OpenBSD Journal
Home : : Add Story : : Archives : : About : : Create Account : : Login :
Linux Driver Copyright Violation
Contributed by deanna on Wed Aug 29 00:27:46 2007 (GMT)
from the not like that dept.

After years of encouragement from the OpenBSD community for others to use Reyk Floeter's free atheros wireless driver, it seems that the Linux world is finally listening. Unfortunately, they seem to think that they can strip the BSD license right out of it.

The full message and diff, as found on the linux kernel mailing list, is reproduced below.

Subject	[PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
From	Jiri Slaby <>
Date	Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:00:50 -0400
Digg This

ath5k, license is GPLv2

The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby 

---
commit 330c2ab9a53ddce27003218bd546034e8eeeff17
tree b24cecd991fbe3046d5c5269c61e0090427e4fd3
parent ceeaf6b9aac9daaa41ec38fbba3d2c1972af4470
author Jiri Slaby  Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:27:51 +0200
committer Jiri Slaby  Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:27:51 +0200
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h        |   12 +-----------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c   |   22 +++-------------------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h   |   33 +--------------------------------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c     |   13 +------------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h     |   12 +-----------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h    |   31 +------------------------------
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c |    4 +---
 drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h |    4 +---
 8 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 121 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
index 0c6f3f5..c76b97b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
@@ -2,17 +2,7 @@
  * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter 
  * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis 
  *
- * 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.
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
  */
 
 #ifndef _ATH5K_H
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
index 5ee36b5..8703988 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
@@ -4,25 +4,9 @@
  * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby 
  * 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.
- *
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
  */
+
 #define	ATH_PCI_VERSION	"0.9.5.0-BSD"
 
 #include 
@@ -2530,5 +2514,5 @@ module_exit(exit_ath_pci);
 MODULE_AUTHOR("Jiri Slaby");
 MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Support for Atheros 802.11 wireless LAN cards.");
 MODULE_SUPPORTED_DEVICE("Atheros WLAN cards");
-MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
 MODULE_VERSION(ATH_PCI_VERSION " (EXPERIMENTAL)");
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
index 15560ad..aa07dfb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
@@ -2,38 +2,7 @@
  * Copyright (c) 2002-2007 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.
- *
- * $FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/ath/if_athvar.h,v 1.20 2005/01/24 20:31:24 sam Exp $
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
  */
 
 /*
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
index a15aa21..3c44179 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
@@ -3,18 +3,7 @@
  * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis 
  * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby 
  *
- * 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.
- *
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
  */
 
 /*
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
index 55ae849..3d24d48 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h
@@ -2,17 +2,7 @@
  * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter 
  * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis 
  *
- * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided 
		
[topicopenbsd]

<< OpenBSD: Software Freedom | Reply | Flattened | Expanded | OpenBSD Plextor install via serial console >>

Threshold: Help

Related Links
more by deanna


  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -16/64)
by Anonymous Coward (24.148.239.228) on Wed Aug 29 00:29:10 2007 (GMT)
  So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -11/37)
by AC (76.64.193.108) on Wed Aug 29 00:30:13 2007 (GMT)
 
It was under a dual BSD/GPL license, so this is allowed, right?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod 11/53)
by Martin Schröder (87.157.111.228) (martin@oneiros.de) on Wed Aug 29 00:30:13 2007 (GMT)
http://www.oneiros.de
  Ouch. Clearly, reading and understanding licenses is not required to become a Linux developer. :-(
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -3/35)
by Anonymous Coward (24.89.228.211) on Wed Aug 29 01:25:17 2007 (GMT)
  How much you will to bet this won't instantly appear on Slashdot like it did when one the OpenBSD developers goofed with the Broadcomm driver and the GPL. Hopefully the OpenBSD developers can set a good example and settle it in a friendly and quiet fashion.

http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/07/1618239&from=rss
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -4/28)
by Anonymous Coward (68.183.218.21) on Wed Aug 29 01:36:51 2007 (GMT)
  A reply to the commit email:

Date Tue, 28 Aug 2007 18:11:55 +0100
From Christoph Hellwig <>
Subject Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
Digg This

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..


