This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
C.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Theo de Raadt <[email protected]>
Date: 31-Aug-2007 21:40
Subject: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
To: [email protected]
[bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him]
I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because
Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux
people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him
pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by
the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other
Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there
are even greater potential risks for how the various communities
interact.
For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).
It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two
licenses can use the file in either way.... but if they distribute
the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the
existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have
statements which say that the license may not be removed.
It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either
license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is
still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal
document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may
not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual
licensed, every time it is distributed.
Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to
communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what
they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that
Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this
leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level,
a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers).
And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the
larger open source communities who are writing applications.
Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since
time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel
that a lot of Linux "relicencing" meme-talkin' trolls basically have
attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to
say something public about this.
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.
I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been
taught, how one must handle such licenses:
- If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license
you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you
may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal
document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL).
- If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the
license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law.
Really.
- If you add "large pieces of originality" to the code which are valid
for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different
and seperate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file
above the existing license.
(Warning: things become less clear as to what the combination of
licenses mean, though -- there are ethical traps, too).
- If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back.
That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do
not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you
would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file:
"Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."
In either case, I think a valuable lessons has been taught us here in
the BSD world -- there are many many GPL loving people who are going
to try to find any way to not give back and share (I will mention one
name: Luis Rodriguez has been a fanatic pushing us for dual licensed,
and I feel he is to blame for this particular problem). Many of those
same people have been saying for years that BSD code can be stolen,
and that is why people should GPL their code.
Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the
GPL their best tool to take from us!
GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would
take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great
problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and
lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock
us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving
us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get
it back.
Ironic.
I hope some people in the GPL community will give that some thought.
Your license may benefit you, but you could lose friends you need.
The GPL users have an opportunity to 'develop community', to keep an
ethic of sharing alive.
If the Linux developers wrap GPL's around things we worked very hard
on, it will definately not be viewed as community development.
Thank you for thinking about this.
[I ask that one person make sure that one copy of this ends up on the
linux kernel mailing list]
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
> to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
> it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
> made the code not work with the original?
>
> We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared
> within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and
> we fully intend to cover our balls.
Who's "we" and would you mind showing your contributions to the tree?
git doesn't seem to find them in 2.5.0-to-current for some reason...
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
Jeff
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>> You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
>> the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
>> was permission to do so.
>
> There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
>
>> Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with
>> dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices,
>> you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient.
>
> Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing
> terms (BSD).
Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and
code Reyk contributed to leaving the file dual licenced.
>> A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a
>> work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must
>> always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a
>> licence) then putting such a "both" GPL/BSD licence piece of code into
>> OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL
>> licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent.
>>
>> Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is
>> conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two
>> offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it
>> under one of the licences only.
>
> I think that Theo explained this point clearly quite a few times in the
> last days.
>
>> And as we've already established the header files are quite different.
>
> Is a simple change in the header files a reason to vindicate the people
> that changed the licensing terms? Obviously, it isn't.
>
>> Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very
>> different things.
>
> No, because this change is both rude and illegal.
You mixed two completely different things in your email:
1. Jiri's patch (that was never merged into Linux) not only removed the
BSD header from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced
files.
2. Theo accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one
licence for dual licenced code was "advising people to break the law".
Jiri's patch was legally not OK regarding 1. - there's no discussion
regarding this.
The point 2 is what the email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel
is about and what the discussion is about. That's quite a rude action
by Theo unless he's able to prove that this accusation is correct.
> Igor
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 Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> >Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> >they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> >for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Exactly. That's what dual-licensing is.
[quote]
This is no different from the fact that we have some drivers that are
GPLv2/BSD licensed. Within the kernel, they are GPLv2. But on their own,
you can choose to use them under the BSD license, make your changes to
them, and release them commercially.
And correct - I cannot (and neither can anybody else) then accept those
*non*GPLv2 changes back.
[end quote]
That's from Linus and quite recently.
FWIW, it's damn hard to codify "... and changes to this code should not
change the situation". It's certainly a very good policy and in this
case it's the only sane policy.
