OpenBSD Journal

Linux Driver Copyright Violation

Contributed by deanna on 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 

(Comments are closed)


  1. By Anonymous Coward (24.148.239.228) on

    So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?

    1. By Martin Schröder (87.157.111.228) martin@oneiros.de on http://www.oneiros.de

      > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?

      * 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.

      This sentence is as clear as it can be: You can not remove this notice.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (75.34.35.193) on

        > This sentence is as clear as it can be: You can not remove this notice.
        Unless, of course, you are the copyright holder (as Jiri Slaby is, in this case).

        1. By Anonymous Coward (216.93.163.234) on

          > > This sentence is as clear as it can be: You can not remove this notice.
          > Unless, of course, you are the copyright holder (as Jiri Slaby is, in this case).
          >
          >
          One of the copyright holders, not the only one, but hey, someone on slashdot said it so it must be true.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (205.251.136.200) on

            > > > This sentence is as clear as it can be: You can not remove this notice.
            > > Unless, of course, you are the copyright holder (as Jiri Slaby is, in this case).
            > >
            > >
            > One of the copyright holders, not the only one, but hey, someone on slashdot said it so it must be true.

            Still feeling bitter about the bad publicity from the GPL violation, eh? I'm sure if this is really an issue it'll be fixed quickly, probably with a lot less juvenile behaviour on the part of the Linux kernel developers.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

              > Still feeling bitter about the bad publicity from the GPL violation, eh? I'm sure if this is really an issue it'll be fixed quickly, probably with a lot less juvenile behaviour on the part of the Linux kernel developers.

              Your response is juvenile

              1. By Anonymous Coward (65.216.74.168) on

                > > Still feeling bitter about the bad publicity from the GPL violation, eh? I'm sure if this is really an issue it'll be fixed quickly, probably with a lot less juvenile behaviour on the part of the Linux kernel developers.
                >
                > Your response is juvenile

                Your mom is juvenile. lol, had to put it in there.

                1. By Anonymous Coward (206.78.139.14) on

                  > > > Still feeling bitter about the bad publicity from the GPL violation, eh? I'm sure if this is really an issue it'll be fixed quickly, probably with a lot less juvenile behaviour on the part of the Linux kernel developers.
                  > >
                  > > Your response is juvenile
                  >
                  > Your mom is juvenile. lol, had to put it in there.

                  Marry me.

              2. By Anonymous Coward (69.2.124.11) on

                > > Still feeling bitter about the bad publicity from the GPL violation, eh? I'm sure if this is really an issue it'll be fixed quickly, probably with a lot less juvenile behaviour on the part of the Linux kernel developers.
                >
                > Your response is juvenile

                No yours is

            2. By rgb (71.130.199.62) on

              > Still feeling bitter about the bad publicity from the GPL violation, eh? I'm sure if this is really an issue it'll be fixed quickly, probably with a lot less juvenile behaviour on the part of the Linux kernel developers.

              Do the fanboys make up for all the juvenile behavior then? Funny, I don't remember seeing any Linux community sites getting hammered with BSD trolls...

              1. By TheGZeus (63.231.142.70) on

                > > Still feeling bitter about the bad publicity from the GPL violation, eh? I'm sure if this is really an issue it'll be fixed quickly, probably with a lot less juvenile behaviour on the part of the Linux kernel developers.
                >
                > Do the fanboys make up for all the juvenile behavior then? Funny, I don't remember seeing any Linux community sites getting hammered with BSD trolls...

                Dude, please don't lump all Linux users together like that.
                it only helps to promote the perception that BSD users are arrogant elitists.

                We ignore the fools among us. I think that unspoken rule is one of the reasons linux has a higher adoption %age.

                In any case, it seems the court is still, out as it were, on whether or not this is a violation of anything.
                So far I don't see anything violated. One of the holders decided on using a different license. There are no royalties so that clause is moot...
                Think of it as a fork, if you must.

                Have a happy.

          2. By Max Lybbert (216.237.225.254) mlybbert@users.sourceforge.net on

            > > > This sentence is as clear as it can be: You can not remove this notice.
            > > Unless, of course, you are the copyright holder (as Jiri Slaby is, in this case).
            > >
            > >
            > One of the copyright holders, not the only one, ...

            Under US law -- at least -- if there are joint authors, each of the authors is allowed to license the work without need to get permission from the other authors (although they are required to share any royalties with the other authors). Unless, that is, they have a different agreement between themselves ( http://www.clickandcopyright.com/joint_authorship_and_copyright.asp , the blue text).

            1. By Marc Espie (163.5.254.20) espie@openbsd.org on

              > > > > This sentence is as clear as it can be: You can not remove this notice.
              > > > Unless, of course, you are the copyright holder (as Jiri Slaby is, in this case).
              > > >
              > > >
              > > One of the copyright holders, not the only one, ...
              >
              > Under US law -- at least -- if there are joint authors, each of the authors is allowed to license the work without need to get permission from the other authors (although they are required to share any royalties with the other authors). Unless, that is, they have a different agreement between themselves ( http://www.clickandcopyright.com/joint_authorship_and_copyright.asp , the blue text).

              Wow, so I just need to write a bit of linux kernel code, and then as a joint author, I can rerelease it under BSD ? (as a matter of fact, there's probably still a few lines of mine in the linux kernel).

              Come on, don't you see the flaw ? how do you define `work' in that case ?

              1. By Anonymous Coward (209.152.80.205) on

                > Wow, so I just need to write a bit of linux kernel code, and then as a joint author, I can rerelease it under BSD ? (as a matter of fact, there's probably still a few lines of mine in the linux kernel).
                >
                > Come on, don't you see the flaw ? how do you define `work' in that case ?
                >
                >

                A joint work is one where authorship belongs to two people. A derivative work is not one of joint authorship. Imagine you and I build a table together. Now imagine that you buy table legs that I made and combine them with a table top that you made. The first is a work that we made together, the latter is a derivative work that you created based on my previous work. That's the difference.

      2. By Kyle Raglin (69.121.186.5) on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > This sentence is as clear as it can be: You can not remove this notice.

        What about the part just after-ward that reads:

        - * 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 part (IMHO) suggests the notice may be removed in favor of GPL stuff.

    2. By Theo de Raadt (199.185.137.1) deraadt@openbsd.org on

      > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?

      Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:

      * 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.

      How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".

      It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".

      1. By Graue (68.100.130.1) on http://oceanbase.org/graue/

        While I agree that this action is quite hypocritical given the self-righteousness over the GPL, I have to admit wanting to delete BSD licenses and replace them with PD notices (not that I would, of course). I've rewritten BSD-licensed code so I could keep my programs entirely public domain. I just kinda feel like we'd all get along better if we made our stuff not 10% free (GPL) or 99% free (BSD license) but 100% free.

        Ah well. Everyone loves their license, I guess.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (208.80.184.30) grey on

          > While I agree that this action is quite hypocritical given the self-righteousness over the GPL, I have to admit wanting to delete BSD licenses and replace them with PD notices (not that I would, of course). I've rewritten BSD-licensed code so I could keep my programs entirely public domain. I just kinda feel like we'd all get along better if we made our stuff not 10% free (GPL) or 99% free (BSD license) but 100% free.
          >
          > Ah well. Everyone loves their license, I guess.
          >

          I'm with you - public domain ftw.

          It's probably the least touted 'license' ever though.

          BSD & MIT come in close second at least.

          1. By Counsel (65.1.255.106) counsel@pocosin.com on http://wordpress.pocosin.com

            The issue is that it was licensed under the BSD license. Only the license holder can change/remove the license.

            By "saying" the license is removed and replaced with a different license violates the first license (whether you like it or not).

            Even if you don't like the BSD license (I do), the action of making it "disappear" is funny considering the supporters of the GPL state you have to abide by the terms of the GPL even if you don't like the terms of the GPL.

            None of the licenses are "right" or "wrong" in and of themselves. While a particular license may be "wrong" for YOU, it may be "right" for someone else...

            Stop judging others and the licenses they choose--just abide by the license (i.e., if you don't want "X" to flame you for using "Y" license, extend the same benefit to others).

            Just my two cents.

            > > While I agree that this action is quite hypocritical given the self-righteousness over the GPL, I have to admit wanting to delete BSD licenses and replace them with PD notices (not that I would, of course). I've rewritten BSD-licensed code so I could keep my programs entirely public domain. I just kinda feel like we'd all get along better if we made our stuff not 10% free (GPL) or 99% free (BSD license) but 100% free.
            > >
            > > Ah well. Everyone loves their license, I guess.
            > >
            >
            > I'm with you - public domain ftw.
            >
            > It's probably the least touted 'license' ever though.
            >
            > BSD & MIT come in close second at least.

            1. By grey (208.80.184.30) on

              I understand what the licenses mean, I'm just saying personally I like public domain.

              It's not right, and other licenses aren't wrong, they're all just choices.

              And depending on the choice, there are certain ramifications, apparently in this case another l00n1x developer didn't get that.



              (as a side note I will say that I have grave reservations about dual licenses, but that's something for another day)

          2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

            > It's probably the least touted 'license' ever though.

            because it is license free

        2. By Anonymous Coward (161.184.203.92) on

          Public Domain...

          A programmer from a company (let's call it 0cs) takes some of that code
          and places it in a proprietary program without a need of a (C) notice.
          The programmer gets fired, everyone forgets where the code came from.

          Years later 0cs finds their proprietary code in your open source
          project and sues. Now you prove that the code is yours, not theirs.

          Of course, this can happen with any license, but BSD means there
          is one more incentive to keep a name to the code.

          But It would be nice if code could be P.D. and nobody would have to worry.

          1. By Graue (68.100.130.1) on http://oceanbase.org/graue/

            > Public Domain...
            >
            > A programmer from a company (let's call it 0cs) takes some of that code
            > and places it in a proprietary program without a need of a (C) notice.
            > The programmer gets fired, everyone forgets where the code came from.
            >
            > Years later 0cs finds their proprietary code in your open source
            > project and sues. Now you prove that the code is yours, not theirs.

            I suppose this could happen, but the burden of proof is on that company. I'd easily point to my first CVS commit or dated source release that has the code, and how do they prove their closed-source product contained the code before then?

            Even though I see what you're saying, I think it's more hypothetical than a real worry.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (192.85.50.2) on

              > > Public Domain...
              > >
              > > A programmer from a company (let's call it 0cs) takes some of that code
              > > and places it in a proprietary program without a need of a (C) notice.
              > > The programmer gets fired, everyone forgets where the code came from.
              > >
              > > Years later 0cs finds their proprietary code in your open source
              > > project and sues. Now you prove that the code is yours, not theirs.
              >
              > I suppose this could happen, but the burden of proof is on that company. I'd easily point to my first CVS commit or dated source release that has the code, and how do they prove their closed-source product contained the code before then?
              >
              > Even though I see what you're saying, I think it's more hypothetical than a real worry.
              >

              No I agree with the first poster. the "1% non-free" of BSD is necessary to keep the author out of court all together. All we want is to be left alone. Who wants to have to prove anything?

              Don't you see we'd rather be hacking? Let the djb's, rms's, and esr's of the world have their dog and pony show in court. They want to have to legaly defend their code. The size of their license is just begging for their day in court to proudly recite it.

              1. By grey (208.80.184.30) on

                rofl, djb 'license' I thought it was just a rant. (:

              2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

                > Don't you see we'd rather be hacking?

                true

            2. By Anonymous Coward (66.93.33.242) on


              > I suppose this could happen, but the burden of proof is on that company. I'd easily point to my first CVS commit...

              You're kidding, right?

              Source code control is in use by software companies, everywhere.



      2. By Terrell Prude' Jr. (151.188.247.104) tprude@cmosnetworks.com (this is a spamtrap address) on

        Theo, you are right. It reminds me of the bcm driver issue. The Linux folk rightly pointed out a license violation back then. However, now some Linux folk themselves are committing the same offense, if not worse. At least I can believe that Markus's violation was, though wrong, still accidental. But this? Shame on them.

        I speak as a user of both GNU/Linux and OpenBSD, and as a member of the FSF. The Linux license shouldn't be violated, and neither should yours be. Those devs need to put that copyright notice back in...NOW. Period.

        --TP

        1. By fotis (85.74.119.237) on


          To begin with, I just contacted one of the authors and it appears
          this is just miscommunication by some people who didn't bother to ask:
          the code is really dual-licensed BSD and GPL, so that people
          from all sides can get the benefit. The case that wasn't.

          > Theo, you are right. It reminds me of the bcm driver issue.
          > The Linux folk rightly pointed out a license violation back then.

          Let's remind that GPL and BSD are different licences.
          You can turn a BSD code into GPL but not vice versa
          and this has some serious implications, since GPL *does not*
          enforce author back reference as long as the code remains GPL;
          short of "the copyright holder is FSF" itself.

          It means that this is a legally valid path:
          BSD code with ref. -> GPL code with ref. -> GPL code without ref.

          Morally we all agree that some back reference would be helpful,
          if not for credit at least for documentation reasons.

          > However, now some Linux folk themselves are committing the same
          > offense, if not worse. At least I can believe that Markus's
          > violation was, though wrong, still accidental. But this?
          > Shame on them.

          What makes you believe that this is not accidental?

          > I speak as a user of both GNU/Linux and OpenBSD, and as a member of the FSF. The Linux license shouldn't be violated, and neither should yours be. Those devs need to put that copyright notice back in...NOW. Period.

          This just reminds of journalists that want to make a case.
          You should first *ask* the people involved and then make judgements.
          Doesn't it sound a good idea? hm?

          >
          > --TP

          1. By Anonymous Coward (66.207.218.19) on

            > You can turn a BSD code into GPL but not vice versa

            What? Who gave you that idea?

            >
            > It means that this is a legally valid path:
            > BSD code with ref. -> GPL code with ref. -> GPL code without ref.

            No it's not :S

          2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

            > What makes you believe that this is not accidental?

            The fact that they had to have read what they were deleting.

