Hi. My name may not ring a bell for lots of lklm members.
I am a long time OpenBSD developer, and I've contributed little
bits to a lot of opensource projects, to the extent that I've
got commit rights to gcc, binutils, kde. I've probably sent hundreds
of patches and tweaks to various projects over the last years.
I prefer the BSD licence, for personal reasons, but I've made a lot
of contributions to GPL projects. All in good faith.
I am the guy responsible for the current set of pkgtools in OpenBSD, and
various other things. If you use OpenBSD, you use my work every day.
I am very disturbed by the current situation. It is quite easy to
start personal attacks on Theo. We all know he sometimes lacks diplomacy.
But I stand by him in the current case, because he raises the right stink.
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
Reyk. Without even having the basic decency to wait for him to be
around.
Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
problem for the linux kernel. The ISC licence is perfectly compatible
with the GPL (note to GPL trolls: this new licence does not have any
advertizing clause, which was the ONLY issue with the old licence). And
heck, they can use the code under the GPL licence. There is no incompatibility
in there.
The only possible issue is related to paranoia: if this file stays
dual-licenced, some of its code may escape from the GPL shrine, and
become available to the cuddly BSD people... but since their licence
doesn't protect anything, it could used by the Evil Empire of Microsoft,
or SCO, or whoever is the villain of the month.
Woah. You guys kill me. If you want to protect against that, just make
sure the code you want to protect stays inside its own file! But frankly,
removing Reyk's licence, or heck, making it `second class' (the file was
originally under this licence) shows incredibly poor ethics. (I'll let
actual lawyers comment on the legality of that, but some informed sources
tell me this is also downright illegal in most places).
Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some
parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they
do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly
disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence for instance (for
some definition of free), and practically, this makes it impossible to
add GPL code to an ISC project without putting the project under the Aegis
of the GPL licence. The reciprocal relationship does NOT hold. As you can
see in various places, it is quite possible to put BSD code inside a GPL
project without any issue (the FSF libiberty is a nice proof of that. And
heck, the glibc as well... Read carefully past the COPYING file, you'll
find numerous instances of BSD-like licences).
Linux is so proud of its numerous drivers... I think that it's a story of
pride: some people can't bear the fact that sometimes, some interesting
development happens outside of linux first. I'm very proud of my fellow
members of the OpenBSD project, who managed to get some wireless cards to
work WITHOUT any nwi binary blob, and BEFORE the linux people managed to
get them to work.
So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
this `interesting GPLv3) ? Do you intend to keep grabbing BSD code and
putting it exclusively under the GPL ?
Well, if that's truely the case, I may reconsider my good faith for future
contributions. Heck, instead of giving away my code under the GPL, I could
keep my contributions in the form of patches. Ironically, with tools such
as git, this is no longer as cumbersome as this used to be. So, instead
of new gcc code sent to the FSF (and given to the FSF), we could explicitly
keep patches under the ISC licence, and explain loudly why this is so.
Heck, if Reyk Floeter is not totally disgusted with all this when he comes
back from vacation, what licence do you think he's going to use for his
next driver ?
Do you really think he's going to keep his work under a dual-licence, seeing
how a bunch of rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing his code
whenever they can.
Nice going, GPL fan-boys...
--
Marc Espie
> as git, this is no longer as cumbersome as this used to be. So, instead
> of new gcc code sent to the FSF (and given to the FSF), we could explicitly
> keep patches under the ISC licence, and explain loudly why this is so.
I think you need to learn about derivative works. That aside I'm not
aware the FSF has any particular part or stated opinion in this particular
matter. Linus isn't exactly known for being a Stallman fan and Linux
despite Mr Stallmans perpetual attempt to stick "GNU/" on the front of
it, is not and has never been an FSF project.
> Heck, if Reyk Floeter is not totally disgusted with all this when he comes
> back from vacation, what licence do you think he's going to use for his
> next driver ?
I guess he'll have to write a new BSD2 licence. I'm suprised to hear he
is on vacation. I assumed the OpenBSD developers would have consulted him
before speaking for him ?
Alan
On Sep 02, 2007, at 10:03:07, Marc Espie wrote:
> Do you really think he's going to keep his work under a dual-
> licence, seeing
> how a bunch of rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing
> his code
> whenever they can.
[...snip...]
Oh god, not another Linux/*BSD month-long flamewar chewing up more
developer resources than Microsoft has ever had. Please nobody else
reply to such flamebait and let's get on to productive code
development. If you think it really matters to you, then please do
the following in order:
1) Come back in a week. License issues can be easily resolved
even months later. Look at the SCO case, for example, they didn't
have a legal peg-leg to stand on and they've been churning through
the legal system for years.
2) Reread all of the posts in the other threads (either through
the archives or whatever). In particular look at Adrian Bunk's
emails, he seems to have a pretty sane grasp on the subject.
3) When you want to reply USE THE SAME THREAD!!! Most of the
people on this list don't really give a damn about legal crap, we
just want to write code or have interesting technical discussions.
By using the same thread we only have one button to click to hide it
forever.
4) Refrain from rhetoric and name-calling, it's unproductive and
childish.
That said, Marc Espie seems to be all set to blast the first person
who isn't frothing at the mouth in support of BSD, so... Plonk!
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
* Sun, 2 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200
>
> Hi. My name may not ring a bell for lots of lklm members.
Hallo, Marc. It's OK; shit happens, calm down, please.
