi
people and if you want to gripe about copyright *they* are the people
you should be griping to. It's like complaining to the OpenBSD
developers about copyright issues in some code that NetBSD developers
commit to their repository; it just plain doesn't make sense.
As Jeff Garzik said:
> A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-
> dev.git
>
> but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM
> and HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here)
On Sep 16, 2007, at 03:52:43, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
> completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous
> statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly
> misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?
For starters, I seem to have plenty of references to "the facts" as
cited above. You even deleted 3 major references from the email you
were *replying* to!
Secondly, what the HELL is with you guys and the personal
attacks?!?!? You said I am "hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual
liar"??? You very carefully snipped out the 3 examples I gave where
people were describing how the Linux kernel did the right thing both
legally and ethically so you could make those claims? Seriously, if
you really want to know what went on as far as the Linux Kernel and
the LKML is concerned, please go read the endless LKML archives on
this particular topic and stop bringing up this topic over and over
again with a few thousand people who didn't do anything wrong and
don't care about that code at all.
If you want to know what the real upstream sources contain they're
all publicly available for purview at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/
linux-2.6.git;a=summary
I'm really getting tired of these endless streams of emails which
show up with a new thread every few days containing 95% insults and
flamage and I'm going to completely ignore anything further related
to atheros/licensing/etc since virtually all of the people sending
emails to the LKML can't seem to have a reasonable conversation. Plonk.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
On 09/16/2007 10:12 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> So let's everybody calm down, ok?
Or rather, can everybody please just shitcan those perverted dipshits you
are replying to and get on with it? These people are here for one reason
only and that's to cause a stir -- however righteous they may feel about
themselves, they're nothing but dumb trolls.
Please stop feeding.
Rene.
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
>
> Link with outdated info.
>
> > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
>
> Link with outdated info.
>
> > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
> > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous
> > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly
> > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?
>
> Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process.
>
> A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g
>it
>
> but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and
> HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here)
>
> Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are
> actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly
> seen by the changes being made over time.
>
> So let's everybody calm down, ok?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
Jeff,
Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say
someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they
are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license
removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere.
You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not
been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or
whatever project?
No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal
getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart.
If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the
people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code,
then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it.
Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all
of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the
GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a
criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven
to be guilty code theft.
After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the
horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux
source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other
than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this
point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now
stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now
missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on
the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they
now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their
assertion about the way you normally operate.
You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still
practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people.
By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code
theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the
GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft,
you are weakening your own license.
jcr
That's the wonderful thing about open development: our mistakes, and
the corrections made to fix mistakes, are out in the open for all to
see. And we wouldn't have it any other way.
Jeff
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> Secondly, what the HELL is with you guys and the personal ?
> attacks?!?!? ?You said I am "hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual ?
> liar"??? ?
You are right and I apologize. I've received plenty of personal attacks
from your group, and failed to hold my temper when dealing with you.
You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a
lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that
be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux
kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros, the GNU
project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the
outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you
are all one large project working together.
When some part of your project is indulging in code theft, it makes all
of you look bad, regardless if it's upstream, downstream, sidestream or
otherwise. When linux/gpl developers and linux/gpl lawyers refuse to
take a stance against code theft, you look like one big happy family
doing everything you can to put as much code as possible under your
preferred license regardless if it's illegal or immoral.
I knew darn well that I wouldn't be winning any new friends in the
linux/gpl/gnu camp by voicing an unpopular opinion to your project, but
after being ignored, you too would want to find the people on the other
side with the spine to stand up and say code theft is wrong.
Would you stand by quietly, tolerate being ignored, and accept delay
tactics of unethical lawyers if the roles were reverse?
Would you be willing to be called every untoward name in the book by
voicing your dissenting opinions clearly and loudly?
I have.
jcr
On Sunday, 16 September 2007, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Let's say
someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they
are older than the originals.
Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all
of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the
GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a
criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven
to be guilty code theft.
After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the
horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux
source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other
than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies.
None of this has happened. What has happened is that people who do
not have full possession of the facts and have no legal expertise--
people whom from the very beginning we have been trying to help--have
made irresponsible charges and threatened lawsuits, thus slowing down
our efforts to help them. It might be useful to recall the first
stage of this process, when OpenBSD developers were accused of
misappropriating Atheros code, and SFLC investigated and proved that
no such misappropriation had occurred? Wild accusations about our
motives are even more silly than they are false.
