Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933431AbXIBAJZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:09:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932304AbXIBAJN (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:09:13 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:33225 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932216AbXIBAJL (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:09:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 02:09:13 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: "Constantine A. Murenin" Cc: Jeff Garzik , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Slaby , Alan Cox Subject: Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing Message-ID: <20070902000913.GB16016@stusta.de> References: <200709010140.l811eq9H005896@cvs.openbsd.org> <46D99FB7.6030505@garzik.org> <20070901205457.GK9260@stusta.de> <20070901215225.GM9260@stusta.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4285 Lines: 95 On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. > > > > > > > > > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? > > > > > > > > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters > > > > > to the original dispute. > > > > > > > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD > > > > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago. > > > > > > FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on. > > > > > > FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam. > > > > > > > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this > > > > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people... > > > > > > How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are > > > no possible licensing accusations and violations. > > > > OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types > > of files changed by Jiri's patch: > > 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only > > 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned > > to make GPL-only > > 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only > > > > For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code > > without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3. > > > > So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan > > to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is > > with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3. > > > > It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a > > copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK... > > I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts -- > there were many messages posted to misc@openbsd.org mailing list and > to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as > all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam. >... Then it's your fault that you forwarded the wrong email - in the email you forwarded the only action for which Theo accused the Linux developers of breaking the law was for choosing one licence when using dual licenced code. > After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the > problem started being an ethical one. > > As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come > the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was > reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto > it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back > to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at > OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, > but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of > OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) > > You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, > as in the message below. Is it a legal problem or is it "only" an ethical problem? If choosing one licence when using dual licenced code is not a legal problem then Theo repeatedly talking about it would "break the law" in the email you forwarded was very unethical and the worst he could do for his cause. > C. >... cu Adrian -- "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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/