Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934044AbXIBBzs (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:55:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933458AbXIBBzh (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:55:37 -0400 Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:53551 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933457AbXIBBzg (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 21:55:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Jason Dixon 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 Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing Message-ID: <20070902015537.GH16016@stusta.de> References: <200709010140.l811eq9H005896@cvs.openbsd.org> <46D99FB7.6030505@garzik.org> <20070901205457.GK9260@stusta.de> <20070901215225.GM9260@stusta.de> <3A831845-B630-42AD-B52F-DC9EA2060BAE@dixongroup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3A831845-B630-42AD-B52F-DC9EA2060BAE@dixongroup.net> 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: 4935 Lines: 111 On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > 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. Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree) neither Jiri nor Alan noticed. The only disagreement is about the following: Theo claimed boldly in the email that started this thread on linux-kernel it would "break the law" to choose one licence for dual licenced code like the following: /* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */ /* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $ */ /*- * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer, * without modification. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer * similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any * redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially * similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution. * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names * of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free * Software Foundation. * * NO WARRANTY * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, * OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER * IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF * THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. */ > Jason Dixon 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/