          3. By Anonymous Coward (163.5.254.20) on


            > Let's remind that GPL and BSD are different licences.
            > You can turn a BSD code into GPL but not vice versa
            > and this has some serious implications, since GPL *does not*
            > enforce author back reference as long as the code remains GPL;
            > short of "the copyright holder is FSF" itself.
            >

            Two glaring mistakes in that post.

            - most GPL code out there has nothing to do with the FSF proper.
            - you're mistaking code ownership and copyright law, and licensing.

            There's absolutely nothing wrong with adding whatever licence you want
            to BSD code, including a GPL licence. But you cannot revoke authorship.
            And you cannot remove copyright notices such as the short blurb that
            was removed. You can *add* a GPL licence. You cannot remove the authorship/BSD blurb.

      3. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.119.236) on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
        >
        > It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".

        Well isn't it a 4-term License and so also INCOMPATIBLE to their GPL at all?
        Theo they're dreaming about releasing it all under GPLv2 later and they talk about this even in a public mailinglist.

        --
        Technically the best we can do is to leave the license as dual
        licensed, but keep in that technically that means nothing and is just
        for show, 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.

        Luis
        --

        Conflicts with:

        4.
        Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

        Theo I seriously exspect a fast and hard strike to silence those developers and their ideas 'course people could start to listen to them and belief it even. Maybe we should found "bsdvilations" ;-]

        1. By Damien Miller (djm) on http://www.mindrot.org/~djm/

          > Well isn't it a 4-term License and so also INCOMPATIBLE to their
          > GPL at all?

          No, you obviously don't understand how dual-licensing works - you pick one license XOR the other.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (81.165.220.56) on

            > > Well isn't it a 4-term License and so also INCOMPATIBLE to their
            > > GPL at all?
            >
            > No, you obviously don't understand how dual-licensing works - you pick one license XOR the other.

            So if I get it right the only thing the BSD license does there is just be there (because GPL functionally just extends the BSD license). And everything you want to do with the code is restricted by GPL and becomes GPL afterwards.

            Now I understand you can't delete the license even if it is functionally outruled by GPL because the BSD license states that it can't be removed.

            But what I don't get about dual licensing is that the code actually is GPL anyway. How about that?

            1. By Reverend Eggplant (24.192.169.182) on

              > > > Well isn't it a 4-term License and so also INCOMPATIBLE to their
              > > > GPL at all?
              > >
              > > No, you obviously don't understand how dual-licensing works - you pick one license XOR the other.
              >
              > So if I get it right the only thing the BSD license does there is just be there (because GPL functionally just extends the BSD license). And everything you want to do with the code is restricted by GPL and becomes GPL afterwards.
              >
              > Now I understand you can't delete the license even if it is functionally outruled by GPL because the BSD license states that it can't be removed.
              >
              > But what I don't get about dual licensing is that the code actually is GPL anyway. How about that?

              It all seems simple to me.

              It appears to me that the original author released the driver under BSD license. The only way to comply with that license is to carry along the license notice with the code. It further appears to me that it may have been the original author who dual-licensed it by adding the language that alternatively, the licensing would be covered by the GPL.

              Someone somewhere in the process decided that for some reason, they needed/wanted to delete the original author's license notice. That is wrong. It violates the terms of one license under which the original code was released, and it is a copyright violation expressly prohibited by the original license language included with the code. The GPL doesn't state that one can just simply rip out other licensing language from someone else's code. It goes against the original author's intent.

              1. By Anonymous Coward (75.34.35.193) on

                > Someone somewhere in the process decided that for some reason, they needed/wanted to delete the original author's license notice. That is wrong. It violates the terms of one license under which the original code was released, and it is a copyright violation expressly prohibited by the original license language included with the code. The GPL doesn't state that one can just simply rip out other licensing language from someone else's code. It goes against the original author's intent.

                Jiri Slaby is credited as author in the source & he was the poster on LKML that made it GPL only. If he is copyright owner, that is his right!

                1. By Anonymous Coward (82.197.192.49) on

                  > > Someone somewhere in the process decided that for some reason, they needed/wanted to delete the original author's license notice. That is wrong. It violates the terms of one license under which the original code was released, and it is a copyright violation expressly prohibited by the original license language included with the code. The GPL doesn't state that one can just simply rip out other licensing language from someone else's code. It goes against the original author's intent.
                  >
                  > Jiri Slaby is credited as author in the source & he was the poster on LKML that made it GPL only. If he is copyright owner, that is his right!

                  That shows you did NOT read the stuff. Jiri Slaby is NOT the sole author.

                  1. By Anonymous Coward (216.93.163.234) on

                    > > Jiri Slaby is credited as author in the source & he was the poster on LKML that made it GPL only. If he is copyright owner, that is his right!
                    >
                    > That shows you did NOT read the stuff. Jiri Slaby is NOT the sole author.

                    It does show that they DID read slashdot.

                    1. By Anonymous Coward (128.91.196.227) on

                      > > > Jiri Slaby is credited as author in the source & he was the poster on LKML that made it GPL only. If he is copyright owner, that is his right!
                      > >
                      > > That shows you did NOT read the stuff. Jiri Slaby is NOT the sole author.
                      >
                      > It does show that they DID read slashdot.
                      >

                      Is the file Dual Licensed or not? I don't agree with the change, but if its dual licensed under GPL and BSD then removing the clause does not violate the GPL license, and that file ends up being a validly licensed redistributable copy covered under the GPL (that the original authors still retain their copyrights .. this is not an issue of copyright ownership) ...

                      tacky but legal is how it looks to me.
                      Now, hypothetically is somebody made changes they licensed only way way or the other, then the dual licensing goes away ... (for the combination of original and the changes) ... did that happen?? ... if so, again tacky but legal.

                  2. By Anonymous Coward (75.34.35.193) on

                    > That shows you did NOT read the stuff. Jiri Slaby is NOT the sole author.

                    Yup--you're right. I'm sorry if I "over-attributed" Jiri (though I never claimed he was the sole author), but most of the posts here clearly under-attribute him. This was an OpenBSD dev who tried to relicense code (some of this was legitimate, as he wrote it; some was not) & there have been no commits, let alone any releases.

                    We (the OpenBSD community) are infighting over nothing. It is a shame when the large F/OSS community fights, but this is just silly.

              2. By mhall119 (208.205.82.65) mhall@lakeland.net on

                >
                > It all seems simple to me.
                >
                > It appears to me that the original author released the driver under BSD license. The only way to comply with that license is to carry along the license notice with the code. It further appears to me that it may have been the original author who dual-licensed it by adding the language that alternatively, the licensing would be covered by the GPL.
                >
                > Someone somewhere in the process decided that for some reason, they needed/wanted to delete the original author's license notice. That is wrong. It violates the terms of one license under which the original code was released, and it is a copyright violation expressly prohibited by the original license language included with the code. The GPL doesn't state that one can just simply rip out other licensing language from someone else's code. It goes against the original author's intent.

                From my understanding, this code was available under the BSD license _OR_ the GPLv2 license. If that is the case, then anybody can choose to license the code under the terms of the GPLv2, and are therefore _NOT_ bound to the terms of the BSD license. Then, if said person wanted to modify that code, but wanted his contribution licensed under _ONLY_ the GPLv2, then they have the right do remove BSD as a licensing option.

                Someone can correct me where I'm wrong.

                1. By Terrell Prude' Jr. (151.188.247.104) tprude@cmosnetworks.com (this is a spamtrap address) on

                  >
                  > Someone can correct me where I'm wrong.
                  >
                  >

                  Some of the files were dual-licensed, true. But apparently not all of them. The diff shows that some of them are BSD-only, i. e. they don't have the "Alternatively, you may license under GPL v2" clause.

                  --TP

          2. By el_es (81.158.103.239) on

            > > Well isn't it a 4-term License and so also INCOMPATIBLE to their
            > > GPL at all?
            >
            > No, you obviously don't understand how dual-licensing works - you pick one license XOR the other.

            Meh, that's literally what has happened :J

            To extreme...

            1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

              > > > Well isn't it a 4-term License and so also INCOMPATIBLE to their
              > > > GPL at all?
              > >
              > > No, you obviously don't understand how dual-licensing works - you pick one license XOR the other.
              >
              > Meh, that's literally what has happened :J
              >
              > To extreme...

              no, they removed the license

        2. By Mark Kettenis (82.92.89.47) on

          > Well isn't it a 4-term License and so also INCOMPATIBLE to their GPL at all?

          The FSF obviously seems to think that even the 4-term BSD license is compatible with the GPL, as they have been distributing BSD-licensend
          code together with GPL'ed code in their own projects for years (glibc,
          the Hurd). They've always argued the advertising clause was problematic
          (something that most of the current *BSD developers agree with), so they
          removed it when UCB announced to drop it.

      4. By squiggleslash (66.32.106.126) on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
        >
        > It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".
        >
        >

        The mindblowing hypocrisy of the OpenBSD developers here is extraordinary.

        The last time any licensing issue came up with OpenBSD and Linux, it was the other way around. The Linux developers contacted an OpenBSD developers list, CCing critical people in the Linux development team, *politely* notifying the BSD developers of an issue, and offering help resolving the issue to bring the BSD code back into full compliance.

        The response from the OpenBSD team was, frankly, beyond ridiculous. It comprised of apologetics that went above and beyond reality, making claims of innocent infringement that, quite simply, were unsustainable and ridiculous.

        But more over, it consisted of YOU, Theo, insulting the very developers who were trying to help, claiming they were "inhuman" for contacting the people involved.

        And now, what is your first response on finding an apparent copyright violation in the Linux kernel? Answer: You immediately post it on a public website. Whereas the Linux people had kept the complaint to a limited number of people, you go public. Whereas the Linux people had offered help, you immediately start on the insults. Whereas the Linux people had been careful about the allegation and reported little but evidence of an apparent problem, this entire event is accusatory right off the bat.

        You know what? Screw the "moral superiority" of the BSD license. You guys clearly aren't interested in spreading the code, this is entirely about politics; not the "fighting for freedom" variety either, but the office variety.

        The Linux developers you insulted some months ago still deserve a major apology, something I've not heard from your camp. Until the OpenBSD people grow up, I really am not going to take minor license violations made against them (particularly given the "Do anything you want" nature of the license) seriously.

        1. By minusf (195.168.92.92) on

          > And now, what is your first response on finding an apparent copyright
          > violation in the Linux kernel? Answer: You immediately post it on a
          > public website. Whereas the Linux people had kept the complaint to a
          > limited number of people, you go public. Whereas the Linux people had
          
          since when is posting in public mailing lists (with full online
          archives) more "confidental" or "limited" than posting it on
          undeadly.org read mostly by openbsd users/devs?
          
          > offered help, you immediately start on the insults. Whereas the Linux
          > people had been careful about the allegation and reported little but
          > evidence of an apparent problem, this entire event is accusatory
          > right off the bat.
          
          of course it accusatory. the guy DELETED text that was explicitly
          forbidden to delete.  like "don't push this red button" and he
          just pushed it. licenses are complex and most of us are not lawyers
          but if someone can't understand the BSD license, keep that person
          away from anything more complicated (includes GPL).
          
          > You know what? Screw the "moral superiority" of the BSD license. You
          > guys clearly aren't interested in spreading the code, this is entirely
          > about politics; not the "fighting for freedom" variety either, but the
          > office variety.
          
          so what?  we should be grateful that at least he kept the names
          of the copyright owners there or what?
          
          > The Linux developers you insulted some months ago still deserve a
          > major apology, something I've not heard from your camp. Until the
          > OpenBSD people grow up, I really am not going to take minor license
          > violations made against them (particularly given the "Do anything you
          > want" nature of the license) seriously.
          
          so because bsd is more permissive, violating it is a smaller vice?
          
          
          anyway the two cases are not that familiar you'd like them to be:
          
          1. openbsd dev submits work in progress code which contains linux
          driver stuff to be replaced later to public cvs.
          
          2. linux dev submits bsd code without the bsd license.  clearly getting
          rid of the bsd license itself.
          
          i am not defending the openbsd dev here, it definitely was a mistake,
          but the gnu code was not there to stay.
          

        2. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on

          > And now, what is your first response on finding an apparent copyright violation in the Linux kernel? Answer: You immediately post it on a public website.

          No he didnt. He posted it to the openbsd mailinglist. Since you cant even get this small and simple detail right I see no need to take anything you said seriously.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on

            > > And now, what is your first response on finding an apparent copyright violation in the Linux kernel? Answer: You immediately post it on a public website.
            >
            > No he didnt. He posted it to the openbsd mailinglist. Since you cant even get this small and simple detail right I see no need to take anything you said seriously.

            OpenBSD Journal isn't a public website?

            Could have fooled me. Uses HTTP/HTML and everything. Doesn't even require an email address to participate.

            But, hey, if you think that this is a mailing list, then obviously you're the one with the smarts.

            1. By Steven (75.153.170.131) on

              > > > And now, what is your first response on finding an apparent copyright violation in the Linux kernel? Answer: You immediately post it on a public website.
              > >
              > > No he didnt. He posted it to the openbsd mailinglist. Since you cant even get this small and simple detail right I see no need to take anything you said seriously.
              >
              > OpenBSD Journal isn't a public website?
              >
              > Could have fooled me. Uses HTTP/HTML and everything. Doesn't even require an email address to participate.
              >
              > But, hey, if you think that this is a mailing list, then obviously you're the one with the smarts.
              >
              >
              No, Theo posted to the OBSD mailing list. Deanna posted to Undeadly.org to highlight a discussion going on on the mailing list.

              Btw, the thread on the list is a lot shorter than the same thread on this forum.

              Get your facts straight before calling other people stupid, troll!

              1. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on

                > > > > And now, what is your first response on finding an apparent copyright violation in the Linux kernel? Answer: You immediately post it on a public website.
                > > >
                > > > No he didnt. He posted it to the openbsd mailinglist. Since you cant even get this small and simple detail right I see no need to take anything you said seriously.
                > >
                > > OpenBSD Journal isn't a public website?
                > >
                > > Could have fooled me. Uses HTTP/HTML and everything. Doesn't even require an email address to participate.
                > >
                > > But, hey, if you think that this is a mailing list, then obviously you're the one with the smarts.
                > >
                > >
                > No, Theo posted to the OBSD mailing list. Deanna posted to Undeadly.org to highlight a discussion going on on the mailing list.
                >
                >


                The posting Theo made which is under criticism is the one he immediately did here, as part of a general attack by the OpenBSD community which, as you highlight, also involved Deanna. This is a public website, not a mailing list.