[quote]
Actually, normally I *do* have such a trust. It's why I have no problem
with drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and in fact, I've told people that I
don't want them to turn them into GPL-only, because that is simply not
polite.
[end quote]
Same posting from Linus. And that's much more relevant to shooting the patch
in question down (and IMO it ought to be shot down) than references to
legality.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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
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
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
>>> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
>>
>> Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
>> they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
>> for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Exactly.
>> A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a
>> boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of
>> ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes.
>> Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as
>> according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these
>> licensing terms concurrently".
>
> I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
> under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
> lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
> licensing terms.
>
> We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have the
> ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
We have the ability if the author explicitely allowed it.
This is the licencing text we are talking about:
/*-
* 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.
*/
The author himself offered two _alternatives_ for distributing his code.
> Igor.
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 Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
>> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
>
> Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> for example does this for version selection.
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
BSD code if other parties want to do it?
> A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a
> boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of
> ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes.
> Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as
> according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these
> licensing terms concurrently".
I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
licensing terms.
We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have
the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
Igor.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> If OpenBSD wants a world where code must be returned
OpenBSD does not want this.
OpenBSD wants a world where people do things because they are the
right thing to do.
OpenBSD lets you decide; it doesn't dictate.
someone poo-poos your decision, well, it was your decision.
someone poo-poos you because you do exactly the thing that you are so
afraid of having happen to you, well, it was your decision.
--
[email protected]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On 01/09/07, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
>
> > 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.
>
> You know, we *could* have solved this a *hell* of a lot easier if people quit
> flaming about it, and we did something *productive* instead.
>
> Like submit a corrected patch. :)
Dear Valdis,
The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place --
most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from
OpenBSD.
It is beneficial for the atmosphere of both projects to keep the
licence compatible. If Linux tries to GPL future modifications to
Reyk's code, then OpenBSD would not be able to take back the changes.
But this would not be the case if all modifications to Reyk's code are
continued to be BSD-licensed. This is what this whole issue is about.
My understanding, is that Nick Kossifidis never had a problem with
licensing his changes with a BSD-license, although Jiri Slaby always
used GPLv2.
With the last patch posted by Luis [0], Jiri actually recalled his
original patch and relicensed all of his GPLv2 work under BSD (!);
however, at the very same time, Nick changed his mind, and decided to
relicense his BSD code under GPLv2 (!). (Surprise! Yes, it appears
that both Nick and Jiri decided to switch their licensing positions,
and mutually relicense their work under each other's respective
licence. :) Is everyone ready going to go back and forth now? Does
this whole story still makes any sense to you? :)
I hope that both Nick Kossifidis and Jiri Slaby can agree on licensing
their HAL code with a BSD licence, so that the code remains
licence-compatible with OpenBSD. If there are any unresolved licensing
questions, I personally would be more than happy to answer any such
questions as much as I can, and yes -- I am not a lawyer. :)
Nick, Jiri -- since much of the work on OpenHAL is based on Reyk's
HAL, could you please be so kind as to both agree to licence you
changes in OpenHAL with the same licence as Reyk does in OpenBSD's
ath(4) HAL? This step will be very welcome in the OpenBSD community at
large.
Best regards,
Constantine.
[0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
> co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of
> the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped"
>
> Alan Cox circa 1999.
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html
>
> "well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware
> thats not the intention of the project ;)"
> Alan Cox circa 2007.
>
> What changed?
Nothing that I am aware of. You can't take Linux/Mac68K code back into
BSD either. BSD code is being used according to the BSD licence. You
could adopt a different licence if the way your code is being used
bothers you, thats.
Where I've reused BSD code I've aways tried to contribute it back to the
BSD people or share the knowledge (and the knowledge far more than the
code mattered both ways for Mac68K systems)
I suggest you read drivers/net/wan/syncppp.c, which is I think the only
BSD derived bit of code of mine left in the kernel - and its quite
specific what it says.