[]
> Well, if that's truely the case, I may reconsider my good faith for future
> contributions. Heck, instead of giving away my code under the GPL, I could
> keep my contributions in the form of patches. Ironically, with tools such
> as git, this is no longer as cumbersome as this used to be. So, instead
> of new gcc code sent to the FSF (and given to the FSF), we could explicitly
> keep patches under the ISC licence, and explain loudly why this is so.
About GCC this is a good point. Seconded. Maybe then `sparse' by Linus
and friends will be a good competitor for that FSF guarded pet...
[]
> Nice going, GPL fan-boys...
HA-ha. Shit hits the fan-boys.
GPL is not FSF. GPL or FSF is not Debian. Linux is (was?) for FUN.
Good bye.
--
-o--=O`C info emacs-manual : not found /. .\ ( is there any reason to live? )
#oo'L O info make : not found o ( yes --- R.I.P. FSF + RMS )
<___=E M man gcc : not found `-- ( viva Debian Operating System )
Marc Espie wrote:
> Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some
> parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they
> do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly
> disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence for instance (for
> some definition of free), [...]
It does indeed depend on your definition of free. I, for one, find
BSD/ISC "more free" since it grants rights to any potential user or
contributor, not just those using a compatible license. Others may find
the GPL "more free" since it encourages contributors to give their code
back to the original project, or at least allows the original project to
consume those changes, meaning that the project can benefit from changes
made by a third party and still remain usable by all.
> So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
> evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
> this `interesting GPLv3) ? Do you intend to keep grabbing BSD code and
> putting it exclusively under the GPL ?
That's the bittersweet side of BSD licensing - others have every right
to take your code and use it for their own projects without having to
give their changes back to you.
> Well, if that's truely the case, I may reconsider my good faith for future
> contributions. Heck, instead of giving away my code under the GPL, I could
> keep my contributions in the form of patches. Ironically, with tools such
> as git, this is no longer as cumbersome as this used to be. So, instead
> of new gcc code sent to the FSF (and given to the FSF), we could explicitly
> keep patches under the ISC licence, and explain loudly why this is so.
Technologically quite easy, yes, and while I'm sure no-one would really
challenge you for doing so. it'd be interesting to know how legal it
would be to distribute an ISC patchset on top of GPL code.
> Nice going, GPL fan-boys...
> --
> Marc Espie
-- m. tharp, BSD fanboy, devil's advocate
> hidden agendas.
ooh!
> 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
oh!
> The only possible issue is related to paranoia:
> the GPL shrine, and
> the cuddly BSD people...
> the Evil Empire of Microsoft,
> or SCO, or whoever is the villain of the month.
scary!
> downright illegal in most places).
<shiver> BSD code stealing and anal sex, finally in the same category.
> Linux is so proud of its numerous drivers...
> some people can't bear the fact that sometimes, some interesting
> development happens outside of linux first
Linux have small penis. OpenBSD have very large penis. We jealous. No
time for engineering, while staring at OpenBSD large penis.
> RMS paranoia
He scares us!
> this `interesting GPLv3) ?
Our hidden agenda revealed at last! Curse you!
> rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing his code
> Nice going, GPL fan-boys...
You forgot to blame George W. Bush for it all.
Jeff
(more serious reply now ensues)
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.
> The only possible issue is related to paranoia: if this file stays
> dual-licenced, some of its code may escape from the GPL shrine, and
> become available to the cuddly BSD people... but since their licence
> doesn't protect anything, it could used by the Evil Empire of Microsoft,
> or SCO, or whoever is the villain of the month.
This is a classic straw man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
_You_ are paranoid about these changes, and you project your fears upon
us. None of this applies to the vast majority of Linux engineers.
> Woah. You guys kill me. If you want to protect against that, just make
> sure the code you want to protect stays inside its own file! But frankly,
> removing Reyk's licence, or heck, making it `second class' (the file was
> originally under this licence) shows incredibly poor ethics. (I'll let
So I guess when that was corrected, and a mistake was admitted and
corrected, it shows good ethics?
> actual lawyers comment on the legality of that, but some informed sources
> tell me this is also downright illegal in most places).
Removing the copyright and license ON NON-DUAL-LICENSED CODE -- yes,
that was wrong, and it was fixed.
But for dual-licensed code, it is fine. The license text explicitly
permits selection of one OR the other license.
> Linux is so proud of its numerous drivers... I think that it's a story of
<guffaw> As a major Linux driver author and maintainer, I can tell you
they are just as grotty as any other piece of code.
> pride: some people can't bear the fact that sometimes, some interesting
> development happens outside of linux first. I'm very proud of my fellow
> members of the OpenBSD project, who managed to get some wireless cards to
> work WITHOUT any nwi binary blob, and BEFORE the linux people managed to
> get them to work.
Good engineers just don't have time for shite like this. And our
wireless guys are good engineers, just like Reyk.
> So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
> evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
> this `interesting GPLv3) ?
You've missed the last ten years or so of Linux kernel development,
haven't you?
Linux kernel peeps are traditionally not fans of the FSF (and that is an
understatement in some cases).
Next time, please look at the facts before letting Theo lead you like a
mind-numbed robot.
Jeff
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 16:03 +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
[...]
> So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
> evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
> this `interesting GPLv3) ? Do you intend to keep grabbing BSD code and
> putting it exclusively under the GPL ?