At least some of the linux developers know what the correct thing to do is.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -5/29)
by Anonymous Coward (85.178.119.236) on Wed Aug 29 01:59:12 2007 (GMT)
  This is KERNEL CODE so it's at least not totaly without the Knowledge of Linus....

Did Theo made a statement about this?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod 4/40)
by Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on Wed Aug 29 03:53:10 2007 (GMT)
  Time to audit all of Jiri Slaby's contributions now I think.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -11/37)
by Anonymous Coward (208.151.246.152) on Wed Aug 29 05:04:40 2007 (GMT)
  Was the patch merged? If not, why are you guys busy jizzing all over yourselves?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -11/23)
by Anonymous Coward (81.165.220.56) on Wed Aug 29 06:11:48 2007 (GMT)
  So, how about this:
"the GPL is what would apply as its derivative work and is the most restrictive license. This applies to any other driver in the kernel right now with a dual license tag." (a reply to the commit)

How does one actually protect source changes from becoming licensed under GPL with this kind of dual licensing? GPL is obviously not compatible with BSD?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -6/22)
by Anonymous Coward (69.243.48.238) on Wed Aug 29 10:51:00 2007 (GMT)
  It looks like the latest -mm patch on kernel.org includes both the AR5K code and all copyrights. It doesn't look like the patch proposed has made it anywhere official yet (private tree maybe?). So there's probably still time to keep this from getting out of hand. :)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod 5/37)
by Anonymous Coward (68.124.164.168) on Wed Aug 29 10:58:58 2007 (GMT)
  Nice Troll.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -3/23)
by Anonymous Coward (83.17.211.222) on Wed Aug 29 12:23:29 2007 (GMT)
  Please, prove me wrong, but doesn't "Alternatively" below means that it's BSD XOR GPL? If that's true, then it's legally ok to redistribute modified versions under Dual GPL/BSD OR BSD OR GPL, isn't it?
- * 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.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -1/27)
by Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on Wed Aug 29 12:26:15 2007 (GMT)
  diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
index 15560ad..aa07dfb 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h

-MODULE_LICENSE("Dual BSD/GPL");
+MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");

- * $FreeBSD: src/sys/dev/ath/if_athvar.h,v 1.20 2005/01/24 20:31:24 sam Exp $
+ * This file is released under GPLv2

--------------

Appalling...

Rather than steal and screw others over, we should work together to help one another out, as OpenBSD does for everyone else (OpenSSH, etc...).
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -9/51)
by evil_linux_guy (91.16.219.79) on Wed Aug 29 12:33:25 2007 (GMT)
  BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA. Sorry, I just had to laugh at you guys for this predictable and lame trolling attempt.

So after the bcw-induced trauma, you really think that *this* is your chance to get back at the evil, evil linux guys?

Let's compare the bcw situation to this one:
- The copied code in bcw has been in the PUBLIC CVS for a while.
- This patch here did not and will not make it to any public repository. It was simply a *suggestion* (admittedly a wrong one).
- In bcw, even MENTIONS of the original author of the code were removed
- In this case, no attempt was made to conceal the origin of the code.

Now gimme your babble-talk about 'honest mistakes' and that stuff ;)

By the way: Did you guys ever notice that *ANY* public debate that is not OpenBSD-only turns into a huge mess after Theo jumps in?
Think about it ... ;)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Jiri Slaby's code--Let him pick the license! (mod -7/27)
by Anonymous Coward (75.34.35.193) on Wed Aug 29 13:00:31 2007 (GMT)
  Jiri Slaby wrote the original code & claims copyright on it. He is also the person who posted to LKML with the license changing patch.

While there is no good reason to change the license just because he donated the code to a GPLed project (and he has since said that maintaining the BSD copyright was a good idea on LKML), it is certainly his right to change his own license!

