Attached patch amends the ath5k license as per review from SFLC with
the following changes:
* Makes sure that Reyk's copyright and license notice appears
correctly in each file that was derived from his work.
* Makes sure that Jiri's changes were released under a permissive,
modified-BSD license, as he indicated that was his preference.
* Makes sure that Nick's changes were released under
GPLv2-or-later, as he indicated that was his preference.
* Makes sure that all files clearly have the any GPL notices on
top, but include the proper BSD-like notices below when required.
* Adds Devicescape attribution to ath5k_base.c
* Sets the MODULE_LICENSE to GPL, because with Nick's changes
included under only GPL, the module can only be available under GPL.
* Adds Nick to the list of MODULE_AUTHORs because his changes
are substantial.
Signed-Off-By: Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]>
Signed-Off-By: Matt Norwood <[email protected]>
Signed-Off-By: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
Signed-Off-By: Karen Sandler <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Nick Kossifidis <[email protected]>
Thanks to the SFLC for their help with this driver from legal hell.
Luis
Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Adding some other copyright holders to the CC list
>
> Luis
>
> On 8/31/07, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Attached patch amends the ath5k license as per review from SFLC with
>> the following changes:
>>
>> * Makes sure that Reyk's copyright and license notice appears
>> correctly in each file that was derived from his work.
>>
>> * Makes sure that Jiri's changes were released under a permissive,
>> modified-BSD license, as he indicated that was his preference.
>>
>> * Makes sure that Nick's changes were released under
>> GPLv2-or-later, as he indicated that was his preference.
>>
>> * Makes sure that all files clearly have the any GPL notices on
>> top, but include the proper BSD-like notices below when required.
>>
>> * Adds Devicescape attribution to ath5k_base.c
>>
>> * Sets the MODULE_LICENSE to GPL, because with Nick's changes
>> included under only GPL, the module can only be available under GPL.
>>
>> * Adds Nick to the list of MODULE_AUTHORs because his changes
>> are substantial.
>>
>> Signed-Off-By: Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]>
>> Signed-Off-By: Matt Norwood <[email protected]>
>> Signed-Off-By: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
>> Signed-Off-By: Karen Sandler <[email protected]>
>>
>> Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Nick Kossifidis <[email protected]>
>>
>> Thanks to the SFLC for their help with this driver from legal hell
>>
For the record, I told Jiri and various other folks that any code I
licensed as dual-BSD/GPL could be made GPL only so long as the
attribution remained. That was the exact reason I dual-licensed.
Sam
Adding some other copyright holders to the CC list
Luis
On 8/31/07, Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote:
> Attached patch amends the ath5k license as per review from SFLC with
> the following changes:
>
> * Makes sure that Reyk's copyright and license notice appears
> correctly in each file that was derived from his work.
>
> * Makes sure that Jiri's changes were released under a permissive,
> modified-BSD license, as he indicated that was his preference.
>
> * Makes sure that Nick's changes were released under
> GPLv2-or-later, as he indicated that was his preference.
>
> * Makes sure that all files clearly have the any GPL notices on
> top, but include the proper BSD-like notices below when required.
>
> * Adds Devicescape attribution to ath5k_base.c
>
> * Sets the MODULE_LICENSE to GPL, because with Nick's changes
> included under only GPL, the module can only be available under GPL.
>
> * Adds Nick to the list of MODULE_AUTHORs because his changes
> are substantial.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]>
> Signed-Off-By: Matt Norwood <[email protected]>
> Signed-Off-By: Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
> Signed-Off-By: Karen Sandler <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Jiri Slaby <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Nick Kossifidis <[email protected]>
>
> Thanks to the SFLC for their help with this driver from legal hell.
>
> Luis
>
>
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 15:42 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
[crap that has been reiterated dozens of times]
May I remind you that this list is called "linux-wireless" for a reason?
It's not called "ath5k-legal-vs-bsd" or "bsd-vs-gpl-flamewar" or such so
there really is no reason to create new threads all the time.
Thanks,
johannes
Whie the license clarification is much appreciated, adding GPL'd
code to this driver is a slap in the face for BSD developers.
Adding code under a more restrictive licence than the code
was originally released; does that really fit in with the principles
of the FSF, the GPL, Linux, or the hacking community in general?
Regardless of whether this is Microsoft taking BSD code and making it
totally unfree, or you guys taking it and adding things which cannot
be taken back by the original author, the result is the same: changes
that don't go back to the author. Isn't this one of the primary goals
of the GPL, so changes remain as free as the original?
Please think about that for a minute. Not from your point of view
as a Linux coder, but from your point of view simply as a coder.
Thanks.
--
[email protected]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez"
> Date: 2007-08-31 16:18:37
>
> Attached patch amends the ath5k license as per review from SFLC with
> the following changes:
>
> * Makes sure that Reyk's copyright and license notice appears
> correctly in each file that was derived from his work.