AFAIK: I could take BSD- (or ISC-)licensed code (legally), patch it,
sell it (nor not) and (legally) not give back anything putting the whole
code effectively under proprietary license.
And you can't do anything (except negative propaganda) independent if
you are maintainer, author or whoever.
And you seriously have a problem with GPLed patches (which is BTW more
"open" since you cannot legally hide the changes once you gave a binary
away - at least from the receiver of said binaries)?
BTW it's the same as with other "open code": Take it or leave it - it's
your decision.
SCNR,
Bernd
--
Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/
mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
Embedded Linux Development and Services
> Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
> be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
> under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
> problem for the linux kernel. The ISC licence is perfectly compatible
> with the GPL (note to GPL trolls: this new licence does not have any
> advertizing clause, which was the ONLY issue with the old licence). And
> heck, they can use the code under the GPL licence. There is no
> incompatibility
> in there.
Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that these licenses
are compatible. They are not. You cannot put code that was offered under the
GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and distribute the
result.
> The only possible issue is related to paranoia: if this file stays
> dual-licenced, some of its code may escape from the GPL shrine, and
> become available to the cuddly BSD people... but since their licence
> doesn't protect anything, it could used by the Evil Empire of Microsoft,
> or SCO, or whoever is the villain of the month.
That's not the problem. The problem is that if the file stays dual-licensed,
everyone working on that file in the Linux kernel will have to be careful
not to put any GPLv2-only code into it. That's just untenable. Any
consistent license is better than different files being under different
licenses such that you can't cut and paste code between files.
> Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some
> parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they
> do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly
> disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence for instance (for
> some definition of free), and practically, this makes it impossible to
> add GPL code to an ISC project without putting the project under the Aegis
> of the GPL licence. The reciprocal relationship does NOT hold. As you can
> see in various places, it is quite possible to put BSD code inside a GPL
> project without any issue (the FSF libiberty is a nice proof of that. And
> heck, the glibc as well... Read carefully past the COPYING file, you'll
> find numerous instances of BSD-like licences).
If you embed protectable elements from GPLv2-only code into any of those
files, they are no longer dual-licensed. You wind up creating traps and
complexity that makes the code much harder to maintain.
> So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
> evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
> this `interesting GPLv3) ? Do you intend to keep grabbing BSD code and
> putting it exclusively under the GPL ?
It is just impractical to maintain code in the Linux tree under any other
license. See some of my other posts where I discuss the nightmare of trying
to add new hooks to every filesystem if different filesystems are under
different licenses and so you can't cut/paste the implementation from one
file to another.
> Do you really think he's going to keep his work under a
> dual-licence, seeing
> how a bunch of rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing his code
> whenever they can.
>
> Nice going, GPL fan-boys...
A dual-license is a compromise. One of the downsides is that you may force
large projects that are under one license or the other to fork the code. If
that bothers you, don't dual license.
DS
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:17 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
> > be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
> > under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
> > problem for the linux kernel. The ISC licence is perfectly compatible
> > with the GPL (note to GPL trolls: this new licence does not have any
> > advertizing clause, which was the ONLY issue with the old licence). And
> > heck, they can use the code under the GPL licence. There is no
> > incompatibility
> > in there.
>
> Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that these licenses
> are compatible. They are not. You cannot put code that was offered under
> the GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and distribute
> the result.
Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put BSD-License
only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
about.
IANAL, but your argument is specious - if the code is dual-licensed and you
are going to let one person add code to it that is only licensed under one of
those licenses, you *CANNOT* complain when somebody else does it and chooses
the other license. (Well, you can, but the complaint has no legal standing)
> > The only possible issue is related to paranoia: if this file stays
> > dual-licenced, some of its code may escape from the GPL shrine, and
> > become available to the cuddly BSD people... but since their licence
> > doesn't protect anything, it could used by the Evil Empire of Microsoft,
> > or SCO, or whoever is the villain of the month.
>
> That's not the problem. The problem is that if the file stays
> dual-licensed, everyone working on that file in the Linux kernel will have
> to be careful not to put any GPLv2-only code into it. That's just
> untenable. Any consistent license is better than different files being
> under different licenses such that you can't cut and paste code between
> files.
Then why aren't you complaining about Mr. Floeters code ?
His code doesn't maintain the dual-license. I think the reason is that you
could care less about the "Dual License" and you just want the code - period.
> > Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some
> > parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they
> > do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly
> > disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence for instance (for
> > some definition of free), and practically, this makes it impossible to
> > add GPL code to an ISC project without putting the project under the
> > Aegis of the GPL licence. The reciprocal relationship does NOT hold. As
> > you can see in various places, it is quite possible to put BSD code
> > inside a GPL project without any issue (the FSF libiberty is a nice proof
> > of that. And heck, the glibc as well... Read carefully past the COPYING
> > file, you'll find numerous instances of BSD-like licences).
>
> If you embed protectable elements from GPLv2-only code into any of those
> files, they are no longer dual-licensed. You wind up creating traps and
> complexity that makes the code much harder to maintain.
The same can be said of Floeters code. *ALL* of his code, IIRC, is
*SINGLE-LICENSE*. ie: a complexity trap. But you aren't complaining about his
code - you are complaining that somebody is doing the same thing, but is
using the side of the dual-license you don't like.
Nothing *LEGALLY* actionable there.