We'd have an issue if (1)a third party dev took BSD-licensed code, (2)stripped out credit, and (3)that code actually made it into the main Linux kernel. But none of that has happened here!
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Funny homepage of that guy (mod -9/31)
by Anonymous Coward (217.11.231.73) on Wed Aug 29 13:14:32 2007 (GMT)
  I know it is off-topic a little bit, but please check the home page of Jiri Slaby at http://www.fi.muni.cz/~xslaby/. He states there that he is also interested in NetBSD kernel development. Incredible.

About me
I'm interested in linux (mostly) and netbsd (in the past) kernel development.
There is some stuff you can enjoy when you click on an item in the menu on the leftside.

Nice quotation
I don't need to fight
To prove I'm right
I don't need to be forgiven

He is apparently too simple to even understand what he has done, but the reactions of most of the others from the Linux community speak volumes.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -18/32)
by Anonymous Coward (133.11.2.2) on Wed Aug 29 13:29:13 2007 (GMT)
  I'm going to be a bit pendantic. But isn't the BSD license a bit badly written.

It talks about the permission notice having to appear in all COPIES. But clearly this is derivative work. Not a mere copy.....

  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod 2/40)
by Anonymous Coward (82.45.163.18) on Wed Aug 29 13:51:51 2007 (GMT)
  Storm in a teacup guys. This patch hasn't even made it into the kernel yet, someone has already spotted the licensing issue, no thanks to any of you, and the guy who submitted the original patch has agreed that it's the better way to go about things.

But don't let that stop you OpenBSD weenies venting your spleens at the Linux guys again, just like the last time when one of you got caught surreptitiously sneaking GPLed driver code into your OS.

Didn't you guys go nuclear last time because the Linux guys had the temerity to ask 'Excuse me, we seem to have noticed that there's some of our code in your OS, under the wrong license' on your mailing list - yet here, you guys are already plotting your slashdot publicity campaign and yelling all sorts of accusations yet there's not even a single message from any of you on the LKML to notify the Linux people that there might even be a problem.

Please not to be hypocritical fucktards on the internet, kthx

Text follows:
-------------------
Subject Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
From Johannes Berg <>
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:59:42 +0200

On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:00 -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:

> The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.

Since the BSD people are already getting upset about (for various
reasons among which seem to be a clear non-understanding) I'd suggest
changing it to:


+ * Parts of this file were originally licenced under the BSD licence:
+ *
> * 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.
+ *
+ * Further changes to this file since the moment this notice was extended
+ * are now distributed under the terms of the GPL version two as published
+ * by the Free Software Foundation <yaddaya>
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -2/24)
by Simon Kenyon (195.7.61.12) (simon@koala.ie) on Wed Aug 29 14:47:48 2007 (GMT)
  did sam approve this change? i somehow doubt it.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -4/22)
by Axton Grams (206.210.17.33) (axton.grams@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 29 15:21:10 2007 (GMT)
http://arswiki.org
  If software is made available under a dual license, changes to that software must also be made available under the dual license. Just like if software is released under a single license, changes to that software must be released under the terms of the single license.

Unless you are the copyright holder, you do not have the liberty to change the licensing terms (i.e., remove or alter the terms of the dual license). If you change the terms of the license (in this case a dual license), you are in violation of the copyright.

Just because software is dual licensed does not mean that both licenses apply simultaneously to the software; instead you have the freedom to choose under which terms you would like to release the software. It is impossible to simultaneously apply both the terms of the gpl and bsd license because they contradict one another.

see section 4.1
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/valimaki.pdf

Hope that adds some clarification to the large amount of confusion I see.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod 0/32)
by Anonymous Coward (69.243.48.238) on Wed Aug 29 15:26:38 2007 (GMT)
  I think its the ath5k_regdom.c and ath5k_regdom.h files that are the issue. They are the only ones that appear to be ONLY reyk's code. The copyright changes on the other files could be argued all day, but I don't think those files could be argued.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Fun with IP (mod -3/21)
by Ben Calvert (flying_walrus) on Wed Aug 29 15:47:19 2007 (GMT)
  I'm amazed by how quickly people follow the example set by big corporations and start bickering over IP instead of just acting like Adults and fixing the problem.