                Theo cannot have it both ways. He can't criticize the Linux people for involving development oriented mailing lists to constructively deal with a licensing issue, and simultaneously consider Undeadly.org to be an acceptable location to launch an attack on Linux developers over an alleged licensing issue, involving himself in it rather than condemning it absolutely in the same terms he did the Linux developers a few months ago.

                When Theo calls Deanna "inhuman" we might have something to talk about it. But the fact is he not only hasn't, he's part of the attack. He's a hypocritical slimeball. As are his defenders.

                1. By Steven (75.153.170.131) on

                  > The posting Theo made which is under criticism is the one he immediately did here, as part of a general attack by the OpenBSD community which, as you highlight, also involved Deanna. This is a public website, not a mailing list.
                  >
                  *sigh* Nobody was attacked, either figuratively, or physically. In fact there was no attack at all. We're just discussing stuff that conerns us, and sometimes emotions run high as a result.

                  Yo have a very interesting interpretation of the term attack btw.

                  > When Theo calls Deanna "inhuman" we might have something to talk about it. But the fact is he not only hasn't, he's part of the attack. He's a hypocritical slimeball. As are his defenders.
                  >
                  I see, anybody that argues counter to you is not worth listening to?

                  Very well, everyone can now see you for what you are, troll.

                  I'm done!

                  PLONK!

                  1. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on

                    > > The posting Theo made which is under criticism is the one he immediately did here, as part of a general attack by the OpenBSD community which, as you highlight, also involved Deanna. This is a public website, not a mailing list.
                    > >
                    > *sigh* Nobody was attacked, either figuratively, or physically. In fact there was no attack at all. We're just discussing stuff that conerns us, and sometimes emotions run high as a result.

                    The apologetics are strong with this one. "It wasn't an attack {insert comments suggesting the word 'attack' usually implies 'assault'}, it was just an, erm, emotional accusation. Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket. And officer, when I was driving the car, I wasn't drunk, I was just, er, tired and emotional."

                    > Yo have a very interesting interpretation of the term attack btw.
                    >
                    > > When Theo calls Deanna "inhuman" we might have something to talk about it. But the fact is he not only hasn't, he's part of the attack. He's a hypocritical slimeball. As are his defenders.
                    > >
                    > I see, anybody that argues counter to you is not worth listening to?

                    Really? Because I can't see anything in the above that suggests anything like that.

                    What I said above is that Theo is hypocritical. He is. Objectively hypocritical. He's willing to participate in a public attack (yes, attack, he objectively accused the Linux developer of copyright infringement whereas the Linux developers a few months ago simply presented evidence that there was a problem and offered help fixing it) on Linux developers over copyright infringement while previously accusing much less obnoxious behaviour to be "inhuman".

                    How saying that means "not worth listening to" or even involves "arguments counter to {me}" defies reason. I'm perfectly willing to listen to counter arguments. I haven't heard any good ones. And Theo is an obnoxious loon. And an unbelievably hypocritical one.

                    Perhaps you'd like to tell me why you think Theo isn't describing the OpenBSD team, including himself, as "inhuman", or else explain how what Theo and the OpenBSD mob has done is in some way more friendly than what the Linux developers did a few months ago. Because I'm not seeing it, and you've addressed pretty much every issue other than that one, which is what's at the core of the issue to begin with.


                    > Very well, everyone can now see you for what you are, troll.

                    I'm tempted to suggest that with you putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I'm actually writing, I'm the one being trolled...

                    > I'm done!
                    >
                    > PLONK!
                    >
                    Ah. I see the source of the original confusion now. You appear to really think Undeadly.org is, really, a mailing list. Adding me to a killfile certainly assumes the existance of a mailing list.

                    Unfortunately, as you've presumably found out by now, it isn't, it really is a website you're reading, in your web browser. So Theo's public attack on the Linux development community and the developer who submitted a (rejected) patch making a license change, really did appear to you to be posted to a mailing list.

                    This is not a mailing list. It's a website. Just, you know, an FYI.

                    Here's an idea: If the OpenBSD team wants to be taken seriously and not rejected as a bunch of obnoxious loons, they can start by not insulting anyone who either has a licensing issue with them, regardless of who is infringing whom's license.

                    1. By veins (193.47.80.25) veins@evilkittens.org on http://www.evilkittens.org/dlog/veins/

                      >
                      > [blablabla]
                      >
                      > What I said above is that Theo is hypocritical. He is. Objectively hypocritical. He's willing to participate in a public attack (yes, attack, he objectively accused the Linux developer of copyright infringement whereas the Linux developers a few months ago simply presented evidence that there was a problem and offered help fixing it) on Linux developers over copyright infringement while previously accusing much less obnoxious behaviour to be "inhuman".
                      >

                      So, to sum things up, a Linux developer changes the license of a BSD copyrighted file to GPL but it's not a big deal because Theo is hypocritical and you don't like him ? You, sir, are incoherent.

                      The issue is not about Theo and Theo is not BSD. The issue is about some Linux developer that failed to comprehend a 10 lines long license that was worded in such a way that it cannot be misunderstood by an idiot.

                      The diff he submitted started by removing the very three lines that say "don't remove these lines" and still you fail to understand the problem. No matter what you say or think about Theo, BSD or else, this diff was wrong and instead of admitting it was wrong, you among dozens of GPL zealots keep blabbering and trying to analyze these tree cristal-clear lines in the most idiotic ways when you are not completely ignoring the issue to attack Theo or someone else.

                      It leaves a lot of room to think about your understanding of the issue, and if you cannot comprehend a 10 lines cristal-clear license, I find it doubtful that any of you actually understands your own GPL.

                      Oh and by the way, if the diff was NOT wrong, then it would have been commited AS WAS. Fortunately, most Linux developers are not as stupid as the retards that speak for them.

                      1. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on

                        >
                        > So, to sum things up, a Linux developer changes the license of a BSD copyrighted file to GPL but it's not a big deal because Theo is hypocritical and you don't like him ? You, sir, are incoherent.

                        Perhaps I'd come across as more coherent if you read my actual comments rather than putting words into my mouth. Here's the deal:

                        OpenBSD's license violation a few months ago: Bad - it was clearly deliberate, it was unquestionably a copyright violation, which this isn't, and more to the point, Theo acted like a complete ass in response.

                        This license violation - jury is out. It's not apparent there was one to begin with - the diffs are proposed, not actual changes, nothing ever got into the core kernel repositories, nothing has been redistributed beyond a set of commands that say "delete this, insert that", with nobody apparently actually executing the commands with the consequences involved.

                        So this isn't even an issue, and in the mean time Theo has, frankly, gone nuts, as has most of the OpenBSD community.

                        You're now telling me it's not an issue that the head of the OpenBSD team is acting this way, and that it's somehow wrong to discuss it, because of a proposed diff that nobody has accepted anywhere.

                        How does that work? Go on, explain it to me? When did it become wrong to criticise the actions of a supposed project leader because an allegation has been made against someone else?


                        > The issue is not about Theo and Theo is not BSD. The issue is about some Linux developer that failed to comprehend a 10 lines long license that was worded in such a way that it cannot be misunderstood by an idiot.

                        No, the issue is that Theo went off the deep end. That was what this entire subthread is about. There's a separate issue about a bunch of diffs revealing that someone may or may not have been ignorant of copyright law (and a bizarrely interesting alternative thread that suggests Theo himself is also ignorant, as he's come up with the most bizarre interpretation of "dual licensed" that the world has ever seen, but let's not get into that, and the BSD's newfound virality this would imply.)

                        You're saying I (or anyone else) can't criticise Theo for being an ass. I'm sorry, but I'm going to anyway, because he is.



                        > The diff he submitted started by removing the very three lines that say "don't remove these lines" and still you fail to understand the problem.

                        What problem do I fail to understand? I'm not addressing the diff. Though it seems remarkable that you think a diff - which is a proposal for a change - is a copyright violation. Hey, tell you what, that thought you had the other day where you told someone you thought it would be great to have a comic where Superman fights The Hulk? That's a proposed change that if you made it would violate copyright too. Turn yourself in for thoughtcrime, comrade.

                        Either way, it doesn't matter. Before this post I haven't commented on the copyright allegations beyond pointing out that they're significantly less severe than the violations the OpenBSD team committed a few months ago. They are. The OpenBSD team distributed code without authorization. The Linux group has yet to do so.

                        > No matter what you say or think about Theo, BSD or else, this diff was wrong and instead of admitting it was wrong, you among dozens of GPL zealots keep blabbering and trying to analyze these tree cristal-clear lines in the most idiotic ways when you are not completely ignoring the issue to attack Theo or someone else.

                        Are BSD people capable of typing the word "GPL" without using the word "Zealot"? The above sentence, by the way, has no relationship to any reality I live in. I wanted to address something specific, the difference between the BSD and GPL teams when it came to copyright violations.

                        Situation (a): BSD team accused by Linux group

                        - Linux group send warning only to relevant lists and people, making no legal threats or allegations of infringement.
                        - Linux group *offer to help*
                        - OpenBSD team claim no infringement occurred, despite code appearing in CVS repository
                        - Theo describes Linux people as "Inhuman"
                        - OpenBSD team pretend that this somehow demonstrates the superiority of the BSD license, even claiming in some cases that the BSD license allows relicensing!

                        Situation (b): Linux team accused by BSD group

                        - BSD team post to public websites claiming infringement has occurred
                        - No offers of help from BSD team
                        - Intelligence of Linux team slandered by OpenBSD leaders
                        - Bizarre legal hoops jumped through by OpenBSD team as soon as it becomes clear that (a) most of the code was dual licensed, and that that wasn't was under the two clause MIT license, and (b) nobody had redistributed anything, the changes had only been proposed on a mailing list.
                        - Linux team address the issue right away (easy, they just don't incorporate the code into Linux)
                        - Linux team do not insult OpenBSD team, no "inhuman" taunts beyond jocular references.

                        Compare the two, and take off your BSD-zealot glasses when you do.

                2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

                  Wether or not Theo de Raadt is hypocritical or not is beside the point, the license was violated.

                  Opinions of Theo de Raadt are not a point of law.

                  1. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on

                    > Wether or not Theo de Raadt is hypocritical or not is beside the point, the license was violated.
                    >
                    > Opinions of Theo de Raadt are not a point of law.

                    The license probably wasn't, because no code was ever distributed, but that's not the point.

                    Who cares whether the license had been violated? What does that have to do with the behavior of the OpenBSD leadership?

                    The fact Theo is being an ass is an issue. He's the leader of the OpenBSD project, and his actions deserve to be commented upon.

                    Right now, I have to say, I'm on the verge of stopping use of OpenBSD. I don't think the OpenBSD community can be trusted. I don't see you as a stable group of people. As developers you've coded some great stuff in the past, but as people it's clear that legal issues and cooperative development are second to getting involved in fights and barefaced zealotry. I can see the OpenBSD project going down in flames because you guys just don't know when to stop.

                    It was a diff. Nobody violated anything. The guy was smacked down by his own fellow kernel developers. There is nothing for the OpenBSD team to get upset about. Get over it.

        3. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

          > The last time any licensing issue came up with OpenBSD and Linux, it was the other way around. The Linux developers contacted an OpenBSD developers list, CCing critical people in the Linux development team, *politely* notifying the BSD developers of an issue, and offering help resolving the issue to bring the BSD code back into full compliance.
          >
          > The response from the OpenBSD team was, frankly, beyond ridiculous. It comprised of apologetics that went above and beyond reality, making claims of innocent infringement that, quite simply, were unsustainable and ridiculous.

          I don't think you read that thread at all, Theo's initial response was very civil, it deteriorated shortly after following a response from a linux developer. It is hard to point blame as no one persons actions during that thread were beyond reproach.

          Needless to say, it is perfectly acceptable for license violations to be noted on either side. One minor violation, or misunderstanding, does not excuse another. The BSD license has been tested by law, it is very simple to understand, it will be resolved.

      5. By Anonymous Coward (68.112.54.158) on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
        >
        > It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not > delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm > all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".

        Certainly I'd agree that one may not take BSD licenced code and release it as GPL'd code. However, this code specifically says:

        <QUOTE>
        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.
        - *
        </quote>

        The word "alternatively" means "instead of." It means that releasing it under the GPL is a viable and legal alternative to releasing it under the BSD license. The BSD license, which forbids removal of that license, applies only to code that is being used under that license. Since the code is not being used under the BSD license, it's difficult for me to see how it's required to meet the terms of that unused license, particularly the term which says the license may not be deleted.



        1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

          > <QUOTE>
          > 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.
          > - *
          > </quote>
          >
          > The word "alternatively" means "instead of." It means that releasing it under the GPL is a viable and legal alternative to releasing it under the BSD license. The BSD license, which forbids removal of that license, applies only to code that is being used under that license. Since the code is not being used under the BSD license, it's difficult for me to see how it's required to meet the terms of that unused license, particularly the term which says the license may not be deleted.

          not all the code was dual licensed.

      6. By Anonymous Coward (66.138.167.66) on

        You said it...its perfectly legal in this case as they guy that did it IS THE OFFICIAL AUTHOR

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
        >
        > It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".
        >
        >

        1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

          he is not the original author of all the code nor is he the sole author of it.

      7. By ziu (194.250.98.243) on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:


        Excuse me, are you or any people posting stuff like that blind? Or do you only read a header and you don't care about the source at all?
        In the diff you can clearly see that previously, the file had a notice which SPECIFICALLY says:

        - * 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.

        Sigh.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (2001:6b0:5:1095:20d:56ff:fe11:3120) on

          > > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
          > >
          > > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
          >
          >
          > Excuse me, are you or any people posting stuff like that blind? Or do you only read a header and you don't care about the source at all?