<snip>
> > Do you really think he's going to keep his work under a
> > dual-licence, seeing
> > how a bunch of rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing his
> > code whenever they can.
> >
> > Nice going, GPL fan-boys...
>
> A dual-license is a compromise. One of the downsides is that you may force
> large projects that are under one license or the other to fork the code. If
> that bothers you, don't dual license.
Exactly.
If you want to only have your code available under a specific license but rely
on dual-licensed code, you create a fork that contains the new code under
that side of the license. For instance: Suppose I've written a new filesystem
and released it with three licenses - CDDL, BSD/ISC and GPL(v2) - and a Linux
developer decides to import my FS into Linux. But the code isn't optimal for
Linux, so he fixes it - and only wants his code usable under the GPLv2 - he
can do this - it just means that that fork isn't usable under the other two
licenses.
Note that the boundary of what a "work" consists of is complex - but as far as
a computer program goes it is "the collection of source code needed to build
the functional result" or "the functional result".
This means that I can contribute as much code as I want to a project under
whatever license I choose, but the project itself can have a different
license. In the case of the code in question, that means that the second Mr.
Floeters code was distributed as a part of the "whole work" that constitutes
the Atheros driver it automatically fell under the dual-license of the
controlling project. When Jiri downloaded the code and began the work of
porting it to Linux, he accepted the terms of the GPL license - his choice to
make. However, the initial patches altered the licensing of files that,
individually, have a different license. That was illegal and pointed out to
him - and that code *WAS* *NOT* accepted into Linux.
In other words: everyone claiming that Jiri making changes that are GPLv2 only
is illegal needs to learn the law. And Theo's statement about Alan Cox fully
constitutes Libel (Slander?). (I've never looked into the specifics of those
laws - so I'm not sure which one e-mail falls under, however it is one of
those)
To the 90% of the people that are following Theo's lead and bitching that they
can't import Jiri's changes because they are solely GPL:
STFU, OK ? -- Your position isn't legally tenable *AT* *ALL*.
(Okay, so it might be that any Atheros driver containing Jiri's changes loses
the dual-license because of the viral nature of the GPL... IANAL, but I can't
see that happening in this case.)
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
> > these licenses
> > are compatible. They are not. You cannot put code that was offered under
> > the GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and
> > distribute
> > the result.
> Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> BSD-License
> only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
> about.
This is a completely irrelevent reply. For one thing, I'm not yelling at
anyone, so I don't see why you think I'm being inconsistent or something
because I'm not yelling at Mr. Floeter.
Actually, it's perfectly fine to put BSD-only code in a dual-licensed file.
You just need to remove the dual license and make the file GPL-only.
> IANAL, but your argument is specious - if the code is
> dual-licensed and you
> are going to let one person add code to it that is only licensed
> under one of
> those licenses, you *CANNOT* complain when somebody else does it
> and chooses
> the other license. (Well, you can, but the complaint has no legal
> standing)
What argument am I making that's specious? Perhaps you have me confused with
someone else?
In any event, I utterly reject the argument that you make. Any argument "you
cannot complain about X unless you also complain about Y" is just totally
bogus. You can say "you cannot complain about X and *defend* Y because X and
Y are similar". But the fact that I don't complain about something creates
no inconsistency. I am under no obligation to complain about everything that
contradicts my principles, even things I don't know about or don't have
enough information to give an informed opinion.
> > That's not the problem. The problem is that if the file stays
> > dual-licensed, everyone working on that file in the Linux
> > kernel will have
> > to be careful not to put any GPLv2-only code into it. That's just
> > untenable. Any consistent license is better than different files being
> > under different licenses such that you can't cut and paste code between
> > files.
> Then why aren't you complaining about Mr. Floeters code ?
Because I am too busy answering nonsensical arguments like yours. I am under
no obligation to complain about everything I might disagree with if I were
informed about it. Why aren't you complaining about starving kids in Africa?
> His code doesn't maintain the dual-license. I think the reason is
> that you
> could care less about the "Dual License" and you just want the
> code - period.
You are probably confusing me with someone else. I honestly can't see how
your reply in any way fits with what I'm saying.
> > If you embed protectable elements from GPLv2-only code into any of those
> > files, they are no longer dual-licensed. You wind up creating traps and
> > complexity that makes the code much harder to maintain.
> The same can be said of Floeters code. *ALL* of his code, IIRC, is
> *SINGLE-LICENSE*. ie: a complexity trap. But you aren't
> complaining about his
> code - you are complaining that somebody is doing the same thing, but is
> using the side of the dual-license you don't like.
>
> Nothing *LEGALLY* actionable there.
What the hell are you on about? Whether I think Floeters is the Earthly
embodiment of Satan or the my very best friend has no impact whatsoever on
the argument I'm making which has nothing whatsoever to do with Floeters.
You are accusing me of being inconsitent about an issue where I've made no
comment whatsoever about that issue.
> > A dual-license is a compromise. One of the downsides is that
> > you may force
> > large projects that are under one license or the other to fork
> > the code. If
> > that bothers you, don't dual license.
> Exactly.
> This means that I can contribute as much code as I want to a
> project under
> whatever license I choose, but the project itself can have a different
> license. In the case of the code in question, that means that the
> second Mr.
> Floeters code was distributed as a part of the "whole work" that
> constitutes
> the Atheros driver it automatically fell under the dual-license of the
> controlling project.
Umm, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but if I understand you
correctly, what you are saying is legally impossible. Only the author can
set the available licensing choices for his code. Distribution cannot create
new rights.