Or maybe its not so supprising, really.

this is the internet, afterall.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Yes, pick one, but leave both so the next person can pick one too. (mod 8/26)
by Anonymous Coward (75.110.109.233) on Wed Aug 29 16:31:45 2007 (GMT)
  {quoted from a deeper reply, but I feel this needs to be said up front}
> I don't understand how someone can rationally claim that anything that's dual-licensed means "you have to follow both."

Which is impossible, because the two licenses are incompatible.

So yes, the dual license means you must follow one, or the other.

I believe all the animosity and vitriol is sadly misplaced. Like other forms of emotional projection, it has little to do with the current issue, and far more to do with many things that have gone before it.

The BSD and GPL camps remind me of siblings who cannot stand the sight of each other, and fight like crazy any time they come into contact. But they're still part of the same family, so the things they share force them to repeatedly meet.

Instead of fighting, instead of accusing malice as the slightest affront, just remind them of their obligations.

How about this:

"It was dual licensed. Unless all the copyright holders agree, it must remain dual licensed. One license or the other is picked for implementation, but that same right of implementation must be granted to the next person who receives this code just as it was received by you."

See? No hostility, no accusations of corruption or evil, just a simple reminder of the single unifying principle of all F/OSS: Pass on to others the same rights that were passed on to you.

  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -20/44)
by jrh (24.20.131.42) on Wed Aug 29 16:39:25 2007 (GMT)
  When all is said and done Theo's reaction to both this brouhaha and the previous one generated by the inadvertent inclusion of GPL'd code into OpenBSD does nothing except harm the OpenBSD project. His hypocrisy is absolutely astounding in its brazenness. Criticism of his project's mistakes are characterized as inhuman and worse yet he feels free to descend to the use of obscenity when the shoe is on the other foot.

De Raadt may or may not be a "genius" (frankly, I think the only interesting BSD work being done lately is by the DragonFly team) but he is clearly unstable. Most organizations are not inclined to use an operating system (OpenBSD) whose major developer is mentally ill.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  DNS error? (mod 12/36)
by Anonymous Coward (83.31.244.138) on Wed Aug 29 17:08:43 2007 (GMT)
  I'm sorry, I was looking for the OpenBSD Journal but I seem to have wound up on slashdot? Could someone point me in the right direction?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -6/36)
by Harpalus (216.168.125.63) (harpalus.como@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 29 17:31:05 2007 (GMT)
  Do I agree with Theo's response to OpenBSD's GPL violation? Certainly not. He lost his temper. Do I appreciate trolls dragging his name through the mud here? Of course not.

Theo didn't make the initial post about the BSD violation. Theo could have chosen to respond quite publicly, but instead he chose to respond on the OpenBSD mailing list. He did not go nuclear. He is not openly attacking anyone. He isn't even making a big fuss out of this, users on both sides are. Neither did he claim the Linux developers of being thieves. He knows it wasn't in the kernel. (Yet?)

Say what you like though. I'm immensely tired of the schoolyard games users and developers on both sides play. Have you read recent interviews with Linus? He openly admits to enjoying "heated debates". He has flamed a number of times in the past - the most notable example, I think, is his attack of the GNOME project. People should remember that Theo isn't a terribly, evil person, as opposed to the "perfect and pragmatic" Linus.

From what I can tell, Theo and the developers did not intend a great deal of publicity from this. It was a few OpenBSD users who got it on Slashdot and made it so public. Perhaps they're a little sore from being consistently accused of any number of things from Linux fans.