          We can't read stuff like this:
          ==============================
          * 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.
          ================================

          Please tell me what it means. Especially the last line.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (72.93.174.237) on

            > > > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
            > > >
            > > > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
            > >
            > >
            > > Excuse me, are you or any people posting stuff like that blind? Or do you only read a header and you don't care about the source at all?
            >
            > We can't read stuff like this:
            > ==============================
            > * 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.
            > ================================
            >
            > Please tell me what it means. Especially the last line.
            >

            Ask a lawyer for a final answer(I'm not one). The language is quite clear to me. The "notice must appear in all copies" line only applies to the BSD license. If you distribute it under another license (which the dual license clearly allows) the above no longer applies and only the terms of the chosen license applies. It has to be either or because and is not compatible. Copyright authors' names are still there - that can not be stripped out.

            If it is a good idea to strip out the dual license that is another story. In fact if you read lkml they have decided to add it back in sorts. It is not an effective dual license anymore but says it was once licensed under the BSD with all clauses added back. Really it is just a trivial courtesy as it means nothing in law.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

              > Ask a lawyer for a final answer(I'm not one). The language is quite clear to me. The "notice must appear in all copies" line only applies to the BSD license. If you distribute it under another license (which the dual license clearly allows) the above no longer applies and only the terms of the chosen license applies. It has to be either or because and is not compatible. Copyright authors' names are still there - that can not be stripped out.
              >
              > If it is a good idea to strip out the dual license that is another story. In fact if you read lkml they have decided to add it back in sorts. It is not an effective dual license anymore but says it was once licensed under the BSD with all clauses added back. Really it is just a trivial courtesy as it means nothing in law.


              reyk's code wasn't dual licensed.

              1. By Janne Johansson (2001:6b0:5:1095:20d:56ff:fe11:3120) jj@inet6.se on

                > > Ask a lawyer for a final answer(I'm not one). The language is quite clear to me. The "notice must appear in all copies" line only applies to the BSD license. If you distribute it under another license (which the dual license clearly allows) the above no longer applies and only the terms of the chosen license applies.
                > >
                > > If it is a good idea to strip out the dual license that is another story.
                >
                > reyk's code wasn't dual licensed.
                >

                Waiting for the reply to this.. Were we all blind or what?

        2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

          They tried to remove the license which is in violation of the license, everything else is fine.

      8. By Anonymous Coward (72.192.56.65) on

        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the
        > license, that is enshrined in copyright law.

        Do you need to consistently demonstrate what a ill-tempered moron you are? Guess what? The original author IS the one changing the license! Maybe he got tired of being associated your childish temper tantrums. That's what turns me off from your "BSD-gizm", as you such maturely state. Why are you so consistently and arrogantly in the wrong?

        1. By Kamil Andrusz (83.11.32.14) on

          > The original author IS the one changing the license!
          Reyk is changing the license? Wow, didn't see that...

        2. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on

          > Do you need to consistently demonstrate what a ill-tempered moron you are? Guess what? The original author IS the one changing the license!

          Wow, really? Last time I checked neither "Sam Leffler" nor "Reyk Floeter" spell their names "Jiri Slaby".



      9. By Gergo Szakal (160.114.118.81) bastyaelvtars@gmail.com on

        > How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
        >
        > It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".
        >
        >

        I think you should not teach people to interpret licenses (if we think of one of your previous rants).

      10. By Anonymous Coward (213.84.208.251) on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
        >
        > It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".

        Well I guess that mistake will soon be solved. Even if no payment is involved, it's only work; things do go wrong every now and then.
        One thing will never change though; the agressive and rabid way you -- as always -- react to normal matters. Didn't anybody raise you properly? You act like a baby...

        >
        >

        1. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on


          > One thing will never change though; the agressive and rabid way you -- as always -- react to normal matters. Didn't anybody raise you properly? You act like a baby...

          I think it's funny how the same people who defend Linus for his outbreaks with "he's just being candid", "he calls it like he sees it" etc are the same people who constantly complain about Theo when he does the same.
          Double-standards are awesome like that.

          1. By Gergo Szakal (160.114.118.81) bastyaelvtars@gmail.com on

            >
            > > One thing will never change though; the agressive and rabid way you -- as always -- react to normal matters. Didn't anybody raise you properly? You act like a baby...
            >
            > I think it's funny how the same people who defend Linus for his outbreaks with "he's just being candid", "he calls it like he sees it" etc are the same people who constantly complain about Theo when he does the same.
            > Double-standards are awesome like that.
            >

            Am I the same person who defends Linus? (Hint: No.)

      11. By Max Lybbert (216.237.225.254) mlybbert@users.sourceforge.net on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > How much simpler could the text be?

        I agree that there's a clear-cut issue on the first file (although I understand the developer who did this is a joint author, and -- under US law at least -- a joint author has the ability to relicense a work without need to get permission from the other joint authors -- http://www.clickandcopyright.com/joint_authorship_and_copyright.asp ).

        However, the other files included explicit permission to "alternatively, ... release under the GPL v 2." It seems to me that the violation is less clear-cut there. If I wrote a program, and had the following lines at the top, would you feel justified in modifying them?

        "Copyright 2007, Max Lybbert. All rights reserved.
        Alternatively, all material released into the public domain."

        Personally, I would.

      12. By Anon (200.105.168.194) anonymous@gmail.com on

        > > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?
        >
        > Absolutely NOT! Only the author/owner of a license may change the license, that is enshrined in copyright law. And didn't you read what was being deleted? The license SPECIFICALLY says:
        >
        > * 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.
        >
        > How much simpler could the text be? A grade 5 student could tell you that means "you may not delete it".
        >
        > It boggles the mind. One writes legal text which says "You may not delete this", and their approach is to delete it, and splatter GPL-gizm all over it. "Screw the everyone and theirlaws, we are GNU...".
        >
        >

        Was considering trying *BSDs but now seeing how could they jump into conclussions and blame the whole GNU for a person's doings I just decided not not.

    3. By Johan Krüger-Haglert (213.112.198.75) dospam@gmail.com on

      > So isn't this permitted by the BSD license?

      What about you read it? It's not long you know.

    4. By george thompson (70.162.72.254) on

      Actually the person who owns the ip to that code is Sam Leffler.

  2. By AC (76.64.193.108) on


    It was under a dual BSD/GPL license, so this is allowed, right?

    1. By Martin Schröder (87.157.111.228) martin@oneiros.de on http://www.oneiros.de

      > It was under a dual BSD/GPL license, so this is allowed, right?

      No. Not all files were dual licensed, and removing the BSD license is not allowed. This is relicensing, and only the copyright holders can do that.

      1. By AC (76.64.193.108) on

        > > It was under a dual BSD/GPL license, so this is allowed, right?
        >
        > No. Not all files were dual licensed, and removing the BSD license is not allowed. This is relicensing, and only the copyright holders can do that.
        >

        Ah, ok, in that case you would be correct then. Thanks.

    2. By Theo de Raadt (199.185.137.1) deraadt@openbsd.org on

      >
      > It was under a dual BSD/GPL license, so this is allowed, right?
      >


      No. Some parts of the Atheros driver were authored by Sam Leffler, and are actually free software. He placed those bits under a 4-term BSD license, plus dual licensed it under the GPL. Still, that does not give anyone except Sam Leffler the right to change that text, on those files.

      The other files in the driver, written by Reyk, are the replacement for the HAL. This basically is the hidden register access code which Sam (basically employeed by Atheros) refused to release. This code was placed by Reyk under an ISC license, something our project prefers to use since it is so simple that even a grade 5 student cannot misunderstand what it says. It translates to "You can do anything, but not delete the text".
      Only Reyk could change that copyright notice, since he is the author.

      Some Linux developers cannot understand that, I guess.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (2610:1f8:dc:1:a00:20ff:fef9:61a0) on

        >> No. Some parts of the Atheros driver were authored by Sam
        >> Leffler, and are actually free software. He placed those bits
        >> under a 4-term BSD license, plus dual licensed it under the
        >> GPL. Still, that does not give anyone except Sam Leffler the
        >> right to change that text, on those files.

        This doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, I don't see how
        ``dual-licensed'' means anything if the BSD people won't give up their
        license. I've never been exposed to this idea that ``dual-licensed''
        means you are bound by the restrictions of _both_ licenses at once. I
        think it means you can redistribute under the terms of either. If I
        choose the GPL's terms, I have no obligation to copy the BSD license
        when I copy the rest of the code.

        Secondly, the GPL requires that I be free to redistribute the software
        under terms no more restrictive than the GPL. That requirement is an
        obligation upon anyone who accepts the right to copy the software
        granted by the GPL---he cannot place additional restrictions on the
        copy he gives me, including the restriction that I'm not allowed to
        remove the BSD license, nor the Advertising Clause. which is the
        right Theo is claiming for Sam. so if you did interpret
        ``dual-licensed'' to mean ``you have all the obligations described in
        both licenses together,'' then the licenses are incompatible. hence
        the reason for Sam's dual-licensing things to begin with!

        >> This code was placed by Reyk under an ISC license, something
        >> our project prefers to use since it is so simple that even a
        >> grade 5 student cannot misunderstand what it says. It
        >> translates to "You can do anything, but not delete the text".

        I see. That sounds less bogus, but if the license is really so
        permissive, it also sounds like kind of a silly thing to argue about.

        If Theo doesn't like the GPL, he should convince his project to remove
        the dual license from the branch of Atheros sources that he maintains,
        which he can do. If he _can't_ remove it, if he really does have the
        obligations of both licenses like he's trying to claim over someone
        who removed the BSD license, then he has GPL'ed code in his kernel,
        and no vendor can make binary-only firmware releases that include the
        Atheros driver because they're obligated by the GPL to release Atheros
        source!

        1. By Theo de Raadt (199.185.137.1) deraadt@openbsd.org on

          [...]
          > If Theo doesn't like the GPL, he should convince his project to remove
          > the dual license from the branch of Atheros sources that he maintains,
          > which he can do. If he _can't_ remove it, if he really does have the
          > obligations of both licenses like he's trying to claim over someone
          > who removed the BSD license, then he has GPL'ed code in his kernel,
          > and no vendor can make binary-only firmware releases that include the
          > Atheros driver because they're obligated by the GPL to release Atheros
          > source!
          [...]

          yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.

          That is a lot of words from you to show everyone that you do not know
          what is going on, why we do what we do, quite simply you do not know what you are talking about. The license clauses at the top of the files are super simple - if you cannot read them and understand them, then you probably need to go back to grade school.

          1. By Robert Dobbs (207.158.40.201) bob@dobbs.com on http://dobbs.com

            > yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.

            Theo, you are a total fucksteak and a very good reason for anyone to avoid having anything to do with BSD. I am relatively new to the free software community and had read a couple of unpleasant things about you but seeing your own words prove them right is amazing. My boss dictated 3 months ago that we throw out all FreeBSD machines (almost done) in favor of RHEL5 and now I'm glad to do it.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (208.201.233.83) on

              It is amazing, the Linux folks give Linus a pass and rag on Theo.

              Use what works for you. Personally, I would never use Linux again, especially from RedHat. Our company migrated from Solaris to RHEL to save money. After 3 years, we migrated back to Solaris.

            2. By Ben Calvert (flying_walrus) on

              > > yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.
              >
              > Theo, you are a total fucksteak

              mmm... steak

            3. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.127.92) on

              > > yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.
              >
              > Theo, you are a total fucksteak and a very good reason for anyone to avoid having anything to do with BSD. I am relatively new to the free software community and had read a couple of unpleasant things about you but seeing your own words prove them right is amazing. My boss dictated 3 months ago that we throw out all FreeBSD machines (almost done) in favor of RHEL5 and now I'm glad to do it.

              And how is Theo related to F(ool)BSD? :]

            4. By Laurent (212.98.136.42) _nop_ on

              > > yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.
              >
              > Theo, you are a total fucksteak and a very good reason for anyone to avoid having anything to do with BSD. I am relatively new to the free software community and had read a couple of unpleasant things about you but seeing your own words prove them right is amazing. My boss dictated 3 months ago that we throw out all FreeBSD machines (almost done) in favor of RHEL5 and now I'm glad to do it.

              Yeah please stay away from anything involving Theo. Please do it is for your own good. And yeah telnet rulezzz (because the evil Theo has worked with/on OpenSSH).

              And WTF does this FreeBSD related to Theo anyways ?
              When the Linux developer where caught pants down with a clear license violation it is again Theo's fault.
              HYPOCRITES.

              :wq

            5. By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on

              > > yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.
              >
              > Theo, you are a total fucksteak and a very good reason for anyone to avoid having anything to do with BSD. I am relatively new to the free software community and had read a couple of unpleasant things about you but seeing your own words prove them right is amazing. My boss dictated 3 months ago that we throw out all FreeBSD machines (almost done) in favor of RHEL5 and now I'm glad to do it.

              FreeBSD has absolutely nothing to do with OpenBSD.

              Good luck with RHEL though - seems your doing a reverse move or your manager and his flunkies are just, well, flunkies I guess.

              I have and do support various Linux distro's, FreeBSD, Solaris and other systems for various clients - I'll be surprised if you don't end up switching RHEL to something else or back to FreeBSD, or even OpenBSD. If you really need the point'n'click GUI masking everything, then the TCO will cost you much more in the long run - considering the various aspects to TCO...

              Don't slam *BSD or even Theo if you don't understand the basic point to this violation...

              Anyways, good luck with RHEL, hehe.

          2. By Kristian Poul Herkild (80.167.218.175) kristian@herkild.dk on

            > yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.

            Sad behaviour to watch. You clearly don't understand the concept of optional dual-licensing. One can choose between the licenses. Either the BSD or the GPL. Jiri Slaby chose the GPL. Nothing wrong in that. You may consider it immoral but it is not a copyright violation.

            Just shows how big an asshole you are on occasion. The downside of being strongminded, I guess.

            Kristian Poul Herkild

            1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

              Dual licensing means that you can distribute under either, but both licenses remain.