>
> * Makes sure that Jiri's changes were released under a permissive,
> modified-BSD license, as he indicated that was his preference.
Thanks Jiri, for respecting the wishes of the origional author of this
code.
> * Makes sure that Nick's changes were released under
> GPLv2-or-later, as he indicated that was his preference.
No kudo's to Nick here. I assume you realize that by doing this
you're effectively saying to the *BSD developers something "Thank you
for all the work you've done on this driver, but you can't have any of
my changes anymore". I think it's rather unlikely that that'll go
down well, and I doubt they'll be eager to work with you in the future.
To all other (potential) Linux wirless driver devlopers I'd like to
say that there is a long standing tradition which says that if you
make improvements to code that carries a certain license, you make
those improvements available under that same license. The GPL makes
this part of the licensing conditions, whereas the BSD-like licenses
(such as the ISC license used in the origional ath5k driver) don't.
But that doesn't mean that the people in the "BSD camp" don't hold
that same viewpoint. So I really hope that if you ever submit a patch
for the ath5k driver, you make it available under the conditions of
the ISC license as well as the GPL license. The best way to do this,
is probably by explicitly stating this when you send a patch to the
linux-wirless or linux-kernel mailing list.
Thanks,
Mark Kettenis
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 21:04 +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> I already explained my reasons for interest.
>
> It has nothing to do with what license is which, but about respect
> for the original author's wishes and the general idea of giving back.
>
> why are you attacking me?
Wait, so you're suddenly the poor victim of an attack when you
contribute nothing to linux wireless and then out of the blue show up on
our mailing list and tell us how bad we are behaving? Cute.
johannes
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:14:31PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 21:04 +0000, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>
> > I already explained my reasons for interest.
> >
> > It has nothing to do with what license is which, but about respect
> > for the original author's wishes and the general idea of giving back.
> >
> > why are you attacking me?
>
> Wait, so you're suddenly the poor victim of an attack when you
> contribute nothing to linux wireless and then out of the blue show up on
> our mailing list and tell us how bad we are behaving? Cute.
sorry if you feel that I am trying to scold you. this isn't
about linux-wireless and these particular patches per se, but
AFAICS, as a general developer, a common issue of license
incompatability.
I am only using this forum because it seems "warm" on this
subject, and I've really said all I have to say.
--
[email protected]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:38:42PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Was it slashdot or Theo's rant that made all the OpenBSD fanboys like
>> you come out of the woodwork?
>
> ?
>
> I have made contributions to GNU projects, and supplied large patches
> and new files to GPL'd projects, always keeping the GPL license, not for
> any reason other than respect for the wishes of the original author.
>
> Earlier this year, I went out of my way to a NetBSD developer to
> change the license of a file he wrote (that added NetBSD/OpenBSD
> support) from BSD to GPL so it could be included in a GNU project,
> because the project leader claimed the BSD license was incompatible
> with GNU projects. The NetBSD developer agreed to the change, but I
> still have not seen that file added to the project.
>
> My interest in this matter goes far beyond my interest as an OpenBSD
> developer.
Are you a ath5k copyright holder?
Or somewhere in the chain of wireless code maintenance?
Or are you one of the followers of The Pattern, which repeats itself on
a regular basis:
1) Theo rants about Linux, FSF, and GPL
2) Rants inspire minions
3) Theo fans, ignorant of all facts, appear on Linux MLs
to uphold Theo's side of the debate.
I'm betting the latter.
Jeff
Was it slashdot or Theo's rant that made all the OpenBSD fanboys like
you come out of the woodwork?
Jeff
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:32:06PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Or are you one of the followers of The Pattern, which repeats itself on
> a regular basis:
>
> 1) Theo rants about Linux, FSF, and GPL
> 2) Rants inspire minions
> 3) Theo fans, ignorant of all facts, appear on Linux MLs
> to uphold Theo's side of the debate.
>
> I'm betting the latter.
I already explained my reasons for interest.
It has nothing to do with what license is which, but about respect
for the original author's wishes and the general idea of giving back.
why are you attacking me?
--
[email protected]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:38:42PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Was it slashdot or Theo's rant that made all the OpenBSD fanboys like
> you come out of the woodwork?
?
I have made contributions to GNU projects, and supplied large patches
and new files to GPL'd projects, always keeping the GPL license, not for
any reason other than respect for the wishes of the original author.
Earlier this year, I went out of my way to a NetBSD developer to
change the license of a file he wrote (that added NetBSD/OpenBSD
support) from BSD to GPL so it could be included in a GNU project,
because the project leader claimed the BSD license was incompatible
with GNU projects. The NetBSD developer agreed to the change, but I
still have not seen that file added to the project.
My interest in this matter goes far beyond my interest as an OpenBSD
developer.
--
[email protected]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org