There's no denying that the code quality of OpenBSD is consistently quite higher then in Linux. There's also no denying that Linux is ahead of OpenBSD in a number of different areas. I have no 3D acceleration, and I can't use my widescreen laptop in it's native resolution yet because OpenBSD has yet to port some new X11 improvements.

It's hopeless, though. I'll perhaps be modded up a few points, but I'll largely be ignored. At least I got to vent a bit though. Remember kiddies, this isn't the school yard. The driver violation wasn't a disaster, it certainly isn't grounds to attack the Linux guys, and of course the penguin-loving maniacs will respond by saying, loudly, that the "fucking ignorant retards" that use OpenBSD and "blindly believe the garbage Theo spews" deserve the childish attacks they attempt to send, never realizing that they're exhibiting the same characteristics.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -2/24)
by Anonymous Coward (209.42.76.74) on Wed Aug 29 18:26:32 2007 (GMT)
  Not an issue. As soon as the BSD community made it known they weren't happy, the Linux devs fixed the problem.

<a href="http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/69">http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/69</a>

Isn't it nice that the open source community is able to play nice with each other instead of going straight for the throat over every little thing?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -11/29)
by Anonymous Coward (199.106.103.254) on Wed Aug 29 18:39:21 2007 (GMT)
  1) It was dual license to begin with.
2) Check the patch submitter, oops, no story after all.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Can't we all just get along? (mod 2/30)
by Peacenik (71.33.195.60) on Wed Aug 29 18:49:32 2007 (GMT)
  Wow! A new record for heat and low light on undeadly. The licensing language has probably already been restored, yet the flaming goes on and on. But what has it produced, beyond bad blood? Each side holds tighter to its position, unswayed by the rhetoric.

Maybe we can remember the common goal, good software for others to use. Maybe now it is time to set up a license team for the GPL-BSD groups, with power to fix the issues that come up before it wastes everyones time. Not a team of rabid, crazed zealots, choking each other, but a team with sense for brains, and an eye for the practical.

I rarely worry about the license, because I am a user, not a coder. But I understand how deep the feelings go. But if we don't "just get along" the good that has been created will evaporate and the only thing left will be the proprietary software houses.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod 0/22)
by kartoffel (128.158.211.19) on Wed Aug 29 20:29:14 2007 (GMT)
  I don't know about everybody else, but I emailed Reyk, Nick and Jiri to see what they think about all this:

Nick and Reyk: I was disturbed to see that Jiri has stripped your copyright notices from your software and re-issued it as GPLv2-only, in violation of your original copyright. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157

I hope that Jiri has done so with your permission, because rather than simply creating a GPL'ed fork of your code, he has removed the immutable portions of your pre-existing copyright, namely,
* 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.

It seems that re-issuing the code under the GPL could theoretically comply with the above notice, if the notice were still present. Unfortunately, it was removed.

The new GPL "fork" is indistinguishable in name from the original BSD-licensed code. IMHO, if you're going to fork something, at least give it a different name so that you can tell the difference.

There are now, effectively, two different branches: The BSD branch, from which future changes may be freely merged to the GPL-only branch; and the potentially illicit GPL-only branch. Changes submitted directly to the GPL-only branch are doomed to be stuck there forevermore, per the restrictions of the GPL. How are developers to know which branch is which when they have the same name? Furthermore, this fork will effectively balkanize future development, forcing developers to choose whether they wish to submit patches only to the GPL fork, or to both (by way of submitting first to the BSD branch).

diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
index 0c6f3f5..c76b97b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
@@ -2,17 +2,7 @@
* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org>
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com>
*
- * 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.
+ * This file is released under GPLv2
*/

Just a concerned netizen (and big fan of atheros wireless!),
[kartoffel]
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -6/26)
by Anonymous Coward (66.93.33.5) on Wed Aug 29 22:37:52 2007 (GMT)
  I loves me some good old fashioned license infighting in the afternoon.

Smells like victory.