              1. By Kristian Poul Herkild (80.167.218.175) kristian@herkild.dk on

                > Dual licensing means that you can distribute under either, but both licenses remain.

                Incorrect. If both licenses remain I don't have the option of using, modifying or distributing under either. Then I'm forced to both. Do you really mean that dual-licensing a file under optional BSD/GPL makes the GPL viral. That's your claim.

                1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

                  > Incorrect. If both licenses remain I don't have the option of using, modifying or distributing under either.

                  No, if you remove one license then you cannot distribute under both, it ceases to be dual license. Dual implys two.

            2. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

              > > yadda yadda yadda.. whatever.
              >
              > Sad behaviour to watch. You clearly don't understand the concept of optional dual-licensing. One can choose between the licenses. Either the BSD or the GPL. Jiri Slaby chose the GPL. Nothing wrong in that. You may consider it immoral but it is not a copyright violation.
              >
              > Just shows how big an asshole you are on occasion. The downside of being strongminded, I guess.
              >
              > Kristian Poul Herkild

              reyk's code wasn't dual licensed yet 'jiri slaby' chose to remove the original license which is a violation of the terms under which he is allowed to distribute the code.

          3. By Anonymous Coward (203.9.185.254) on

            > [...]
            The license clauses at the top of the files are super simple - if you cannot read them and understand them, then you probably need to go back to grade school.
            >

            Indeed. I completely agree with you here. Pity we disagree about who has the misunderstanding.

        2. By Steven (75.153.170.131) on

          > Firstly, I don't see how
          > ``dual-licensed'' means anything if the BSD people won't give up their
          > license. I've never been exposed to this idea that ``dual-licensed''
          > means you are bound by the restrictions of _both_ licenses at once. I
          > think it means you can redistribute under the terms of either. If I
          > choose the GPL's terms, I have no obligation to copy the BSD license
          > when I copy the rest of the code.
          >
          Well, that's something You'll have to ask Sam about. The OBSD devs had nothing to do with that one, I'm sure. Legaleze is less comprehensible to me than higher mathematics.

          > so if you did interpret
          > ``dual-licensed'' to mean ``you have all the obligations described in
          > both licenses together,'' then the licenses are incompatible. hence
          > the reason for Sam's dual-licensing things to begin with!
          >
          Gee, you think?!? Perhaps there's a reason why Theo and the OBSD devs speak of Sam with contempt, though this may not be the reason. :-\

          > >> This code was placed by Reyk under an ISC license, something
          > >> our project prefers to use since it is so simple that even a
          > >> grade 5 student cannot misunderstand what it says. It
          > >> translates to "You can do anything, but not delete the text".
          >
          > I see. That sounds less bogus, but if the license is really so
          > permissive, it also sounds like kind of a silly thing to argue about.
          >
          Still, the terms of the license are the terms of the license. Deal with
          it.

          > If Theo doesn't like the GPL, he should convince his project to remove
          > the dual license from the branch of Atheros sources that he maintains,
          > which he can do.

          Or rewrite the offending code...oh, is that what you're offering to do? Keep in mind, the rewritting of the auth() code is _not_ complete.

          > If he _can't_ remove it, if he really does have the
          > obligations of both licenses like he's trying to claim over someone
          > who removed the BSD license,

          Not all of the auth() code is dual licensed, may I remind you. Still, as Theo said, only the author(s) of the code have the _right_ to change the terms of the license.

          Also, if both licenses can apply simultaneously/alternativly then..oh, forget it. Multiple licenses are the devil!

        3. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on


          > I see. That sounds less bogus, but if the license is really so
          > permissive, it also sounds like kind of a silly thing to argue about.
          >

          I think the GPL is silly, does that mean I can ignore and violate it? The point is that it IS so permissive.


          1. By Anonymous Coward (208.205.82.65) on

            >
            > > I see. That sounds less bogus, but if the license is really so
            > > permissive, it also sounds like kind of a silly thing to argue about.
            > >
            >
            > I think the GPL is silly, does that mean I can ignore and violate it? The point is that it IS so permissive.
            >
            >
            If the code is dual-licensed BSD and GPL, then yes, you can choose to ignore the GPL provisions so long as you comply with the BSD provisions, right? Of would code dual-licensed as BSD and GPL not be allowed in the BSD kernel because it would still be forced to comply with the GPL?

            1. By Anonymous Coward (75.110.109.233) on

              > If the code is dual-licensed BSD and GPL, then yes, you can choose to ignore the GPL provisions so long as you comply with the BSD provisions, right? Of would code dual-licensed as BSD and GPL not be allowed in the BSD kernel because it would still be forced to comply with the GPL?
              >

              Shhh! That is exactly what the original post was trying to point out.

              Theo and friends want to ignore that part, and only take it in the direction that benefits _them_.

        4. By Joe (158.123.49.2) jjamieson@futurefoundations.com on


          > This doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, I don't see how
          > ``dual-licensed'' means anything if the BSD people won't give up their
          > license. I've never been exposed to this idea that ``dual-licensed''
          > means you are bound by the restrictions of _both_ licenses at once. I
          > think it means you can redistribute under the terms of either. If I
          > choose the GPL's terms, I have no obligation to copy the BSD license
          > when I copy the rest of the code.

          Wow, I can't believe the pure block-head nature of some of these folks that can't seem to understand you.

          You raise the same questions I was thinking, and if you've got a half a brain it makes sense:

          - Dual-license means "Pick one." It always has. Technically, you could pick both, too, but you don't have to. If I want to pick the GPL, then I don't have to put in a BSD notice. If I want to pick the BSD license, I have to put the notice but I can distribute binaries.

          I don't understand how someone can rationally claim that anything that's dual-licensed means "you have to follow both." It doesn't make sense, because that would actually chang your license into a new one; and in this case, one that can't be followed: You can't force a notice with GPL, and you can't remove the notice for the BSD license.

          These types of issues are serious questions that need to be answered if open source software is to remain free of legal ambiguity. For all you lazy bastards saying "BLah DEAL WITH IT" you're doing the software a grave injustice.

          > if he really does have the
          > obligations of both licenses like he's trying to claim over someone
          > who removed the BSD license, then he has GPL'ed code in his kernel,
          > and no vendor can make binary-only firmware releases that include the
          > Atheros driver because they're obligated by the GPL to release Atheros
          > source!

          Which is exactly my point; to the forum troll that says "i h8 gpL, na naa" this might not matter, but if Company X sues Company Y over something like this so they can get access to their (they thought) BSD-licensed source code, it might not be a non-issue any longer.

          Which is why, obviously, dual-license means PICK ONE!

          (Of course, I think the feeling around this particular thread is "FOLLOW THE BSD LICENSE, and ohh, who cares about the GPL - you don't have to follow that one.")

        5. By Alan DeWitt (71.222.22.202) alan.dewitt@gmail.com on

          > I think it means you can redistribute under the terms of either. If I
          > choose the GPL's terms, I have no obligation to copy the BSD license
          > when I copy the rest of the code.

          Yes, you can redistribute on the terms of either license. *However*, so can anyone who receives your redistribution of the code. (It is the copyright owner's choice to provide dual licenses, and you are not authorized to change the terms he's set for his work.)

          So in the dual-licensing case, you must maintain both notices so that the next person to look at the code in your redistribution will know that he *also* can redistribute the code under the terms of either license.

          More clear now?

          1. By Anonymous Coward (80.167.218.175) on

            > > I think it means you can redistribute under the terms of either. If I
            > > choose the GPL's terms, I have no obligation to copy the BSD license
            > > when I copy the rest of the code.
            >
            > Yes, you can redistribute on the terms of either license. *However*, so can anyone who receives your redistribution of the code. (It is the copyright owner's choice to provide dual licenses, and you are not authorized to change the terms he's set for his work.)
            >
            > So in the dual-licensing case, you must maintain both notices so that the next person to look at the code in your redistribution will know that he *also* can redistribute the code under the terms of either license.
            >
            > More clear now?

            Incorrect!

            That is not true. Any person can remove either license and let subsequent releases being single license-only. I don't have to give other users that choice. What you're talking about is applying both licenses to the file, which is incorrect. I can remove one of them and it is perfectly legal. My version then cease to be dual-licensed and I have the right to do so since it is optional dual-licensing. Otherwise you are forcing me to contribute under both licenses, which is counter to the optional dual-licensing scheme.

            You are only correct to the extent that both licenses apply at the same time. However this is not the case. Only one of them apply, and the one you don't want to use can be removed, as long as you keep the other one.

            I don't have to give other people the same rights I have. That's the good/bad thing with BSD ;)

            Kristian Poul Herkild

            1. By Can Acar (66.75.248.152) canacar@ on

              > That is not true. Any person can remove either license and let
              > subsequent releases being single license-only. I don't have to give
              > other users that choice. What you're talking about is applying both
              > licenses to the file, which is incorrect. I can remove one of them
              > and it is perfectly legal. My version then cease to be dual-licensed
              > and I have the right to do so since it is optional dual-licensing.
              > Otherwise you are forcing me to contribute under both licenses,
              > which is counter to the optional dual-licensing scheme.

              Like him or not, Theo explains the issues pretty clearly here:

              http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118836617815218&w=2

              Two points he made that people keep missing:

              * Some of the code (HAL code by Reyk) was NOT DUAL LICENSED
              * There is no single "Dual Licensing Scheme" it all depends
              on the wording.

              1. By Anonymous Coward (203.9.185.254) on

                >
                > Like him or not, Theo explains the issues pretty clearly here:
                >
                > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118836617815218&w=2

                But incorrectly. He is reading it how he wants to, he effectively competely ignores the GPL option at all times.

                There are 2 ways you can read the dual licensing, given the way it is currently worded, I'd say the courts would use the 1st one.

                1. You can distribute it under either license, you only have to include , and follow, the license you want.

                2. You must keep both licenses for the work you downloaded, but your changes can be under either of the licenses at your choice. So if you make changes only under the GPL, they can not use your changes under the BSD license.

                Theo's version seems to be:

                You must keep both licenses and any changes you make must be under both licenses. Which is rather odd, since this has effectively the same viral behaviour as the GPL.

                >
                > Two points he made that people keep missing:
                >
                > * Some of the code (HAL code by Reyk) was NOT DUAL LICENSED
                > * There is no single "Dual Licensing Scheme" it all depends
                > on the wording.
                >

      2. By Anonymous Coward (68.117.193.34) on

        > Some Linux developers cannot understand that, I guess.

        Theo, stop your whining and bitching. It's not even in Linus' branch of the kernel tree yet so this is all much ado about nothing.

        Damn flamebait loser.

      3. By Kristian Poul Herkild (80.167.218.175) kristian@herkild.dk on

        > No. Some parts of the Atheros driver were authored by Sam Leffler, and are actually free software. He placed those bits under a 4-term BSD license, plus dual licensed it under the GPL. Still, that does not give anyone except Sam Leffler the right to change that text, on those files.

        Nonsens. The moment you use, modify or distribute the file you can discard one the licenses as long as you keep the other one. One can keep the GPL-part and remove the BSD-part or they can remove the GPL-part and keep the BSD-part. That's what optional dual-licensing is about. You are completely wrong here. And you know it. You lie if you deny it.


        > The other files in the driver, written by Reyk, are the replacement for the HAL. This basically is the hidden register access code which Sam (basically employeed by Atheros) refused to release. This code was placed by Reyk under an ISC license, something our project prefers to use since it is so simple that even a grade 5 student cannot misunderstand what it says. It translates to "You can do anything, but not delete the text".
        > Only Reyk could change that copyright notice, since he is the author.

        That's correct. And those three files under the ISC license are the real problem. But you forget that in your obnoxious holy war.

        > Some Linux developers cannot understand that, I guess.

        Just like some OpenBSD developers cannot understand that, I can see. At least the code in question was not in any Linux tree whereas OpenBSD violations of GPL-code actually did enter CVS. Oops, Theo.

        Kristian Poul Herkild

        1. By Lonnie Nunweiler (64.114.6.245) lonnie.nunweiler@gmail.com on

          >
          > Nonsens. The moment you use, modify or distribute the file you can discard one the licenses as long as you keep the other one. One can keep the GPL-part and remove the BSD-part or they can remove the GPL-part and keep the BSD-part. That's what optional dual-licensing is about. You are completely wrong here. And you know it. You lie if you deny it.

          LN --> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received.

          LN -> the above quote is from the GPL Preamble. My understanding of that simple sentence would be that if you received a dual license in the code that you are obligated to pass along that same right, especially since GPL takes pains to say that specifically.

          1. By Kristian Poul Herkild (80.167.218.175) kristian@herkild.dk on

            > LN --> For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received.
            >
            > LN -> the above quote is from the GPL Preamble. My understanding of that simple sentence would be that if you received a dual license in the code that you are obligated to pass along that same right, especially since GPL takes pains to say that specifically.



            Incorrect in part. The GPL would only kick in if you chose to follow the GPL rather than the BSD. The point here is that it is _optional_. Choose one and discard the other license. The Linux devs have decided to follow the GPL-part and discard the BSD-part for the dual-licensed files. Perfectly legal and not a copyright violation. It is BSD, alternatively GPL, and you can remove the one you don't want. It is that simple.

            You don't have to follow both licenses simultaneously. And you don't have to give people receiving the code from you the same option. If you had to do that you wouldn't have an option ;)

            BSD-fanatics complaining about the perfectly legal removal of the BSD-license from the optionally dual-licensed files, are effectively arguing that the BSD is viral.

            Kristian Poul Herkild

  3. By Martin Schröder (87.157.111.228) martin@oneiros.de on http://www.oneiros.de

    Ouch. Clearly, reading and understanding licenses is not required to become a Linux developer. :-(

    1. By Anonymous Coward (152.62.109.163) on

      > Ouch. Clearly, reading and understanding licenses is not required to become a Linux developer. :-(

      And badmouthing *is* a requirement of an OpenBSD developer ?

      Sorry this is silly, someone posts a message to the LKML and the whole Linux development community suddenly is responsible for that ?

      It's a sad state of the Open Source community when someone's mistake becomes a whole communities responsibility.