> When Jiri downloaded the code and began the work of
> porting it to Linux, he accepted the terms of the GPL license -
> his choice to
> make. However, the initial patches altered the licensing of files that,
> individually, have a different license. That was illegal and
> pointed out to
> him - and that code *WAS* *NOT* accepted into Linux.
I think you have a few confusions all mixed together here. First, no license
is needed to download or use code. You don't have to accept the GPL license
or the BSD license. If the original author placed the code under a
dual-license, then you receive the dual-license from the original author.
Distributors cannot affect the grant of license from author to recipient.
(Neither the GPL nor the BSD license grant distributors the right to
relicense the original code. Such an agreement would have to be in writing
anyway.)
Now, when he distributed his modified works, he needed the right to do so.
He could have obtained that right from either the GPL or the BSD, if the
code was dual-licensed by the original author. He can choose one license
and, because both licenses permit removing other licenses, he could remove
the other one.
If that's what he did, no harm, no foul.
> STFU, OK ? -- Your position isn't legally tenable *AT* *ALL*.
> (Okay, so it might be that any Atheros driver containing Jiri's
> changes loses
> the dual-license because of the viral nature of the GPL... IANAL,
> but I can't
> see that happening in this case.)
If someone makes changes to a dual-licensed file, they can distribute their
changes under *either* the BSD license, the GPL license, or some other
license. The original file is still under both licenses, but their modified
file can be under neither. The BSD license does not require you to
re-license your changes under a compatible license, and a dual-license
permits modifiers and redistributors to get the rights they need under
either license.
DS
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.
Geez.
Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]> writes:
> Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> BSD-License
> only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
> about.
Actually it is not.
Dual BSD/GPL licence essentially means BSD, because rights given by
BSD are a superset of these by GPL.
You can legally take BSD code (or BSD/GPL, which is the same thing)
and include it in GPL project (or even in closed source one).
You can't legally take GPL code and include it in BSD project (or in
GPL/BSD), because GPL forbids derivative works distributed under less
(or more) restrictive licence than itself.
Being distributed under GPL/BSD legally equals "pure" BSD (BSD allows
restricting downstream, while GPL doesn't).
If some file in Linux reads "GPL/BSD" then it's, in fact, under BSD
licence. Crazy, isn't it? :-)
The other thing is copyright notices. I think one can't legally
alter someone else's licence conditions (in his/her name), unless
something like that is explicitly permitted.
However, we're talking about derivative works. A derivative
work may be, for example, GPL-licenced:
"Copyright (C) 1234 Joe the GPL lover
licenced under the GPL as published"
but could lawfully use code originally licenced under BSD:
"Portions copyright (C) 1234 Bill the BSD lover
originally licenced under no-ad BSD"
Thus his (Joe's) work is GPL only, but Bill's licence notice is
intact as required by it (BSD).
IANAL, maybe you (all of us) should consult one if required.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
(As noted before - I am surround all-caps text with *'s to indicate vocal
stress, not volume)
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:47:59 David Schwartz wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > > Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that
> > > these licenses
> > > are compatible. They are not. You cannot put code that was offered
> > > under the GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and
> > > distribute
> > > the result.
> >
> > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> > BSD-License
> > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
> > about.
>
> This is a completely irrelevent reply. For one thing, I'm not yelling at
> anyone, so I don't see why you think I'm being inconsistent or something
> because I'm not yelling at Mr. Floeter.
>
> Actually, it's perfectly fine to put BSD-only code in a dual-licensed file.
> You just need to remove the dual license and make the file GPL-only.
Huh?
You're not making any sense. I think what you meant was "It's perfectly fine
to put BSD-only code in a dual-licensed file. You just need to make the file
*BSD* only."
And you are correct - but you (and I may be wrongly interpreting your words)
and a lot of other people have complained that Jiri made modifications to the
Atheros code and only licensed his code under the GPL. What none of you have
done is complained that Mr. Floeter did the same thing - made changes to the
Atheros code and made his changes only available under *ONE* of the licenses.
Apparently the reason why people that are complaining about Jiri doing such
haven't complained about Floeter doing the same thing is that he used a
license that you and the other people like.
> > IANAL, but your argument is specious - if the code is
> > dual-licensed and you
> > are going to let one person add code to it that is only licensed
> > under one of
> > those licenses, you *CANNOT* complain when somebody else does it
> > and chooses
> > the other license. (Well, you can, but the complaint has no legal
> > standing)
>
> What argument am I making that's specious? Perhaps you have me confused
> with someone else?
>
> In any event, I utterly reject the argument that you make. Any argument
> "you cannot complain about X unless you also complain about Y" is just
> totally bogus. You can say "you cannot complain about X and *defend* Y
> because X and Y are similar". But the fact that I don't complain about
> something creates no inconsistency. I am under no obligation to complain
> about everything that contradicts my principles, even things I don't know
> about or don't have enough information to give an informed opinion.
Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when you let Person
B do X without complaint". To whit: you can't complain that Jiri has made
changes to a dual-licensed "work" and only released his changes under one of
the licenses on the work when somebody else - in this case Msr. Floeter - has
done the same thing.
> > > That's not the problem. The problem is that if the file stays
> > > dual-licensed, everyone working on that file in the Linux
> > > kernel will have
> > > to be careful not to put any GPLv2-only code into it. That's just
> > > untenable. Any consistent license is better than different files being
> > > under different licenses such that you can't cut and paste code between
> > > files.
