Return-path: Received: from ebb.errno.com ([69.12.149.25]:3170 "EHLO ebb.errno.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757101AbXIAV6D (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Sep 2007 17:58:03 -0400 Message-ID: <46D9E1B8.2060300@errno.com> Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:03:36 -0700 From: Sam Leffler MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing References: <200709010140.l811eq9H005896@cvs.openbsd.org> <46D99FB7.6030505@garzik.org> <20070901205457.GK9260@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20070901205457.GK9260@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > >> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik 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