      "Don’t treat someone else in ways you don’t want to be treated" and thats equal for a community as a whole. Shame on you.

  4. By Anonymous Coward (24.89.228.211) on

    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

    1. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.59.40) on

      > 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

      You submit it to slashdot, it'll be on the firehose, just link it here and anyone with an account can mod it up to get it on the front page.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (24.89.228.211) on


        > You submit it to slashdot, it'll be on the firehose, just link it
        > here and anyone with an account can mod it up to get it on the
        > front page.

        I rather wait, and submit an article about how the OpenBSD developer involved resolved the whole issue in a fair-minded and gentlemanly fashion =) Let's see how it plays out first ...

        1. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.59.40) on

          Sure, it'd be nice to see OpenBSD handle it properly, to do the inverse of what the Linux developers do, but it'd be so much more gratifying to see them pound the shit out of them instead. Wrath of God style, since when OpenBSD was being insulted it was over a mistake and with this, it's some developer actively removing a licence and replacing it in violation of the licence.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (68.100.130.1) on

            > Sure, it'd be nice to see OpenBSD handle it properly, to do the inverse of what the Linux developers do, but it'd be so much more gratifying to see them pound the shit out of them instead. Wrath of God style, since when OpenBSD was being insulted it was over a mistake and with this, it's some developer actively removing a licence and replacing it in violation of the licence.

            As "satisfying" as that may be, it won't leave anyone better off.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (83.65.197.253) on

        was up on slashdot.org/firehose and now it's gone...
        perhaps the journalistic style wasn't up to /.s requirements or the link to undeadly instead of lkm made them uneasy. anyone?

        1. By Anonymous Coward (69.255.171.250) on

          > was up on slashdot.org/firehose and now it's gone...
          > perhaps the journalistic style wasn't up to /.s requirements or the link to undeadly instead of lkm made them uneasy. anyone?

          The reason why it's gone:
          Because it's about to get posted.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on

      > 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

      It, er, is on Slashdot, and got on Slashdot considerably quicker than the REAL incident involving the Broadcomm driver. ("Goofed", I love it.)

      Here's a post to that story that pretty much sums up the differences between the two incidents: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=282341&cid=20396767

      Theo, you're inhuman...

      1. By Anonymous Coward (24.89.228.211) on


        > It, er, is on Slashdot, and got on Slashdot considerably quicker than the REAL incident involving the Broadcomm driver. ("Goofed", I love it.)
        >
        > Here's a post to that story that pretty much sums up the differences between the two incidents: http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=282341&cid=20396767


        Hmm ... so much for settling the matter 'quietly'. Is 'friendly' still on the table? I hope so.

      2. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.45.84) on

        > Theo, you're inhuman...


        Why the insulting, eh jackass? Theo had nothing to do with this. He's simply let his opinion be known in response to this in a couple posts here on Undeadly and a little on the mailing list. It's people like you that need a swift kick in the ass, you're demonizing Theo for something that doesn't relate to him in any way whatsoever.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (66.138.167.66) on

      There is nothing wrong with the way the gpl developer handled it, and I read no malice in his original statement. I gotta say after reading that, this Theo fellow is an asshole...but you guys that deal with him probably already know that. Yes the bsd developer stole the code...its obvious that he did...so what is inhuman about protecting what you believe in...nothing I say.

      > 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

  5. By Anonymous Coward (68.183.218.21) on

    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.

    1. By Martin Schröder (87.157.111.228) martin@oneiros.de on http://www.oneiros.de

      > At least some of the linux developers know what the correct thing to do is.

      The right thing is to point out the violation of copyright, not ask if this is "a good idea".

      1. By Anonymous Coward (69.207.171.114) on

        > > At least some of the linux developers know what the correct thing to do is.
        > The right thing is to point out the violation of copyright, not ask if this is "a good idea".

        I doubt the guy is a lawyer. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. He knows enough to say it should be kept BSD, at least.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.59.40) on

          > I doubt the guy is a lawyer. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. He knows enough to say it should be kept BSD, at least.

          More as a developmental advantage, rather than a legal requirement though. It's blatently obvious that when a licence says, "don't remove me," you're not supposed to remove it.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (81.133.133.197) on

            > > I doubt the guy is a lawyer. Maybe he just doesn't know any better. He knows enough to say it should be kept BSD, at least.
            >
            > More as a developmental advantage, rather than a legal requirement though. It's blatently obvious that when a licence says, "don't remove me," you're not supposed to remove it.

            But at the bottom it says "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free", which means the entire license can be distributed under terms of GPLv2, which has no requirement to keep any of the previous notices.

            1. By sthen (85.158.45.32) on

              > But at the bottom it says "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free"

              That was removed in favour of "This file is released under GPLv2". Pretty poor wording; the original is far more explicit and stops someone coming up with the Gates Private License v2...

              > which means the entire license can be distributed under terms of GPLv2, which has no requirement to keep any of the previous notices.

              What about the bit in the GPL about "keep intact all the notices that refer to [...] the absence of any warranty"? And the bit about causing "the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change"? Should Harald Welte be informed?

            2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

              > But at the bottom it says "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free"

              That text comes from a different license

    2. By Anonymous Coward (89.212.93.43) on

      http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/304

      And here ladys and gentlemen is the claim of the code belonging under the GPL because it is derivative work.

      This will get very interesting. Cant wait to see the copyright-holders taking their stand.

      1. By henning (80.86.183.227) on

        > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/304
        > And here ladys and gentlemen is the claim of the code belonging under the GPL because it is derivative work.
        > This will get very interesting. Cant wait to see the copyright-holders taking their stand.

        they are right... somewhat. and they are very wrong.
        they can put their extended version under the gpl.
        but they must leave the original copyright message intact. i. e. putting

        Copyright (c) 2007 somelinuxdeveloper
        Licensed under GPLv2 (or whatever the sentence is they use to refer to it)

        on top of the files is ok (as in, legal. morals is another story).
        but they MUST leave the original copyright notice intact.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (2001:6f8:94d:5::2) on http://mirbsd.de/

          > they can put their extended version under the gpl.
          > but they must leave the original copyright message intact. i. e. putting
          >
          > Copyright (c) 2007 somelinuxdeveloper
          > Licensed under GPLv2 (or whatever the sentence is they use to refer to it)
          >
          > on top of the files is ok (as in, legal. morals is another story).
          > but they MUST leave the original copyright notice intact.

          Wow, finally SOMEONE gets it right. Linuxers don't seem to.
          This is the very reason some of the files in the source tree
          have two versions of the BSD licence on top of them, since
          only the copyright owner himself can actually change the text
          (or allow others to, as UCB did when they rescinded the adv
          clause).

          1. By Anonymous Coward (80.167.218.175) on

            > > they can put their extended version under the gpl.
            > > but they must leave the original copyright message intact. i. e. putting
            > >
            > > Copyright (c) 2007 somelinuxdeveloper
            > > Licensed under GPLv2 (or whatever the sentence is they use to refer to it)
            > >
            > > on top of the files is ok (as in, legal. morals is another story).
            > > but they MUST leave the original copyright notice intact.
            >
            > Wow, finally SOMEONE gets it right. Linuxers don't seem to.
            > This is the very reason some of the files in the source tree
            > have two versions of the BSD licence on top of them, since
            > only the copyright owner himself can actually change the text
            > (or allow others to, as UCB did when they rescinded the adv
            > clause).

            That is exactly what've been done for the ICS-licensed files. It is however not necessary for the dual-licensed files.

            Kristian Poul Herkild

  6. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.119.236) on

    This is KERNEL CODE so it's at least not totaly without the Knowledge of Linus....

    Did Theo made a statement about this?

    1. By Anonymous Coward (89.212.93.43) on

      > This is KERNEL CODE so it's at least not totaly without the Knowledge of Linus....

      This is just on the kernel-mailinglist. Not included into the kernel. Perhaps Linus hasn't got around to read it...

    2. By Anonymous Coward (65.57.245.11) on

      > This is KERNEL CODE so it's at least not totaly without the Knowledge of Linus....
      >
      > Did Theo made a statement about this?

      Um, its a random posting to lkml. Blaming Linus for it would be like blaming Theo for spam on the openBSD lists - silly and counterproductive. As of reading, its only been signed off by the guy submitting it, so its a very long way from being in the linux kernel....

      1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.119.236) on

        > > This is KERNEL CODE so it's at least not totaly without the Knowledge of Linus....
        > >
        > > Did Theo made a statement about this?
        >
        > Um, its a random posting to lkml. Blaming Linus for it would be like blaming Theo for spam on the openBSD lists - silly and counterproductive. As of reading, its only been signed off by the guy submitting it, so its a very long way from being in the linux kernel....

        Well it still looks crazy and confusing:

        --
        Technically the best we can do is to leave the license as dual
        licensed, but keep in that technically that means nothing and is just
        for show, 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.

        Luis
        --

        A BSD License is a BSD License even if it was included into any other Codebase. Or do I miss something? I can't take a BSD Licensed code and put it into my Software and release the WHOLE Software under MY License.
        The Part I took is STILL BSD Licensed at all.

        Seriously: Why is the Driver even "dual licensed" at all?
        A 4 Clause BSD License should be pretty GPL-Incompatible imho.

        It would be great if somebody with more clue about "licenses" would clarify this. I am sure the Linux Developers are as confused as I am 'course 3-* BSD Licenses are GPL Compatible but 4-* BSD Licenses are not. Right me if I'm wrong. :]

        1. By Anonymous Coward (212.112.235.78) on

          http://ath5k.org/

          Is this the same Luis? Crazy.

        2. By Anonymous Coward (24.79.147.136) on

          It appears as though there is a misunderstanding of the difference between licence & copyright in this forum from what I've read, except some comments. I was reading about this a few months ago, and this is what seems to be the case. Think of the MPL e.g., which develops using multiple licenses at the same time granted by the copyright owners. I could grant software to be under a proprietary, gpl & bsd license, if I so wished. One license could require you to paint your face blue, while the other prohibited you from doing such a thing, and depending on the license you chose to use, you would be bound to it. There would be no need to be compatible, hence the difference between license and copyright.

          Anyways, the real issue is whether or not, if something is dual licensed, if when you take it under license A, whether or not you can remove the license B? Especially, if they are incompatible anyways, and you are licensing it under license A, which doesn't permit you to add extra restrictions, which may include bringing over of license B. Also do any changes made then under license A, continue to be just under license A? Or can that code be re-integrated under license B?

          So, I'm more concerned about what happens the resultant code, i.e. can the code bases only be merged later on even if the parties which then modified the files were under different licenses? That'd be interesting to know about.

        3. By Anonymous Coward (222.154.188.184) on

          > It would be great if somebody with more clue about "licenses" would clarify this. I am sure the Linux Developers are as confused as I am 'course 3-* BSD Licenses are GPL Compatible but 4-* BSD Licenses are not. Right me if I'm wrong. :]

          If the copyright holder is the one who releases it under several licences, it doesn't matter whether the licences are compatible or not. That's how it is possible to have proprietary and open licencing for the same code (e.g. QT), usually depending on how you obtain it from the copyright holder. Pay money and they use a licence that doesn't require you to contribute modifications back; don't pay money and be constrained by the GPL or similar.

          The copyright holder could release their code under a different licence for each day of the week if they chose.

    3. By Samiuela LV Taufa (63.100.218.42) on http://www.nomoa.com

      > This is KERNEL CODE so it's at least not totaly without the Knowledge of Linus....
      >
      > Did Theo made a statement about this?

      Interested in the whole story you can look around and it seems the patch is related to the -mm branch of the kernel, which is not the Linus branch but the development branch.

      http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=36559

      So, Linus would not normally have to look at the developments in that branch, let alone the drivers he isn't particularly needing to look at.

      Apart from that, as the other posters have mentioned, your question is not particularly well reviewed or useful.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (85.178.119.236) on

        > > This is KERNEL CODE so it's at least not totaly without the Knowledge of Linus....
        > >
        > > Did Theo made a statement about this?
        >
        > Interested in the whole story you can look around and it seems the patch is related to the -mm branch of the kernel, which is not the Linus branch but the development branch.
        >
        > http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=36559
        >
        > So, Linus would not normally have to look at the developments in that branch, let alone the drivers he isn't particularly needing to look at.
        >
        > Apart from that, as the other posters have mentioned, your question is not particularly well reviewed or useful.

        I'm pretty sure Theo or other Coredevelopers would reject a Driver if I would submit it and would just write "The BSD License is the one wich counts now...". I can't belief that Linux doesn't notice if drivers get submitted. I'm pretty sure he reads such submits even they apply just to the -mm Kernel.

        I'm sorry if my posting sounds like Linux "acknoledged" this. Of course I'm sure he didn't. But I can't nor wont belief that he "doesn't know about" such commits at all.

        It would be crazy to imagine Theo wouldn't at least "notice" if new Drivers get commited to current (and -mm is nothing else in fact.. it's like the WPA-Code in current.. the code is just not ready for the masses yet).

        1. By Anonymous Coward (82.243.242.13) on

          > > I'm sorry if my posting sounds like Linux "acknoledged" this. Of course I'm sure he didn't. But I can't nor wont belief that he "doesn't know about" such commits at all. > It's not a commit. Just a random post on the Linux kernel mailing list.

  7. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

    Time to audit all of Jiri Slaby's contributions now I think.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on

      > Time to audit all of Jiri Slaby's contributions now I think.

      I agree.

      Once a thief, always a thief...

      1. By Mark Czubin (81.83.176.88) czubin@gmail.com on

        > > Time to audit all of Jiri Slaby's contributions now I think.
        >
        > I agree.
        >
        > Once a thief, always a thief...

        That's just uncalled for.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (75.34.35.193) on

          > > > Time to audit all of Jiri Slaby's contributions now I think.
          > >
          > > Once a thief, always a thief...
          >
          > That's just uncalled for.

          Especially as Jiri was the author of some of that code! Let's all alienate another OpenBSD dev!