> >
> > Then why aren't you complaining about Mr. Floeters code ?
>
> Because I am too busy answering nonsensical arguments like yours.
Nonsense? Maybe in your little fantasy world. In the real world what I have
proved by stating the facts is that you are complaining about something - and
apparently claiming that its illegal - when somebody else has done the
*EXACT* *SAME* *THING* and you have no problem with it.
(And since you apparently keep forgetting, that "exact same thing" is 'making
changes to a dual-licensed project and only releasing the changes under one
of the licenses on the project)
> I am
> under no obligation to complain about everything I might disagree with if I
> were informed about it.
Huh? You are complaining about one person doing something and are not or do
not see a need to complain about somebody else who has does the same thing.
You either have a problem with the action or you don't - in this case it
appears that you are complaining because the person in question made a choice
you don't like.
> Why aren't you complaining about starving kids in
> Africa?
Nice straw-man, but I'll answer anyway...
I do, all the time. But I also do that in a forum where it does some good, and
I even use my own money to try and do something about it.
> > His code doesn't maintain the dual-license. I think the reason is
> > that you
> > could care less about the "Dual License" and you just want the
> > code - period.
>
> You are probably confusing me with someone else. I honestly can't see how
> your reply in any way fits with what I'm saying.
No, no confusion. You could care less about the code being dual-licensed. Your
choice of subjects 'GPL weasels' speaks volumes. You don't care that Jiri
made a perfectly legal choice of license for his code. Truthfully, Jiri's
choice doesn't actually matter that much. AFAICT the original dual-licensing
of the code stands and only the identifiable portions attributable to Jiri
are GPLv2 only. (IANAL, but I don't think Jiri's choice of license affects
Mr. Floeters or Mr. Lefflers licenses at all - as a combined whole the code
carries it's own license while the individual parts are licensed by their
respective creators under whichever license they choose. This is something
that has been discussed numerous times on LKML.)
> > > If you embed protectable elements from GPLv2-only code into any of
> > > those files, they are no longer dual-licensed. You wind up creating
> > > traps and complexity that makes the code much harder to maintain.
> >
> > The same can be said of Floeters code. *ALL* of his code, IIRC, is
> > *SINGLE-LICENSE*. ie: a complexity trap. But you aren't
> > complaining about his
> > code - you are complaining that somebody is doing the same thing, but is
> > using the side of the dual-license you don't like.
> >
> > Nothing *LEGALLY* actionable there.
>
> What the hell are you on about? Whether I think Floeters is the Earthly
> embodiment of Satan or the my very best friend has no impact whatsoever on
> the argument I'm making which has nothing whatsoever to do with Floeters.
>
> You are accusing me of being inconsitent about an issue where I've made no
> comment whatsoever about that issue.
Because you are being inconsistent. That much is clear from reading your
original post.
> > > A dual-license is a compromise. One of the downsides is that
> > > you may force
> > > large projects that are under one license or the other to fork
> > > the code. If
> > > that bothers you, don't dual license.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > This means that I can contribute as much code as I want to a
> > project under
> > whatever license I choose, but the project itself can have a different
> > license. In the case of the code in question, that means that the
> > second Mr.
> > Floeters code was distributed as a part of the "whole work" that
> > constitutes
> > the Atheros driver it automatically fell under the dual-license of the
> > controlling project.
>
> Umm, I'm not sure I know what you're talking about, but if I understand you
> correctly, what you are saying is legally impossible. Only the author can
> set the available licensing choices for his code. Distribution cannot
> create new rights.
By contributing to a project - a "combined work" - a developer (or author)
maintains copyright and full licensing control over his portions of the work.
But has granted, implicitly, the right to re-license said contributions under
the license on the "combined work" if said license is different than the
license on the contributions.
(This is literally and quite legally true. If I contributed code to, say,
Linux, and placed the BSD license on my code, then, because the license is
different than that on Linux, I have implicitly granted Linus (or whoever has
put together that specific kernel series) the right to distribute my code
under the GPLv2.)
> > When Jiri downloaded the code and began the work of
> > porting it to Linux, he accepted the terms of the GPL license -
> > his choice to
> > make. However, the initial patches altered the licensing of files that,
> > individually, have a different license. That was illegal and
> > pointed out to
> > him - and that code *WAS* *NOT* accepted into Linux.
>
> I think you have a few confusions all mixed together here. First, no
> license is needed to download or use code.
Technically true, but I wouldn't want to test this theory in court.
> You don't have to accept the GPL
> license or the BSD license. If the original author placed the code under a
> dual-license, then you receive the dual-license from the original author.
Agreed.
> Distributors cannot affect the grant of license from author to recipient.
> (Neither the GPL nor the BSD license grant distributors the right to
> relicense the original code. Such an agreement would have to be in writing
> anyway.)
Agreed.
> Now, when he distributed his modified works, he needed the right to do so.
> He could have obtained that right from either the GPL or the BSD, if the
> code was dual-licensed by the original author. He can choose one license
> and, because both licenses permit removing other licenses, he could remove
> the other one.
Agreed. And on this you are correct, however I do not believe that he could do
such without changing the original licensing - because by removing said text
he is not leaving a person receiving a further distribution aware of the
choice that exists. (Except in-so-far as the files that contain the code he
has modified.)