This post is licensed to undeadly.org, however, no one may quote it without this line or bad juju will happen.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod 17/41)
by Karl Sjödahl (Dunceor) (dunceor@gmail.com) on Thu Aug 30 07:46:22 2007 (GMT)
Explanation
  Constantine A. Murenin explained it rather good on misc@ (for those that don't read that):

List: openbsd-misc
Subject: Re: Linux Driver Violates BSD License
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <mureninc () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-08-30 5:36:05
Message-ID: f34ca13c0708292236x45ce28d3v6d7da19309cab10b () mail ! gmail ! com

BTW, since this is misc@openbsd.org, people might be interested to
know about the history of the licensing terms of ath(4) in OpenBSD.


OpenBSD's ath(4) consists of two parts:

1. a driver, copyrighted by Sam Leffler of FreeBSD

2. a HAL, copyrighted by Reyk Floeter of OpenBSD


What Theo explained above concerns the OpenHAL code. OpenHAL is the
Linux name for madwifi driver connected with reyk's entirely free and
open source ath(4) HAL code.

Sam originally put a dual BSD/GPL licence onto his driver code.

Reyk always put a BSD-style licence onto his HAL code.

At the time OpenHAL was forked from OpenBSD, OpenBSD's ath(4)
_driver_, but _not the HAL_, was dual licensed.


As already mentioned, OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL, written by Reyk, was
_never_ dual licensed. See the history on
/sys/dev/ic/{ar52{10,11,12}{.c,{reg,var}.h},ar5xxx.{c,h}}.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/ic/#ar5210.c


Few months ago, Sam changed the licence of _his_ code to a 2-clause
BSD licence. Sam had every right to do so, because he was and is the
only copyright holder of that code, as the licence header of the
driver file indicates, in FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc.

http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/ath/if_ath.c#rev1.170
http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=freebsd&committer=sam


Reyk committed Sam's changes to OpenBSD the same day, so now,
OpenBSD's ath(4) is _entirely_ BSD-licensed, with no alternative
licensing available.

http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/ic/ath.c#rev1.64
http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=openbsd&committer=reyk



However, what Jiri Slaby does in his diff is simply outrageous. He
changes the licensing terms of the code _he does not own_ _at his own
will_. A clear copyright violation.

As I can see from that diff on LKML, Jiri Slaby doesn't even have his
name as the copyright holder in many of the ath5k files that he tries
to change the licensing terms of. In other files, he is not the only
author, so he can't change the terms unless _all_ other copyright
holders agree to the new terms.

I'm very upset that certain people think they can get away with such a
blatant disrespect of the copyright law. I trust that this violation
won't be left unnoticed.


What I personally don't understand, however, is that if Jiri Slaby
thinks that he can simply change the licence of someone's code without
explicit agreement of that someone, then why on earth does he think
that changing the licence to a more restrictive one will offer him any
protections, as, presumably following his logic, other people could
later change the licence to whatever they feel like, in the very same
illegal manner as he did in the first place. IMHO, that is the real
question that he has to answer.


Constantine.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Linux Driver Copyright Violation (mod -9/27)
by Rich (195.212.199.56) on Thu Aug 30 15:36:13 2007 (GMT)
  Well, it looks like I missed all the excitement yesterday; I've just come across this.

And I must say that despite seeing a number of rants on the OBSD forums/mailing lists, I've rarely witnessed such a complete shower of idiotic and vitreous comments. Some of the above is reasoned and sensible, but it's completely drowned out by the mad, vile hatred of ...well .. who/what?

I'm tempted to point out that you're all (well, ok, not ALL) f****** nuts! But that would bring me down to your level.

Some of you need to take a cold shower or two and grow up.

Rich.

ps - If this sounds patronising and high-and-mighty, well, good! You're like a bunch of delinquent school kids.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

[ Home | Add Story | Archives | Polls | About ]

Copyright © 2004-2008 Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to April 2nd 2004 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. Some icons from slashdot.org used with permission from Kathleen. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. Search engine is ht://Dig. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]