          1. By gwyllion (193.190.253.149) on

            > > > > Time to audit all of Jiri Slaby's contributions now I think.
            > > >
            > > > Once a thief, always a thief...
            > >
            > > That's just uncalled for.
            >
            > Especially as Jiri was the author of some of that code! Let's all alienate another OpenBSD dev!

            Can you give any example of code writen by Jiri getting commited to the OpenBSD tree?

  8. By Anonymous Coward (208.151.246.152) on

    Was the patch merged? If not, why are you guys busy jizzing all over yourselves?

    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

      > Was the patch merged? If not, why are you guys busy jizzing all over yourselves?

      perhaps its the stunning lack of comment on the list about how the OP is violating the terms of the license by removing it.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (208.151.246.152) on

        > perhaps its the stunning lack of comment on the list about how the OP is violating the terms of the license by removing it.

        Since people here seem so outraged by the existence of this evil patch, you'd think somebody would have the presence of mind to hit people with the clue-bat on a PUBLIC fucking mailing list, but maybe that's too much to ask of this crowd...

        1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

          > > perhaps its the stunning lack of comment on the list about how the OP is violating the terms of the license by removing it.
          >
          > Since people here seem so outraged by the existence of this evil patch, you'd think somebody would have the presence of mind to hit people with the clue-bat on a PUBLIC fucking mailing list, but maybe that's too much to ask of this crowd...

          so, why must the openbsd community police the lkml? why can't we expect linux devs to work out that there's a problem with removing license terms? I'm sure if openbsd users started posting to lkml it wouldn't be welcomed.

          1. By Anonymous Coward (208.151.246.152) on

            > so, why must the openbsd community police the lkml? why can't we expect linux devs to work out that there's a problem with removing license terms? I'm sure if openbsd users started posting to lkml it wouldn't be welcomed.

            Why must the "police" exist at all? Because assholes exist! If you like your license, you better stand up and make a stink when some somebody violates your copyright. All this bitching here is just mental masturbation because this code is NOT a "Linux Driver Copyright Violation", it's a fucking patch submitted by some loon that needs a clue. Make it clear on LKML this code is a violation of copyright and it will NEVER get merged. Problem solved.

            1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

              All this bitching here is just mental masturbation because this code is NOT a "Linux Driver Copyright Violation", it's a fucking patch submitted by some loon that needs a clue. Make it clear on LKML this code is a violation of copyright and it will NEVER get merged. Problem solved.

              yeah its obviously "some loon" thats why Christoph Hellwig, Luis Rodriquez and Johannes Berg are replying to his post.

            2. By Anonymous Coward (216.93.163.234) on

              > Why must the "police" exist at all? Because assholes exist! If you like your license, you better stand up and make a stink when some somebody violates your copyright. All this bitching here is just mental masturbation because this code is NOT a "Linux Driver Copyright Violation", it's a fucking patch submitted by some loon that needs a clue. Make it clear on LKML this code is a violation of copyright and it will NEVER get merged. Problem solved.

              yet, this loon just happens to be the original module author.

  9. By Anonymous Coward (81.165.220.56) on

    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?

    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.74.196.166) on

      Sent him an Email about this. His reply follows,

      Maybe, I'll recheck and if it breaks licensing it must and will be
      chanegd/dropped, don't worry about that.

      regards,
      --
      Jiri Slaby (jirislaby@gmail.com)

  10. By Anonymous Coward (69.243.48.238) on

    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. :)

    1. By Karl Sjödahl (Dunceor) on

      > 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. :)

      Well they have change the patch already:
      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>

      johannes

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      On 8/29/07, Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
      > 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:

      yes, please. Can somebody do it, I'm away from my box.

      > + * 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>
      >
      > johannes
      >

      1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

        > 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:
        >
        Lovely, its just us stupid BSD users and our non-understanding that makes us get upset about removing licenses from source code. of course. i don't see why this patch is even needed, what was wrong with the ath5k driver being dual licensed? "oh no the evil bsd devs will be able to use our codez and atheros will be able to sell our work!" or some such rubbish?

    2. By Anonymous Coward (216.11.97.16) on

      > So there's probably still time to keep this from getting out of hand. :)

      Nope. Already been Slashdotted.

      <http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/08/29/0241234.shtml>

  11. By Anonymous Coward (68.124.164.168) on

    Nice Troll.

  12. By Anonymous Coward (83.17.211.222) on

    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.
    

    1. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on

      > 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?

      No.
      Also, it wasn't only dual-licensed files that had the license removed and changed to GPL.

      1. By mhall119 (208.205.82.65) mhall@lakeland.net on

        > > 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?
        >
        > No.
        > Also, it wasn't only dual-licensed files that had the license removed and changed to GPL.
        >
        So you're saying that the files that are dual-licensed can only be redistributed if they comply with _both_ the BSD _and_ GPL?

        1. By Robert (152.121.16.49) sigzero@gmail.com on

          > > > 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?
          > >
          > > No.
          > > Also, it wasn't only dual-licensed files that had the license removed and changed to GPL.
          > >
          > So you're saying that the files that are dual-licensed can only be redistributed if they comply with _both_ the BSD _and_ GPL?
          >

          No! You choose which license "applies" but you have to keep both licenses in there.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (212.84.170.86) on

      > 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.

      That's how I would read it too. GPL and BSD *can't* work together because they contain conflicting clauses, so a dual licence *must* mean you can use either one or the other.

      Or both if you choose - but by no means can you be forced to keep both licences, because that would make it incompatible with pretty much everything.

      If that's the case, and the code in question was GPL/BSD dual licence, then redistributing under one or other of those licences should surely be okay?

      There's a *lot* of rabid flaming going on here -- someone else made a similar comment to me, and got "yada-yada-yada" as a response, which didn't do anything to actually answer the questions he posed; it just made it obvious that there's no real desire to work out the actual legal situation, just a desire to keep as wide a distance as possible between BSD fanatics and GPL fanatics. That's sad.

      To be honest, I think I need to hear the original author's opinion on it all now. It's his wishes we're discussing here, so really, he ought to be given the final say.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (212.117.81.29) on

      > 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?

      But by this interpretation you can't make a "scandal" out of it, and Theo can't "get even".

      * Guy A releases code, says you can alternatively pick that other license, too.
      * Guy B says fine, I pick that other license.
      * Theo, out of his meds once again, shouts SCANDAL and tries to start a smear campaign. Nothing new in OpenBSD land.

      The OpenBSD fanboyz with their pathological but interesting collective mixture of inferiority complex and superiority complex shout "COOL - A SCANDAL", "THOSE BAD LINUXSUCKERS", "BSD RULEZ", "FINALLY WE GOT THEM", "DIE, LINUS, DIE", "THEY HAVE NO MORAL", "OPEN BSD POWER".

      But all that really happened is that Guy A said "You can pick", Guy B said "Ok, I pick that other one", and Theo didn't like what Guy B picked.

      Move on, nothing to see here.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

        >
        > But all that really happened is that Guy A said "You can pick", Guy B said "Ok, I pick that other one", and Theo didn't like what Guy B picked.
        >
        > Move on, nothing to see here.
        Guy C says "I picked this." But Guy A says, I don't like that you picked that so I'll remove the fact that you picked it and leave my choice.

    4. By Gordon Willem Klok (68.148.17.121) gwk@gwk.ca on

      > 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.
      >

      Some of the code has the dual license clause on it, reyk's does not. However reyk did ISC license his code so it can be distributed under the terms of GPL. However you cannot just remove or alter the original ISC license block in the file without the permission of the author, the correct solution would have been to add the GPL license block at the top of the file and correctly attribute that the code originally ISC license.

      Its hardly an onerous burden. an 10 extra lines of comments near the beginning of the file: don't like it, dont use it.

    5. By Anonymous Coward (206.168.13.207) on

      > 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.
      >

      While either license can apply, one cannot unilaterally remove the require attribution text.

      Did they get Sam Laffler's permission to relicense this code? No. They removed the BSD license and associated text.

      This isn't rocket science. This is something one is not permitted to do without the permission from the copyright holder. It is also selfish to take code under BSD license and impose the GPL restrictions on it, thus making it less free.

      Let's hope that this an honest mistake.

  13. By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on

    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...).

    1. By Anonymous Coward (133.11.2.2) on

      > 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...).
      >

      Let's copy paste some more:
      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");

      He is the author of at least some of these files. So he is allowed to make at least some of these changes...

      1. By Anonymous Coward (216.93.163.234) on

        > Let's copy paste some more:
        > 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");
        >
        > He is the author of at least some of these files. So he is allowed to make at least some of these changes...
        >
        >
        Nobody said he wasn't, its the files with others' copyrights that are a problem

    2. By Bernd Meyer (128.250.36.30) openbsd@umilator.net on


      > 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...).

      I can see a small issue in that not all files were explicitly dual-licensed; However, given that they all form part of the same driver, I can understand the assumption that dual-license would apply to all parts (doesn't make much sense to have bla.c dual-licensed, but not bla.h). So humor me, and assume a full dual-licensing for a moment.

      Now, given that the code was dual licensed, what is appaling is the reaction here. Someone made a choice --- they chose to acquire the original sources under the terms of the GPL. That choice is explicitly and unambiguously given in the files which have a dual license notice. Having thus chosen, the guy made changes, including the perfectly legitimate removal of a text describing a license which he was not bound by (as he had chosen to acquire the software under the alternative license), and which he chose not to apply to his derived work. He then released a derived work under the GPL, being in perfect compliance with the only license he ever acquired the software under.

      In fact, if he had chosen to acquire the software under the GPL, and then released it (also) under the BSD license, he would be in violation of the GPL. Conversely, acquiring it under the BSD license and releasing the derived work under the GPL would be in violation of the BSD license (because the GPL allows removing the BSD statement, where BSD does not).

      Given the, uhm, turbulent history of OpenBSD and Linux, it might just have seemed a safer bet to avoid the pitfalls of dual licensing.

      Or maybe he really *does* have an agenda --- wanting to keep his modifications from being included in closed-source proprietary products might be his thing. And while one may or may not agree with that (and here in the OpenBSD camp, most obviously don't), the original author *did* dual-license the code, and thus *did* accept that it may be forked under either license. Doing so is not nice, and does not give anyone a warm fuzzy feeling, but it *is* perfectly legitimate.

  14. By evil_linux_guy (91.16.219.79) on

    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 ... ;)

    1. By Lars Hansson (bysen) on

      > 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 ... ;)

      Just like Linus?

      1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

        > Just like Linus?

        True

    2. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

      > 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.
      yeah, for basically non-functioning code, the implications were terrible.
      > - This patch here did not and will not make it to any public repository. It was simply a *suggestion* (admittedly a wrong one).
      really, that must be why it was shot down immediately. oh wait, it wasn't.
      > - In bcw, even MENTIONS of the original author of the code were removed
      and the code itself would have been removed once it was functional.
      > - In this case, no attempt was made to conceal the origin of the code.
      no, just the license, in direct violation of the license terms. a cursory reading of the diff would show it quite clearly. The - next to lines saying 'do not remove' should have set off some alarm bells.
      >
      > Now gimme your babble-talk about 'honest mistakes' and that stuff ;)

      when you remove lines saying "do not remove" that seems quite deliberate.


      1. By evil_linux_guy (91.16.207.241) on

        > when you remove lines saying "do not remove" that seems quite deliberate.

        "seems" -- and it seems that way to you.
        doesn't mean that it was

    3. By Anonymous Coward (68.100.130.1) on

      From a BSD user's perspective, this just seems rather hypocritical since users of the GPL seem to always be saying how their license will save the world, chasing down GPL violations, etc. It's like GPL is just so sacred to them. Thus, to see another license disregarded (especially in what seems to be promotion of the GPL), this is the kind of reaction you can expect.

      But yeah, the "gotcha" moment probably wasn't worth it. Now that I see this has made it to Slashdot, it makes me very sad. There's always someone that's going to get carried away...

      1. By evil_linux_guy (91.16.219.79) on

        > From a BSD user's perspective, this just seems rather hypocritical since users of the GPL seem to always be saying how their license will save the world, chasing down GPL violations, etc. It's like GPL is just so sacred to them. Thus, to see another license disregarded (especially in what seems to be promotion of the GPL), this is the kind of reaction you can expect.
        >
        > But yeah, the "gotcha" moment probably wasn't worth it. Now that I see this has made it to Slashdot, it makes me very sad. There's always someone that's going to get carried away...

        Complaining publicly would have been a little less absurd if this license change had actually been in a repository somewhere. But no, this was a patch posted to a mailing list that wasn't merged and wasn't going to get merged...

      2. By Anonymous Coward (208.20.156.194) on

        <p><i>From a BSD user's perspective, this just seems rather hypocritical since users of the GPL seem to always be saying how their license will save the world, chasing down GPL violations, etc. It's like GPL is just so sacred to them. Thus, to see another license disregarded (especially in what seems to be promotion of the GPL), this is the kind of reaction you can expect.</i></p>

        You're being very silly. This is the whole point of dual-licensing, that you can pick one license or the other. If that weren't the case, then there'd be no point to dual licenses.

        If I were to write code that I dual-licensed under the GPL and BSD license and you wanted to include it with some of your BSD code to create a program which would then be closed source, no one from the FSF would throw a hissy fit and claim that you were disregarding the GPL. There would be no point, as there is no reason for you to regard the GPL in the fist place, you chose to use the code under the BSD license, which means you are totally allowed to disregard all GPL license clauses. It should be obvious that if I were to take some of your dual-licensed code and use it with my GPL code, I am allowed to completely disregard all BSD clauses.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

          > I am allowed to completely disregard all BSD clauses.

          Doesn't mean you can remove the license though

  15. By Anonymous Coward (75.34.35.193) on

    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!

    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

      > Jiri Slaby wrote the original code & claims copyright on it. He is also the person who posted to LKML with the license changing patch.
      sure, except that his wasn't the only copyright on those files.
      * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org>
      * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com>
      * Copyright (c) 2002-2007 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
      * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com>
      * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
      * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Reyk Floeter <reyk@vantronix.net>

      what about those?
      >
      > 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!
      he hasn't said that(well at least on that thread), perhaps you're thinking of Luis Rodriquez who says that dual-licensing is "just for show". Jiri agreed with Johannes Berg that he should keep the license terms but still change the code to GPL. This is allowed of course, but not conducive to cooperation between the projects. Also, its not HIS license, but congratulations on cribbing from /. anyway.
      >
      > 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!