Ath5k isn't my code so I don't get to pick. Having the OpenBSD maintainer
make bogus remarks about that doesn't help anyone, especially when he's
wrong and doesn't appear to know about the subject in the first place.
Alan
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
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
>> = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
>> it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
>> requirement, though.
>
> Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
>
> There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux.
Of course. Sharing knowledge and efforts can only improve both the GPL
and BSD licensed code. It is important in all cases, but becomes critical
when support from manufacturers is limited or even non existent. In these
cases, shared efforts are required to write successful code.
Cheers,
Igor.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:42:54PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights
> were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers
> wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly. The patch I sent
> implements SFLC's suggestions in that regard.
You know, I'm rapidly losing any respect to both sides of that. Eben
Moglen as source of advice in "is it OK to convert to GPL-only"? And
you seriously rely on morality of that? Theo's rants aside, if you
have to rely on SFLC for licensing decisions... Ouch.
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
> > That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
>
> Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
> "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the
> two choices alternatively offered.
>
> According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
FreeBSD's ath(4) code, both the driver and the HAL, is entirely
written by Sam Leffler, who can licence it in whichever way he seems
reasonable. The driver part of Sam's code is also present in OpenBSD,
but the HALs in OpenBSD and FreeBSD are entirely different.
C.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old
with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
/* $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.
*/
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
Jason Dixon wrote:
> 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?
Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing?
Jeff
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my
isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are
common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to
Sam's verbiage.
I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included
the ability to modify the header (and thus the text of the licensing
as I had written) or not. On balance I'd say I believe that the
arguments for, on redistribution, picking one or the other license
makes sense and honored my general intent.
This allows people who modify the code (and presumably improve it) a
"chef's choice" based on where they're serving the meal.
IANAL, but I believe that none of this keeps me from continuing to put
a dual license on stuff I leave up for distribution, or changing that
to restricting the code to Martian Triathalon winners or what have
you.
> It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
> because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors,
Oh dear - Theo, go talk to a lawyer, or do a course on licencing.
The owner generally starts with the rights to control who performs acts
covered by copyright law. They pass some of those rights on to others by
contract, licence or statutory means. It is quite normal for the owner to
pass on the right to relicence or modify the licencing of a work. In many
cases the owner actually hands on all such rights to a third party
(eg an evil music company).
[Owner and author often differ as many legal systems start from the basis
that an employee produces a work for the employer rather than it being
transferred solely by contract]
The ath5k C file in question (not the headers) seems to give recipients
permission to further convey the work under a choice of two licences. It
doesn't say they must redistribute under both. So I appear to have a
right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me
receives no right to use it except under the GPL.
The Ath5K C code is very clear about the intention of the licencing:
* 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.
The choice appears to be delegated to the recipient very clearly and
very specifically by the licencing on the file. It does not say that I
must convey the work under both licences. It quite specifically says I may
convey the work under whichever of the two I prefer (and probably both if
I wish). Clearly if that had not been the intent it would not have
included the clause giving the choice.
This is quite different to the case Theo tries to discuss.
> 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.
Re-read my email and then apologize. I do question the .h files where
they are BSD licence and no changes were made to the work. I also point
out that the dual licence on that code appears to give permission to
distribute under one of those licences by choice.
> - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license
> you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you
> may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal
> document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL).
If you got BSD licenced code that doesn't give you a choice of licence
then of course the original work remains BSD and you can't go around
removing that information, the copyright holder's name and other things
protected variously by different legal systems. I would submit the ath5k
header files fit this (if they are even copyrightable works at all)
> - If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back.
That's about the first thing I would agree on - its somewhat rude and
not something I personally woul usually choose todo. However to many
there are problems as the BSD licence doesn't mean giving it back to the
community it means giving a copy to everyone who wants rip it off for
private proprietary use.
> "Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
> us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."
The BSD licence allows this. If you in the BSD world don't want that to
happen you need to look hard at your licencing. Linux takes very little
from the BSD world this way, the big one way takers are all proprietary
software companies. Perhaps Theo should write to that nice Bill guy
instead.
> GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would
> take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great
> problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and
You just don't realise who takes your code and what they do with it. The
proprietary people don't tell you, but the free ones you can see.
> If the Linux developers wrap GPL's around things we worked very hard
> on, it will definately not be viewed as community development.
So you'd prefer that the Linux developers worked on it and then Microsoft
took the results of all our work and didn't give anything back. At least
if the Linux work is GPL licenced its protected from further abuse. See
the viewpoint the free software people come from - you may not agree with
it but it has a logic.
If OpenBSD wants a world where code must be returned, but you can mix it
with free code in a product in some fashion and do binary only releases
then OpenBSD needs to fix its licencing. Not to GPL which is clearly not
the BSD intention but to something which does what BSD wants rather than
an academic research licence developed thirty odd years ago for the
purpose of showing that US research funds were properly spent. Perhaps
its time for BSD2 licencing ?
Alan
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jason Dixon wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing?
Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed?
C.
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
> = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
> it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
> requirement, though.
Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux.
Jeff
> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for example does this for version selection.
A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a
boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of
ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes.
Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as
according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently".
Alan
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
C.
On 9/1/07, Constantine A. Murenin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Jason Dixon wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing?
>
> Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed?
We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights
were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers
wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly. The patch I sent
implements SFLC's suggestions in that regard.
Luis
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
> 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.
You know, we *could* have solved this a *hell* of a lot easier if people quit
flaming about it, and we did something *productive* instead.
Like submit a corrected patch. :)
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
>
> Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old
> with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
>
> /* $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.
> */
Where exactly do you see Reyk's copyright in the above quote?
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ath&sektion=4#AUTHORS
C.
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST)
Igor Sobrado <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
> > the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
> > was permission to do so.
>
> There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
The code pieces I quoted contained that choice. As far as I am concerned
that is what the discussion was about.
Alan
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:03:36PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
>>
>> 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...
>>
>
> Sigh, why actually check the facts when you can make them up. The code in
> question is my code. It has my copyright (modulo bits shared with onoe-san
> who was consulted on the switch from dual-bsd/gpl to bsd only in freebsd).
The latter is the code by Video54 Technologies?
> Of course what was amusing was how after I changed the license on the
> current code in freebsd certain folks retroactively applied the license
> changes to code that was 3 years old.
>
> But is there a point to all this nonsense? I dual-licensed the code so
> folks could adopt and use it however they saw fit. As I've said before I
> don't care what people do with the work I give away so long as they don't
> claim it's their own.
Fully agreed. :-)
>>> That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
>>>
>>
>> Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
>> "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the two
>> choices alternatively offered.
>>
>> According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
>
> I've yet to see "FreeBSD people" speak up so again you're just spouting
> jibberish. I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual
> license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my
> code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
Sorry, this has been a thinko on my side:
If noone except you and onoe-san made any contributions to this code
that were non-trivial enough for automatically giving its author a
copyright on his contributions (whatever this means in various
jurisdictions...) it was indeed an author-only change.
> Sam
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
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
>
> 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...
>
Sigh, why actually check the facts when you can make them up. The code
in question is my code. It has my copyright (modulo bits shared with
onoe-san who was consulted on the switch from dual-bsd/gpl to bsd only
in freebsd). Of course what was amusing was how after I changed the
license on the current code in freebsd certain folks retroactively
applied the license changes to code that was 3 years old.
But is there a point to all this nonsense? I dual-licensed the code so
folks could adopt and use it however they saw fit. As I've said before
I don't care what people do with the work I give away so long as they
don't claim it's their own.
>
>> That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
>>
>
> Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
> "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the
> two choices alternatively offered.
>
> According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
>
>
I've yet to see "FreeBSD people" speak up so again you're just spouting
jibberish. I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual
license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of
my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
Sam
I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.
Luis
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Jason Dixon wrote:
>>> 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?
>> Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing?
>
> Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed?
And yet a good portion of Theo's response, in particular his accusations
of Alan Cox exhorting people to break the law, were directly related to
dual licensing.