We understand that attribution issues are critically important to free
software developers; we are accustomed to the strong feelings that are
involved in such situations. In the fifteen years I have spent giving
free legal help to developers throughout the community, attribution
disputes have been, always, the most emotionally charged.
But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like
"theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea, because once some
people started using that language--thus making adversaries rather
than collaborators of themselves--I had no choice but to ask my
clients and my colleagues to stop communicating with them.
Let me therefore point out one last time that if the threats of
litigation and bluster about crime and malpractice--none of which has
the slightest basis in fact or law--were withdrawn, we would be able
to resume detailed communication with everyone who has a stake in the
outcome.
Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's
instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts
concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means
the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping
lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through
line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is
not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues,
and to make policy recommendations, if possible, that would result in
all projects, under both GPL and ISC, having full access to all code
on their preferred terms, on an *ongoing* basis, with full respect for
everyone's legal rights. We continue to believe those policy goals
are achievable in this situation. The required work has been made
more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good
faith. But we will complete the work as soon as we can, and we will,
as Mr Garvik says, follow the community's practice of complete
publication, so everyone can see all the evidence.
We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and
we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us
instead of helping.
--
Eben Moglen v: 212-461-1901
Professor of Law, Columbia Law School f: 212-580-0898 moglen@
Founding Director, Software Freedom Law Center columbia.edu
1995 Broadway (68th Street), fl #17, NYC 10023 softwarefreedom.org
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote:
> We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and
> we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us
> instead of helping.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/
As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems.
As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates
the issue at hand.
Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now.
Thanks for the detailed response. There have also been some very
articulate and fact-oriented responses here from the OpenBSD Misc list
as well.
I will repeat and elaborate on what I wrote in my first response which I
gave the subject "Divide and conquer (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)"
Although there are some valid concerns regarding workflow between
projects of different licensing families, keep in mind that
1) a license (ie. GPL, BSD, or other) is simply another tool
2) some outside FOSS would like nothing better than
to divide FOSS up and set the factions against each other
Intentional trolls (agent provacateur) are part of the bag of tricks
available to the political groups that have much to gain by playing the
various FOSS projects off against each other. Various political parties
and factions, not the least of which is MS, lose out if we use our time
effectively or if the general public start to understand and apply
principles that make for sound, secure, and interoperable systems.
Bickering with or harranging the FSF, OBSD, or any other project is less
useful than coding, documenting, debugging (even workflow debugging) or
teaching. It plays right into MS' media strategy of "Saturate, Diffuse,
and Confuse" by filling up the communications channels with noise, thus
drowning or diluting the useful material and burning out the casual
observer. One of the common tactics seen again and again, including in
this case, is the re-circulation of outdated and incorrect sources.
Some of the people doing the bickering may just be plainly and simply
less than knowledgeable and further handicapped by inability to express
themselves. Others may just be 'tards easily goading into action by an
agent provacateur and, unless proven otherwise, should be treated as the
first group.
Regards,
-Lars
Thanks for the detailed response. There have also been some very
articulate and fact-oriented responses here from the OpenBSD Misc list
as well.
I will repeat and elaborate on what I wrote in my first response which I
gave the subject "Divide and conquer (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)"
Although there are some valid concerns regarding workflow between
projects of different licensing families, keep in mind that
1) a license (ie. GPL, BSD, or other) is simply another tool
2) some outside FOSS would like nothing better than
to divide FOSS up and set the factions against each other
Intentional trolls (agent provacateur) are part of the bag of tricks
available to the political groups that have much to gain by playing the
various FOSS projects off against each other. Various political parties
and factions, not the least of which is MS, lose out if we use our time
effectively or if the general public start to understand and apply
principles that make for sound, secure, and interoperable systems.
Bickering with or harranging the FSF, OBSD, or any other project is less
useful than coding, documenting, debugging (even workflow debugging) or
teaching. It plays right into MS' media strategy of "Saturate, Diffuse,
and Confuse" by filling up the communications channels with noise, thus
drowning or diluting the useful material and burning out the casual
observer. One of the common tactics seen again and again, including in
this case, is the re-circulation of outdated and incorrect sources.
Some of the people doing the bickering may just be plainly and simply
less than knowledgeable and further handicapped by inability to express
themselves. Others may just be 'tards easily goading into action by an
agent provacateur and, unless proven otherwise, should be treated as the
first group.
Regards,
-Lars
On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote:
> > We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and
> > we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us
> > instead of helping.
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/
>
> As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems.
>
> As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates
> the issue at hand.
>
> Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now.
Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the
above press release.
Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address,
there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply
outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to
SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention
that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL.
Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities
together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the
people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of
these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing,
after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option,
are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that
SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is
well-deserved?
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258
C.
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
> >
> > Link with outdated info.
> >
> > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
> >
> > Link with outdated info.
> >
> > > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
> > > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous
> > > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly
> > > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?
> >
> > Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process.
> >
> > A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g
> >it
> >
> > but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and
> > HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> > (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here)
> >
> > Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are
> > actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly
> > seen by the changes being made over time.
> >
> > So let's everybody calm down, ok?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Jeff,
>
> Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say
> someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
> removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
> it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they
> are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license
> removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere.
>
> You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not
> been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or
> whatever project?
But that isn't the situation being discussed. You've sent this mail to the
*LINUX* *KERNEL* ML, not the MadWifi ML. The patches in question were not
accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send mail
related to them.
*PLEASE* go do a Google search or check the MadWifi site for their discussion
list/forum/whatever and complain there.
> No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal
> getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart.
Yes, true, but you are attacking people who haven't done anything wrong. And
by your own words, Mr. Roberts, OpenBSD has violated peoples
copyrights: "Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took
some GPL code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that
cases was just as illegal,"
If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over
patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as
fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified)
times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD license.
And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the MadWifi
discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only people that accepted
the patches in question.
> If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the
> people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code,
> then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it.
*WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" with the
*MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate Reyk's copyright.
> Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all
> of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the
> GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a
> criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven
> to be guilty code theft.
>
> After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the
> horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux
> source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other
> than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this
> point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now
> stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now
> missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on
> the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they
> now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their
> assertion about the way you normally operate.
>
> You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still
> practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people.
> By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code
> theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the
> GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft,
> you are weakening your own license.
Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with faulty claims
just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 is a better license
than v3 and because Linux cannot, for numerous reasons, ever be released
under the GPLv3.
I repeat - Linux has *NOT* and will *NEVER* accept the patches in question. If
somebody else has, then go and yell at them about it. The developers here, on
the LINUX KERNEL MAILING LIST, have no control or authority (in general) over
projects such as MadWifi. If they have accepted the faulty patches - and said
patches are now part of their code-base, then go tell them about it and make
sure Theo gets the message.
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eben Moglen wrote:
> Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's
> instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts
> concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means
> the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping
> lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through
> line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is
> not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues,
> and to make policy recommendations
Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations
which very simply reads: "steal and infect everything you possibly can
and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received."
http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
As you do your imaginary "painstaking reconstruction" the whole world
can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed "spirit"
of your "steal-alike" license because you refuse to pass on the rights
you have received.
> The required work has been made more arduous because some people have
> chosen not to cooperate in good faith.
When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your
license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention
of cooperating in good faith with anyone.
> But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like
> "theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea
Speaking of "Really Bad Ideas," you trained us. The only time we get any
form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more
abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in
your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push
your "free as in koolaid" political agenda there will be people like me
who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your
stalling tactics and your legal bullying.
I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell.
jcr
I don't thinl this helps openbsd or anyone else. As Theo is already
working with the individuals involved, and hasn't asked for help, I
think rather than saying "I think you're going to suck", let's see
what happens. Going ovewrboard isn't going to help anyone.
On 9/16/07, J.C. Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eben Moglen wrote:
> > Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's
> > instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts
> > concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means
> > the painstaking reconstruction of several independent and overlapping
> > lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through
> > line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is
> > not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues,
> > and to make policy recommendations
>
> Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations
> which very simply reads: "steal and infect everything you possibly can
> and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received."
> http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
>
> As you do your imaginary "painstaking reconstruction" the whole world
> can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed "spirit"
> of your "steal-alike" license because you refuse to pass on the rights
> you have received.
>
> > The required work has been made more arduous because some people have
> > chosen not to cooperate in good faith.
>
> When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your
> license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention
> of cooperating in good faith with anyone.
>
> > But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like
> > "theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea
>
> Speaking of "Really Bad Ideas," you trained us. The only time we get any
> form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more
> abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in
> your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push
> your "free as in koolaid" political agenda there will be people like me
> who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your
> stalling tactics and your legal bullying.
>
> I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell.
>
> jcr
>
>
--
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over
> patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as
> fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified)
> times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD license.
>
> And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the MadWifi
> discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only people that accepted
> the patches in question.
Although it's true the code is not yet upstream...
Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is
sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm,
rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or [email protected].
> *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" with the
> *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate Reyk's copyright.
Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant. We want to make
sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make sure any
copyright problems are fixed.
On a side note: "MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k
driver, the driver at issue here. Some mistakes were made by Linux
wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected.
> Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
>
> If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with faulty claims
> just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 is a better license
> than v3
Amen. 100% agreed.
Jeff
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 02:17:53AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say
> someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
> removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
> it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they
> are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license
> removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere.
Ok, suppose someone did (precisely) this. Then the person to be upset
with would be the people who did this, not the people behind the
official repository. Some folks seem to be unfortuntaely blaming the
people who run the official repository.
Look, it's perhaps a little understandable that people in the *BSD
world might not understand that the Linux development community is
huge, and not understand that the people who work on madwifi.org, the
core kernel community, and the FSF, are distinct, and while they might
interact with each other, one part of the community can't dictate what
another part of the community does. You wouldn't want us to conflate
all of the security faults of say, NetBSD with OpenBSD, just because
it came from a historically similar code base and "besides all you
*BSD folks are all the same --- if you don't want a bad reputation,
why don't you police yourselves"? Would you not say this is
unreasonable? If so, would you kindly not do the same thing to the
Linux community?
Secondly, it looks like people are getting worked up about two
different things, and in some cases it looks like the two things are
getting conflated. The first thing is a screw-up about attribution
and removal of the BSD license text, and that is one where the SFLC
has already issued advice that this is bad ju-ju, and that the BSD
license text must remain intact.
The second case which seems to get people upset is that there are
people who are taking BSD code, and/or GPL/BSD dual licensed code, and
adding code additions/improvements/changes under a GPL-only license.
This is very clearly legal, just as it is clearly legal for NetApp to
take the entire BSD code base, add proprietary changes to run on their
hardware and to add a propietary, patent-encrusted WAFL filesystem,
and create a codebase which is no longer available to the BSD
development community.
The first case was clearly a legal foul, whereas the second case is
legally O.K (whether the GPL or NetApp propietary license is
involved). However, people are conflating these two cases, and using
words like "theft" and "copyright malpractice", without being clear
which case they are talking about. If we grant that the first is bad,
and is being rectified before it gets merged into the mainline kernel,
can we please drop this? If you are truely offended that working
pre-merge copies of the files with the incorrect copyright statements
still exist on the web, feel free to send requests to madwifi.org, the
Wayback Archive, and everywhere else to stamp them out --- but can you
please leave the Linux Kernel Mailing List out of it, please?
As far as the second case is concerned, while it is clearly _legally_
OK, there is a question whether it is _morally_ a good idea. And this
is where a number of poeple in the Linux camp are likely to accuse the
*BSD people who are making a huge amount of fuss of being hypocrites.
After all, most BSD people talk about how they are *proud* that
companies like NetApp can take the BSD code base, and make
improvements, and it's OK that those improvements never make it back
to the BSD code base. In fact, these same *BSD folks talk about how
this makes the BSD license "more free" than the GPL.
Yet, when some people want to take BSD code (and let's assume that
proper attributions and copyright statements are retained, just as
I'll assume that NetApp also preserved the same copyright statements
and attributions), and make improvements that are under the GPL, at
least some *BSD developers are rising up and claiming "theft"! Um,
hello? Why is it OK for NetApp to do it, and not for some Linux
wireless developers to do precisely the same thing? Is it because the
GPL license is open source? At least that way you can see the
improvements (many of them would have been OS-specific anyway, since
the BSD and Linux kernel infrastructures are fundamentally different),
and then reimplement yourself ---- in the case of NetApp, you don't
even get to **see** the sources to the WAFL filesystem; they are,
after all, under a proprietary copyright license.
The final argument that could be made is the practical one; that
regardless of whether or not a Linux wireless developer has any legal
or moral right to do what NetApp developers have done years ago, that
it would be better to cooperate. That's a judgement call, and I'll
assume that the BSD wireless developers are different from the people
who are screaming and trolling on the kernel mailing list --- since if
there is any overlap between the whiners and kvetchers who have been
invading the LKML, it would seem pretty clear that cooperating with
such a bunch lusers is probably more trouble than it's worth. But
just as it's not fair to judge Linux developers by the more immature
Slashdot kiddies/fanboys, we can't assume that the people who have
been whining and shooting off their mouth about theft are not
representative of the *BSD developers.
