Return-path: Received: from gollum.nazgul.ch ([81.221.21.253]:34518 "EHLO gollum.nazgul.ch" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161219AbXDEF43 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 01:56:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 07:41:07 +0200 From: Marcus Glocker To: Michael Buesch Cc: Marcus Glocker , Jon Simola , Theo de Raadt , Stefano Brivio , Martin Langer , Danny van Dyk , Andreas Jaggi , Larry Finger , Quaker.Fang@sun.com, Johannes Berg , Joseph Jezak , John Linville , Greg kh , bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, license-violation@gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: OpenBSD bcw: Possible GPL license violation issues Message-ID: <20070405054107.GB7660@gollum.nazgul.ch> References: <200704041945.21447.mb@bu3sch.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200704041945.21447.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Apr 04, 2007 at 10:08:13PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote: > I, Michael Buesch, am one of the maintainers of the GPL'd Linux > wireless LAN driver for the Broadcom chip (bcm43xx). > The Copyright holders of bcm43xx (which includes me) want to talk > to you, OpenBSD bcw developers, about possible GPL license and therefore > Copyright violations in your bcw driver. > > We believe that you might have directly copied code > out of bcm43xx (licensed under GPL v2), without our explicit permission, > into bcw (licensed under BSD license). > There are implementation details in bcm43xx that appear exactly > the same in bcw. These implementation details clearly don't come > from the open specifications at bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net > or bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net. > > We have always made and still make a great effort to keep our code clean > of any Copyright issues (cleanroom design). Please make sure you also do. > > A few examples follow of what we think might be GPL violations. > This list is far from being complete. Michael, I am aware that right now a lot of lines in bcw are written in a way with a too close eye to your code. That's out of question, and I have already informed Theo about that fact before you got in touch with us. I wanted to make some quick progress (maybe too quick), and rewrite the functions in question after seeing some first success, e.g. receivment of first frames, which isn't the case right now. But still, the specs for some functions are so strict, writing tons of registers in a strict order, some parts will still look similar. The last thing I want is to start a license war with you guys, and also I don't want to harm OpenBSD further with this issue. And of course we want to solve that license issue ASAP. So, I am suggestion three options: 1. You give me some time and I try to rewrite the code in question. We keep in touch, and maybe we can split up both parties in freedom afterwards. 2. Same as option one, but if my time resources keep shrinking like they do right now, spending weekends in the office and I can't fix up the driver soon, I'll drop the driver. 3. We don't come to a point and I'll plain drop the driver directly, very soon. Waiting for your reaction. Regards, Marcus -- Marcus Glocker, marcus@nazgul.ch, mglocker@openbsd.org