Jeff
IANAL, but:
Igor Sobrado <[email protected]> writes:
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a
> single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be equal
to GPL. Now, dual BSD/GPL equals BSD.
OTOH I'd probable leave the original licence text, something like:
The actual licence conditions:
GPL or BSD or whatever.
Portions of this file were licenced under:
[the original licence text, not valid as a licence for current file]
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:51:49PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
> >
> > Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old
> > with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
> >
> > /* $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.
> > */
>
> Where exactly do you see Reyk's copyright in the above quote?
>...
He has automatically a copyright on his contributions if they are
non-trivial.
> 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
> > Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> > they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> > for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
If the dual licence permits you to select from two alternatives as
appears to be the case in
"* 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."
Then there is no problem in doing exactly what it says and distributing
it under the terms of the GPL v2 and the GPL v2 alone (or indeed the BSD
licence alone). Anyone who took the project code and produced a binary
only proprietary product from it would for example select the BSD licence
alone and convey almost no rights at all to their customer.
> I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
> under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
Assuming is bad, you should consult caselaw.
> lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
> licensing terms.
>
> We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have
> the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
If the author has conveyed that right to you, then you may usually do so.
Alan
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
made the code not work with the original?
We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared
within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and
we fully intend to cover our balls.
The problem is yours to fix. If you actually care, use a license that
SAYS you care. Right now there's a big /* I don't give a shit */ on top
of every BSD file. We took you at your word and assumed you didn't. Now
its too late and you suddenly care, don't you?
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
>> Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing
>> terms (BSD).
>
> Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and
> code Reyk contributed to leaving the file dual licenced.
Ok.
> You mixed two completely different things in your email:
>
> 1. Jiri's patch (that was never merged into Linux) not only removed the
> BSD header from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced
> files.
>
> 2. Theo accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one
> licence for dual licenced code was "advising people to break the law".
>
> Jiri's patch was legally not OK regarding 1. - there's no discussion
> regarding this.
>
> The point 2 is what the email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel
> is about and what the discussion is about. That's quite a rude action
> by Theo unless he's able to prove that this accusation is correct.
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is
illegal.
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
license that a modification of the distribution terms is illegal. It is
the first clause on the BSD license:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
* without modification.
So, removing (or changing) the list of conditions on the BSD license is
not allowed.
Igor.
On 01/09/07, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
> Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
> attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
> done privately.
Err...
I don't understand why you need a lawyer to interpret this document:
/* $OpenBSD: ar5210.c,v 1.39 2007/04/10 17:47:55 miod Exp $ */
/*
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter <[email protected]>
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and 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.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
* ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
* ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
* OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/
If you want to add more code to it, and your contribution is
significant, simply add you name next to Reyk's. Where's the problem?
I don't know how licensing could be any simpler than this. Please,
notice, that there are no additional documents (other than the
copyright law) to read here -- _this is the complete licence_! (And
you have to read the copyright law even if you use the GNU GPL.)
C.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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...
> > > That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
> >
> > Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
> > "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the
> > two choices alternatively offered.
> >
> > According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
>
> FreeBSD's ath(4) code, both the driver and the HAL, is entirely
> written by Sam Leffler, who can licence it in whichever way he seems
> reasonable. The driver part of Sam's code is also present in OpenBSD,
> but the HALs in OpenBSD and FreeBSD are entirely different.
Sam also changed the licence of a file additionally containing an
Copyright (c) 2004 Video54 Technologies, Inc.
> 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
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:09:18 EDT, "Constantine A. Murenin" said:
> The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place --
> most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from
> OpenBSD.
Oh, silly me. For some reason, I had it in my head that Jiri's original
patch actually included some real live *code* in addition to the parts that
changed the licensing text... ;)
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.
>From http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/docs/macpaper.php
"Always be the second operating system port to an undocumented platform.
The sterling work done by the OpenBSD/Mac team was a huge help to the
Linux project. I'm also happy to say that while half of the world may
sit on usenet advocacy groups throwing manure the relationship between
the Linux and BSD Macintosh teams has always been one of mutual
co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of
the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped"
Alan Cox circa 1999.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html
"well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware
thats not the intention of the project ;)"
Alan Cox circa 2007.