So if we disregard that issue, the practical reality is that BSD and
Linux are different. While the madwifi drivers were outside of the
tree, it might have made sense to have an OS-independent layer and
then surround the driver with an OS abstraction layer. But if the
driver is going to be merged with mainline, the general Linux practice
is to make those abstraction layers Go Away. (There have been a few
exceptions, such as the hideous Irix/vnode #define compatibility mess
in XFS, but that's been gradually cleaned up, and it really is the
exception that proves the rule; it's a great demonstration about why
such abstraction layers make the code less maintainable, and less
readable.) Once you remove the OS abstraction layer, the code wasn't
going to be very useful to a BSD-based kernel _anyway_, so in
practical matters, whether the code would continue to be dual-licensed
GPL/BSD wouldn't matter anyway.
Hopefully this adds some clarity to the matter.
Regards,
- Ted
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community
> > over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it
> > should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain
> > about those (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on
> > code with the BSD license.
> >
> > And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the
> > MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only
> > people that accepted the patches in question.
>
> Although it's true the code is not yet upstream...
>
> Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is
> sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm,
> rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or
> [email protected].
>
> > *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem"
> > with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate
> > Reyk's copyright.
>
> Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant. ?We want to
> make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make
> sure any copyright problems are fixed.
>
> On a side note: ?"MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k
> driver, the driver at issue here. ?Some mistakes were made by Linux
> wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected.
>
> > Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
> >
> > If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with
> > faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2
> > is a better license than v3
>
> Amen. ?100% agreed.
>
> ????????Jeff
Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both
politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list
was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue
with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in
bad faith, the code in question is per se "intended" to become part of
the Linux kernel. The code has not been "accepted upstream" as you say
but that is still the intended goal.
Saying something like:
"Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU"
is quite similar to saying:
"Windows != Microsoft"
In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are
certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often
considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under
the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You
are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common
language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though
it is pedantically incorrect to do so.
Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an
insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example.
There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their
hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers
are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their
continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair
minded and well thought than I will ever be.
With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the
GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free
thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go?
The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer.
As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel
mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's
a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you.
If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team
were to contact the people who have been illegally messing with
licenses on the atheros code and ask them to quit messing around, it
could do a lot of good towards resolving this issue. In doing so,
you'll not only end the current pointless waste of time between
GPL/GNU/BSD, but you'll also prevent the pointless waste of time of
discussing this to death on lkml when the time comes to move the code
upstream so you have better atheros support.
The people who have done this illegal license swapping nonsense will not
listen to Reyk, will not listen to Theo (which some will say is a
difficult thing to do) and will not listen to me (which is probably
more difficult than listening to Theo). All of three us are in
the "wrong camp" simply because we use a different license.
My hope is the people responsible for the illegal license swapping will
hopefully listen to you, the Linux kernel developers. If you'd like to
see all of this end, rather than carry on and on and on until it winds
up in court, please do something. Please try asking the people
responsible to quit messing with licenses.
kind regards,
jcr
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>...
> Saying something like:
> "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU"
>
> is quite similar to saying:
> "Windows != Microsoft"
>
> In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are
> certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often
> considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under
> the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You
> are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common
> language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though
> it is pedantically incorrect to do so.
>...
You could equally say that
"OpenBSD != University of California, Berkeley"
was wrong since OpenBSD uses the licence of the UCB. [1]
Or that
"OpenBSD != NetBSD"
was wrong since OpenBSD is just a spinoff of NetBSD, and for everyday
people all the *BSD operating systems are anyway the same.
Or that
"OpenBSD != Linux kernel"
was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they
are both open source operating systems.
Or even that
"OpenBSD != FSF"
was wrong.
In case you wonder about the latter, check at [2] whose project's
project leaders won the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software
and whose project's project leader did not.
The FSF and the Linux kernel community have some relationship, but they
are quite distinct communities with different views on some things.
As an example, Linus Torvalds made clear some years ago that the kernel
is GPLv2 only and will stay GPLv2 forever. This makes it impossible to
move the kernel to the FSF's new GPLv3. If you have such differences in
mind it sounds ridiculous when people don't differentiate between the
FSF and the Linux kernel community.
> kind regards,
> jcr
cu
Adrian
[1] I don't know the background of the 2-clause BSD licence, but at
least for the 3-clause and 4-clause BSD licences this was true
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_for_the_Advancement_of_Free_Software
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> writes:
> Or that
> "OpenBSD != Linux kernel"
>
> was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they
> are both open source operating systems.
BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux?
I did, not once :-)
--
Krzysztof Halasa