Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933816AbXIBA7t (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:59:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757101AbXIBA7i (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:59:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.dixongroup.net ([38.98.104.248]:44841 "EHLO mx1.dixongroup.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756228AbXIBA7g (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:59:36 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1685 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:59:36 EDT In-Reply-To: <20070901215225.GM9260@stusta.de> References: <200709010140.l811eq9H005896@cvs.openbsd.org> <46D99FB7.6030505@garzik.org> <20070901205457.GK9260@stusta.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3A831845-B630-42AD-B52F-DC9EA2060BAE@dixongroup.net> Cc: mureninc@gmail.com, jeff@garzik.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jirislaby@gmail.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jason Dixon Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:36:24 -0400 To: bunk@kernel.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2143 Lines: 53 On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > 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. The BSD license plainly states: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your license, but the original copyright and license permission remains intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult for the Linux brain share to absorb? As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm appalled that fellow open-source developers would see fit to cavalierly disregard the rights of the original copyright holder. You wield the GPL when it suits you, and trample the courtesies of non-GPL developers just because you [think you] can. As bad as Jiri's offense was, it pales to the impudence displayed by Alan Cox, one of the so-called defenders of free software. Shame on you all. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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/