> If that's what he did, no harm, no foul.
>
> > STFU, OK ? -- Your position isn't legally tenable *AT* *ALL*.
> > (Okay, so it might be that any Atheros driver containing Jiri's
> > changes loses
> > the dual-license because of the viral nature of the GPL... IANAL,
> > but I can't
> > see that happening in this case.)
>
> If someone makes changes to a dual-licensed file, they can distribute their
> changes under *either* the BSD license, the GPL license, or some other
> license. The original file is still under both licenses, but their modified
> file can be under neither. The BSD license does not require you to
> re-license your changes under a compatible license, and a dual-license
> permits modifiers and redistributors to get the rights they need under
> either license.
Fully agreed, and sorry about the argumentative tone. This is the point I wish
people would understand - and the one I was trying to make. Floeter made
changes to Sam Lefflers code and those changes are BSD only - nobody
complained about it - at all. Jiri makes changes and releases his code under
the GPL(v2) only and people begin complaining that he is removing a choice,
altering the license on the original, violating the license on the original,
etc..,
Now I have examined the evidence and Jiri *DID* make some mistakes with his
original patch-set. The only files he could remove the BSD headers from and
not wind up treading on somebody elses toes is to only do such on files that
he himself has (at least partial) copyright claim to. (and even then, with
the BSD license not being compatible with the GPLv2, he can't even do it with
files containing Mr. Floeters code, because that is BSD only - the best he
can do is add a note to the header stating "Portions copyright XXXXX,
released under the GPLv2")
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
On Monday 03 September 2007 13:18:35 Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton <[email protected]> writes:
> > Then go yell at Mr. Floeter. The code is dual-licensed and he put
> > BSD-License
> > only code in it. Because that's the *EXACT* *SAME* thing you're talking
> > about.
>
> Actually it is not.
>
> Dual BSD/GPL licence essentially means BSD, because rights given by
> BSD are a superset of these by GPL.
Actually, I was pointing out a logical fallacy. I'll spell it out long here so
everyone can see the point I was trying to make.
Person A writes a device driver and releases it under a dual license.
Person B modifies said device driver and licenses his changes under only one
of the licenses on the device driver. Nobody complains.
Person C modifies the same device driver and licenses his changes under the
other license on the device driver. People start complaining.
In this case either the actions of both persons B and C are legal - in which
case neither person B or person C is likely to lose a lawsuit (or even face
one) - or they are illegal, in which case the second a lawsuit is brought
against person C, the same lawsuit must be brought against person B.
The exact nature of the licenses and whether one is a superset or subset of
the other doesn't matter. Either the action of making modifications licensed
solely under one or the other of the two licenses on the original code-base
is illegal or it isn't.
<snip out the straw-man>
> The other thing is copyright notices. I think one can't legally
> alter someone else's licence conditions (in his/her name), unless
> something like that is explicitly permitted.
Fully agreed. I've even said such myself.
> However, we're talking about derivative works. A derivative
> work may be, for example, GPL-licenced:
>
> "Copyright (C) 1234 Joe the GPL lover
> licenced under the GPL as published"
>
> but could lawfully use code originally licenced under BSD:
>
> "Portions copyright (C) 1234 Bill the BSD lover
> originally licenced under no-ad BSD"
>
> Thus his (Joe's) work is GPL only, but Bill's licence notice is
> intact as required by it (BSD).
I've suggested that such be done in the future - if just because it *IS* how
it should be done.
>
> IANAL, maybe you (all of us) should consult one if required.
Would cost me money to consult a lawyer over this, but I do have a few friends
that have completed law school and are waiting on the results of the BAR.
They have told me that they are not legally allowed to dispense legal
advice - but I got around that by asking them to recount what the law
actually says.
Apparently the above suggestion would meet the letter of the law.
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
> Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> you let Person
> B do X without complaint".
Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and failing
to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where we could act
to preserve our right to act in a particular case.
> To whit: you can't complain that Jiri has made
> changes to a dual-licensed "work" and only released his changes
> under one of
> the licenses on the work when somebody else - in this case Msr.
> Floeter - has
> done the same thing.
First of all, I haven't complained about Jiri's changes. Second, I most
certainly can. I can complain about one murder without complaining about
every murder. There is no inconsistency whatsoever with acting in one case
without having to act in every other conceivable case.
We can complain about or work to fight whatever injustices we like. There is
no obligation to address every equal, or greater, injustice before working
on the injustice of one's choice.
> No, no confusion. You could care less about the code being dual-licensed.
Your
> choice of subjects 'GPL weasels' speaks volumes.
*My* choice of subjects?! You seem to have me confused with someone else
entirely.
My sole points in this thread were to:
1) Correct some misunderstandings about how dual licenses actually work.
2) Explain *why* a file cannot really remain dual-licensed if it's part of
the Linux kernel distribution.
While I generally prefer the BSD license to the GPL license and tend to be a
pretty vocal GPL critic, I have said many times that almost any *consistent*
license is better for a large project than different licenses, even if
they're compatible, on different files.
> Doesn't matter if the BSD license or the GPL *PERMITS* it or not. The fact
> remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
> license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. The GPL
> codifies certain situations in which the person would not, personally,
have
> to revoke the license, but does not limit the original copyright holders
> rights (in that regard) in any way.
I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but it's not true. Linus cannot
decide tomorrow that nobody can distribute the Linux kernel anymore.
