>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.
>
>C.
>
>
>>On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
>> >
>> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>>
>> Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
>> done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
>> work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc..
I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and
expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at
least private industry does not come to the table with "hey, let's
cooperate" - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly.
However, when a linux developer comes to us and say "hey lets cooperate"
usually there is a thought of "this is a kindred spirit who understands
what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back". My concern
is that this situation will change if this is not rectified.
I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on
morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with
less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while
corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up
front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of
cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back.
-Bob
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the
> lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I
> ask?
Is it not self-evident? Legal review is the sane course of action, when
legal issues are the bone of contention.
That said, Linux people are far more pragmatic than FSF people, and
often disagree with the FSF. I would not take an FSF lawyer's word as
Gospel.
Theo manages to confuse "Linux" and "FSF" quite often, but that's
characteristic of his muddled thinking and inexperience.
Jeff
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt <[email protected]> wrote:
> When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
> them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
> is OK.
>
> When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
> against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.
>
> Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed,
> and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds?
Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the
lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I
ask?
Why Luis puts the phrase "legal hell" next to entirely free software?
[0] Why is he trying to go against the BSD community, which gave him
the entire HAL framework for the driver in question?
Best regards,
Constantine.
[0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.
Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed,
and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds?
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:36:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
> them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
> is OK.
>
> When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
> against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.
>
> Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed,
> and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds?
Theo, the primary claim you made in your email that was forwarded to
linux-kernel was:
<-- snip -->
In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize
what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a
modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the
authors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I must
caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law.
<-- snip -->
It is a quite heavy accusation against Alan that saying it was OK to
change dual licenced code to one of the offered licences would advise
to break the law.
There's nothing about goodwill or other ethical questions in your
statement, this statement you made can be verified or falsified by
lawyers.
If it is true, all ethical questions about this are anyway moot because
it was illegal as you claim.
If you wrongly accused Alan, you owe Alan an apology.
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
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >C.
> >
> >
> >>On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
> >> >
> >> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
> >>
> >> Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was
> >> done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
> >> work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc..
>
> I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and
> expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at
> least private industry does not come to the table with "hey, let's
> cooperate" - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly.
>
> However, when a linux developer comes to us and say "hey lets cooperate"
> usually there is a thought of "this is a kindred spirit who understands
> what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back". My concern
> is that this situation will change if this is not rectified.
>
> I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on
> morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with
> less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while
> corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up
> front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of
> cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back.
Theo explicitely accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to
choose one licence for dual licenced code was "advising people to break
the law".
I hope you agree when talking about "cooperation [...] based on morals
and trust" that such accusations should either be proven correct or the
moral position of the person who made such accusations becomes quiet
weak.
> -Bob
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
On Sep 1 2007 18:36, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
>When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
>them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
>is OK.
For companies it's ok, but for linux people it is not?
(1) You do not know how much of the modifications companies did
are actually returned
(2) You do not know whether the ath5k linux part authors will
give back at a later point (much like companies)