What changed? Why are you guys setting out to break all of the
work underpinning UNIX and the Internet done in the 80s at
Berkeley? The reason the protocols and infrastructure took
off in the first place is due to liberal licenses that let everyone
be involved, not wrapping things up in more restrictions and lawyers.
On Sep 1, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you
> wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't
> you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault
> if this fix made the code not work with the original?
>
> We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that
> appeared within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with
> our code, and we fully intend to cover our balls.
Since when is this *your* code? Oh that's right, when Jiri decided
to steal it by deleting Reyk's copyright and license. Oh wait,
that's already been corrected. What was your point again?
> The problem is yours to fix. If you actually care, use a license
> that SAYS you care. Right now there's a big /* I don't give a shit
> */ on top of every BSD file. We took you at your word and assumed
> you didn't. Now its too late and you suddenly care, don't you?
The BSD license, in effect, says that we care about good code. We
allow anyone to use it. The only stipulation is that the copyright
and license permissions must remain intact.
Are you trying to be hateful, or are you really this ignorant?
---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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.
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.
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..
( from http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/178 )
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] 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.
For the sake of the discussion, at the time I forwarded the message,
the obvious licensing problems (e.g. the original infamous patch by
Jiri) were already addressed.
Personally, these problems were so obvious -- entirely changing the
licence under Reyk's Copyright notice -- that I didn't even take them
for real when they first came across.
BTW, I've now once again re-read the original message that I've
forwarded, and it does contain Theo's reiteration of his response that
the original re-licensing patch had clear violations. E.g. re-read
this part of his message:
- If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the
license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law.
Really.
> > 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?
I don't particularly like to repeat myself -- after the obvious
licensing issues were addressed, it has indeed become an ethical
problem: why do you think that you as the Linux community has to act
ruder to the *BSD community than the supposed corporations that we
always hear about in the BSD/GPL licensing arguments?
I really like the response that Bob Beck gave on this question:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/197
> 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.
My understanding is that with dual-licensed code, you choose to comply
with all of the terms of either licence. However, you cannot simply
remove either of these licences from the code, unless you specifically
receive such right from the copyright holder (remember, with the
copyright law, unless the rights are specifically given, they are
retained). This is what Theo was trying to educate the community on. I
don't see anything unethical in explaining the legal issues.
Constantine.
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> 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.
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...
> That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
"Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the
two choices alternatively offered.
According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
> 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
Igor Sobrado wrote:
> When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
> licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
> changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
> and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is
> illegal.
The plain English in the dual-license text directly contradicts this
fiction.
Jeff
> - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the
> license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law.
> Really.
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
> My understanding is that with dual-licensed code, you choose to comply
> with all of the terms of either licence. However, you cannot simply
> remove either of these licences from the code, unless you specifically
> receive such right from the copyright holder (remember, with the
> copyright law, unless the rights are specifically given, they are
> retained). This is what Theo was trying to educate the community on. I
> don't see anything unethical in explaining the legal issues.
Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with
dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices,
you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient.
A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a
work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must
always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a
licence) then putting such a "both" GPL/BSD licence piece of code into
OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL
licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent.
Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is
conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two
offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it
under one of the licences only.
And as we've already established the header files are quite different.
Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very
different things.
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
> the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
> was permission to do so.
There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
> Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with
> dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices,
> you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient.
Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free
licensing terms (BSD).
> A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a
> work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must
> always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a
> licence) then putting such a "both" GPL/BSD licence piece of code into
> OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL
> licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent.
>
> Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is
> conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two
> offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it
> under one of the licences only.
I think that Theo explained this point clearly quite a few times in the
last days.
> And as we've already established the header files are quite different.
Is a simple change in the header files a reason to vindicate the people
that changed the licensing terms? Obviously, it isn't.
> Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very
> different things.
No, because this change is both rude and illegal.
Igor