DS
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:23:37 David Schwartz wrote:
> > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > you let Person
> > B do X without complaint".
>
> Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
> failing to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where we
> could act to preserve our right to act in a particular case.
Sorry, I should have said that you cannot prosecute one person for doing
something without prosecuting everyone that is doing it. Otherwise you have
lost the case before it has started - no judge would allow such a one sided
application of the law.
> > To whit: you can't complain that Jiri has made
> > changes to a dual-licensed "work" and only released his changes
> > under one of
> > the licenses on the work when somebody else - in this case Msr.
> > Floeter - has
> > done the same thing.
>
> First of all, I haven't complained about Jiri's changes. Second, I most
> certainly can. I can complain about one murder without complaining about
> every murder. There is no inconsistency whatsoever with acting in one case
> without having to act in every other conceivable case.
Sorry, this ties back to the original statement and the implied threats of
legal action by Theo and backed up by almost every OpenBSD developer that has
participated in this discussion.
It's a mis-statement of mine - see above. If you are going to prosecute one
person for doing something, you have to prosecute everyone who does it.
> We can complain about or work to fight whatever injustices we like. There
> is no obligation to address every equal, or greater, injustice before
> working on the injustice of one's choice.
Yes, of course.
> > No, no confusion. You could care less about the code being dual-licensed.
>
> Your
>
> > choice of subjects 'GPL weasels' speaks volumes.
>
> *My* choice of subjects?! You seem to have me confused with someone else
> entirely.
Potentially - I am terrible with names and had assumed that you were the
person who had forked the "Stealing Our Code" thread with the "GPL weasels"
subject. If my assumption is faulty, then I apologize and ask your
forgiveness for my false accusation.
> My sole points in this thread were to:
>
> 1) Correct some misunderstandings about how dual licenses actually work.
This was, IIRC, already well understood by most of the people on the Linux
Kernel side of things. (Alan Cox has given several quite lucid statements
showing that he, at least, does understand this)
> 2) Explain *why* a file cannot really remain dual-licensed if it's part of
> the Linux kernel distribution.
A file/files can have as many licenses on it as the developer wants, provided
that at least one of them is the GPL(v2). That is because, for it to be
legally distributed as part of the Linux Kernel it has to be done so under
the auspices of the license on the Linux Kernel - the GPLv2.
> While I generally prefer the BSD license to the GPL license and tend to be
> a pretty vocal GPL critic, I have said many times that almost any
> *consistent* license is better for a large project than different licenses,
> even if they're compatible, on different files.
I am critical of the GPL myself, as is Linus and a lot of people. (Linus
himself has said, numerous times, that he is "no fan of the GPL, but it is
the best that exists" (his words and opinion) - and I have heard similar
sentiments from a lot of people.)
I am not a fan of the BSD license because I'd like to be able to incorporate
any changes someone might make back into the original code. There is no
requirement in the BSD license for someone to make their changes to my code
available to me - so I am not a fan of it.
> > Doesn't matter if the BSD license or the GPL *PERMITS* it or not. The
> > fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
>
> copyright
>
> > license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. The GPL
> > codifies certain situations in which the person would not, personally,
>
> have
>
> > to revoke the license, but does not limit the original copyright holders
> > rights (in that regard) in any way.
>
> I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but it's not true. Linus
> cannot decide tomorrow that nobody can distribute the Linux kernel anymore.
In the US you have to explicitly waive rights for you to not have them (in
regards to licenses). Although, considering what I have been informed of in
regards to the law in Poland (and, seeing as how this has surprised a lot of
people, likely a large number of other countries), to make sure those rights
are "reserved" they should be explicitly spelled out in the text of the
license.
And the truth is that Linus could do that - if he required contributors to do
a copyright assignment (which would make him the holder of the sole copyright
on the Linux Kernel). Since Linus is *NOT* the sole copyright holder on
Linux, he cannot do this. He could, if he was so inclined, perform such a
license revocation on code he holds copyright to, but this would not, IMHO,
make any sort of lasting impact on the Linux Kernel itself. (It might force
people to choose a different name as well, but...)
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
On 03-09-2007 18:12, [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.
Are you sure everybody told the same then?
>
> 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,
...
Probably there would be no problem if it were like this (...plus maybe
some usual s-word...).
Regards,
Jarek P.
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
>
> > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > you let Person
> > B do X without complaint".
>
> Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and failing
> to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where we could act
> to preserve our right to act in a particular case.
You *do* however need to be aware that in some cases, public inactivity and/or
statements that something will not be acted on may estoppel any future attempts
to enforce something.
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 11:10:52 [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:23:37 PDT, David Schwartz said:
> > > Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> > > you let Person
> > > B do X without complaint".
> >
> > Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and
> > failing to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where
> > we could act to preserve our right to act in a particular case.
>
> You *do* however need to be aware that in some cases, public inactivity
> and/or statements that something will not be acted on may estoppel any
> future attempts to enforce something.
Exactly. However, inactivity can be construed as lack of knowledge that
something is occurring. (ie: the RIAA didn't start acting on file-sharing
until they became aware of Napster)
But for said estoppel to not be a factor you will have to prosecute and/or
file suit on all instances of the activity. (And filing a suit and then
dropping it against some of the people that you filed suit against - ie: you
file suit against persons A and B and then drop the suit against person A in
its entirety - because you only wanted to prosecute person B for the action,
you are leaving yourself open to lawsuits on a number of counts.)
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.