      Since prominent wireless/kernel linux devs didn't shoot down his patch but did reply, I'd say you underestimate the likelihood of this being imported.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (216.93.163.234) on

        > > 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!
        >
        Since he's the author of some of the code being changed why is it unlikely that his changes won't be accepted?

      2. By Anonymous Coward (75.34.35.193) on

        > sure, except that his wasn't the only copyright on those files.

        You're correct that Jiri couldn't relicense the work of others without their permission. But this is just petty. Reyk or others could have emailed Jiri with a "WTF?" & Jiri would most likely (as he now has) have retracted the license changes.

        This is one BSD/Linux dev. that made an honest mistake in code that has not been committed (yet alone released)!

        > Since prominent wireless/kernel linux devs didn't shoot down his patch but did reply, I'd say you underestimate the likelihood of this being imported.

        And since Jiri has retracted his license changes on the same mailing list, I think you GREATLY overestimate the likelihood!

    2. By Todd T. Fries (todd) todd@openbsd.org on http://todd.fries.net/

      > 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!

      How are we to know that approved diffs that are heading that direction are not going to make it? Do we not have the right to be concerned that they are even approved in the first place?

      Come on. The diff clearly removes a license that clearly states it may not be removed.

      It's as simple as that.

  16. By Anonymous Coward (217.11.231.73) on

    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.

  17. By Anonymous Coward (133.11.2.2) on

    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.....

    1. By Anonymous Coward (82.197.192.49) on

      > 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.....
      >
      >

      Which part of "with or without modification" is hard to understand for you?

  18. By Anonymous Coward (82.45.163.18) on

    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>

    1. By Gordon Willem Klok (68.148.17.121) gwk@gwk.ca on

      This is still wrong, come on this is grade school stuff here. With out reyks permission you can't change the license block period. Its ISC licensed it can still be distributed under the terms of the GPL by simply adding another block of comments with the GPL garbage to the top of the file Copyright <whoever>.

      As for the rest of your posting I probably shouldn't be feeding the mouth breathers who have wandered over from slashdot to defecate in our pool but its early. I speak only for myself and none of the other developers or any "community" but wrt to the broadcom debacle I did not read any sincerity at all into the broadcom linux developers motives they were duplicitous in the extreme, biding their time until our developer made a mistake so they could torpedo his efforts. I don't think we will ever find much common ground GPL advocates tend to have a different world view "world domination" or whatever we just want to make software thats free as in air.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (82.45.163.18) on

        "wrt to the broadcom debacle I did not read any sincerity at all into the broadcom linux developers motives they were duplicitous in the extreme, biding their time until our developer made a mistake so they could torpedo his efforts. "

        Bullshit. By 'biding their time' you mean 'not complaing about an infraction until they actually found there was one.

        And by 'torpedo his efforts' you mean post a message on a mailing list saying 'would you guys mind contacting us so we can discuss what code you can and can't use', to which the OpenBSD developer quit of his own accord, rather than talk to the people whose code he stole. He wasn't torpedoed, he scuttled his ship in cowardice at the first sign of another vessel.

        Do you guys get your disingenuous hypocritical fucknuttery and your distorted view of reality from Theo, or did he just shout his apoplectic ranting gibberish into the ether, and all the fucknuts within earshot came running to join the OpenBSD project, as if answering some bizarre inverted mating call?

        Yes I'm trolling you, a bit.

        Yes, you guys deserve it.

        1. By Gordon Willem Klok (68.148.17.121) gwk@gwk.ca on

          > "wrt to the broadcom debacle I did not read any sincerity at all into the broadcom linux developers motives they were duplicitous in the extreme, biding their time until our developer made a mistake so they could torpedo his efforts. "
          >
          > Bullshit. By 'biding their time' you mean 'not complaing about an infraction until they actually found there was one.
          >
          Less than 48 hours after the fact in a non functioning driver? Come on.

          > And by 'torpedo his efforts' you mean post a message on a mailing list saying 'would you guys mind contacting us so we can discuss what code you can and can't use', to which the OpenBSD developer quit of his own accord, rather than talk to the people whose code he stole. He wasn't torpedoed, he scuttled his ship in cowardice at the first sign of another vessel.
          >
          Marcus is that you? I don't think so but you seem to be able to channel him since your so thoroughly versed in his motives for halting development. Since were speculating about another's motives maybe we was just upset about not being contacted about his mistake so he could rectify it instead of bullshit legalese posts to a mailing list?

          > Do you guys get your disingenuous hypocritical fucknuttery and your distorted view of reality from Theo, or did he just shout his apoplectic ranting gibberish into the ether, and all the fucknuts within earshot came running to join the OpenBSD project, as if answering some bizarre inverted mating call?
          >
          I don't speak for theo never have an never claimed too how many times and how many ways do I have to say these opinions are mine and no one else's ? Why don't you limit yourself to speaking of things you might possibly have some authority to speak on i.e. not the OpenBSD developers and their motives for doing anything?

          > Yes I'm trolling you, a bit.
          >
          No shit sherlock.

          > Yes, you guys deserve it.
          >

          1. By Anonymous Coward (82.45.163.18) on

            > Less than 48 hours after the fact in a non functioning driver? Come on.

            You mean you're complaining because you were notified of the problem LESS THAN 48 HOURS AFTER IT AROSE? And you say this is some sort of submarine effort to undermine OpenBSD? You brain-damaged oaf. Would you have preferred it if the bcm crew waited until the code had been in your OS for, say, two years?, before springing the fact on you? Imagine having 2 years of work done to that driver then finding out about the copyright infringement? You guys should be grateful they got to it so fast.

            > Marcus is that you? I don't think so but you seem to be able to channel him since your so thoroughly versed in his motives for halting development. Since were speculating about another's motives maybe we was just upset about not being contacted about his mistake so he could rectify it instead of bullshit legalese posts to a mailing list?

            The matter was already public when he put the bcm code on a public server. Or are there various kinds of 'public' information? Like 'public information that it's okay to talk about' and 'public information that it's not okay to talk about'. That way, everything is more legal. This works, of course, in exactly the same way that not talking about cryptography algorithms and security problems makes everything more secure.

            I find it fucking hilarious that the OpenBSD people are arguing in favour of the legal version of 'security by obscurity'...

            > I don't speak for theo never have an never claimed too how many times >and how many ways do I have to say these opinions are mine and no one >else's ?

            Sure. But you talk and act like him, so I'm wondering if there's something about OpenBSD that makes you guys all cluster together...

            1. By Anonymous Coward (82.45.163.18) on

              "I find it fucking hilarious that the OpenBSD people are arguing in favour of the legal version of 'security by obscurity'..."

              I also find it even MORE fucking hilarious that these same people have been blasting the problem with the proposed Linux patch all over the net and back.

              They act as though OpenBSD people deserve the benefit of the doubt, to the utter maximum possible (don't ever say that an OpenBSD dev did anything wrong, even when he did), while Linux devs are utter turds who are instantly to be judged guilty and denounced, on Slashdot of all places, as thieves.

              Joke is, of course, that the Linux driver code was most likely dual-licensed in the first place, so all those angry and shrill OpenBSD people are probably in the wrong.

              Again.

          2. By Anonymous Coward (81.208.36.89) on

            C'mon, you all over-reacted.

            One of the copyright holders submitted a patch to LKML with a wrong license. The patch wasn't merged. Someone spotted the problem and pointed it out. A solution has been already proposed.

            I think you should be pleased, they could have potentially stripped out the license to the code, along with the all the references to the developers, submitted it to a CVS and redistributed it through it.

            Then they may even accuse you of calling them thieves if you politely point out the problem...

            Just kidding. :)

            I'm not "on the Linux side" nor on the "OpenBSD side". I'd like to be on the common sense side. Step back and think about it again: swap BSD and GPL, swap Linux and OpenBSD.

            What if someone submitted a patch to a BSD mailing list that removed the GPL license from a dual BSD-GPL licensed code? Do you still honestly think that such a fuss would be motivated?

            Now, go up and re-read Theo's comments above. He's so rude that he sounds childish. And I'm sorry to say this, because I honestly think he is a valuable person.

            Cheers

            1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

              > Now, go up and re-read Theo's comments above. He's so rude that he sounds childish.

              You should reread his comments, he was nothing of the sort.

              http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118836617815218&w=2

              1. By Anonymous Coward (81.208.36.89) on

                > > Now, go up and re-read Theo's comments above. He's so rude that he sounds childish.
                >
                > You should reread his comments, he was nothing of the sort.
                >
                > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118836617815218&w=2

                I had lost that post actually, but I'm glad you pointed it out, because it confirms my thesis, once again:

                > Now he's saying that Linux people should basically ignore Reyk's
                > license. Well screw you Luis, that is precisely not what you will do
                > -- you uneducated twit. Copyright is law. You will obey it.

                Well done Theo. Telling people to screw off may make you look important in front of openBSD developers - that already worship you as a god - but it doesn't work that way in the outside world, sorry.

                I confirm my statement: he's so rude he sounds childish.

                What a bummer for wasted potential.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (193.251.182.149) on

      > 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

      how about you get a nice big warm cup of stfu ?

      re read how the linux guys pointed their finger towards OpenBSD and claimed they stole code, cross posted on multiple mailing lists to let the world know, instead of contacting the appropriate guys at openbsd
      (it's all here http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1558).



      1. By Anonymous Coward (82.45.163.18) on

        I read it, ta. That thread speaks for itself, and to normal people that whole thread makes a lot of OpenBSD devs look like a bunch of shrill, obnoxious fucknuts with no social skills covering up their own mistakes by screaming blue murder at some largely innocent outsider over some largely imaginary netiquette infraction.

        What the bcm devs did was nowhere near as obnoxious and appalling as a) your response to them then or b) what you're doing now.

  19. By Simon Kenyon (195.7.61.12) simon@koala.ie on

    did sam approve this change? i somehow doubt it.

  20. By Axton Grams (206.210.17.33) axton.grams@gmail.com on 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.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (86.2.115.67) on

      If the author requires that derivatives be offered under Dual BSD/GPL then it is illegal to include it as a part of the Linux Kernel because the license to the Linux kernel requires that recipients be permitted to pass on verbatim and derivative works under exactly the GPL v2.

      I understand the author asked for it to be included and dual licensed it to make it legal. That means the author gave permission for it to be offered onward under the GPL v2 and, if his licensees wished to, only the GPL v2 - otherwise he hasn't made it legal to include in the Linux kernel and it must - by law - be removed.

      Note I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

  21. By Anonymous Coward (69.243.48.238) on

    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.

  22. By Ben Calvert (flying_walrus) on

    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.

  23. By Anonymous Coward (75.110.109.233) on

    {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.

  24. By jrh (24.20.131.42) on

    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.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (208.0.109.221) on

      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.

      that hasn't been said before. it comes up a few times a year. i haven't seen openbsd get any weaker as a result. if anything, openbsd development seems to be making more progress into more areas than anything else

      1. By evil_linux_guy (91.16.207.241) on

        > that hasn't been said before. it comes up a few times a year. i haven't seen openbsd get any weaker as a result. if anything, openbsd development seems to be making more progress into more areas than anything else
        which just shows clearly, that the only real way to motivate openbsd developers is to create flames and encourage the rage against the 'evil linux guys'

    2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

      > When all is said and done Theo's reaction to both this brouhaha

      I read one email on misc@ stating his opinion, largely based on fact.

      No hysterical outburst as far as I could tell, but there is no intenation in an email, maybe you read it differently.


  25. By Anonymous Coward (83.31.244.138) on

    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?

  26. By Harpalus (216.168.125.63) harpalus.como@gmail.com on

    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.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

      Look let's face it, big endian is the one true byte ordering

      1. By Anonymous Coward (83.31.246.24) on

        You misguided wrong-ordered zealot! Everyone knows Nature intended eggs to be cracked from the smallest end. It's just logical.

  27. By Anonymous Coward (209.42.76.74) on

    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?

    1. By kartoffel (128.158.211.19) on

      > 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?

      Yes, but it's still a fork.

      For further development, you'll have to decide whether you want to
      (A) submit your patches to the GPL-only side, where they would be stuck forever under the restrictions of "copyleft", or
      (B) submit your patches against the original BSD source; from whence they could then be freely merged down to the GPL-only fork (assuming the GPL devs haven't drifted off too far with tainted patches).

      1. By Kristian Poul Herkild (80.167.218.175) kristian@herkild.dk on

        > > 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?
        >
        > Yes, but it's still a fork.
        >
        > For further development, you'll have to decide whether you want to
        > (A) submit your patches to the GPL-only side, where they would be stuck forever under the restrictions of "copyleft", or
        > (B) submit your patches against the original BSD source; from whence they could then be freely merged down to the GPL-only fork (assuming the GPL devs haven't drifted off too far with tainted patches).

        How come BSD-zealots are always angry when BSD-licensed code is used in GPL'ed projects, but rejoices when the BSD-licensed code is used in proprietary products thereby effectively closing the code?

        You always yell about "forcing people to freedom", but you don't mind forcing people to slavery. From an academic POV it makes sense to talk of BSD as more free than GPL, but GPL is none-the-less more free than the Microsoft EULA. But the latter is good in your eyes and the GPL is evil.

        Are you jealous of the success of GNU/Linux or do you have a rational explanation for this odd behaviour?

        Kristian Poul Herkild

        1. By Anonymous Coward (74.115.21.120) on

          > How come BSD-zealots are always angry when BSD-licensed code is used in GPL'ed projects, but rejoices when the BSD-licensed code is used in proprietary products thereby effectively closing the code?
          >
          > You always yell about "forcing people to freedom", but you don't mind forcing people to slavery. From an academic POV it makes sense to talk of BSD as more free than GPL, but GPL is none-the-less more free than the Microsoft EULA. But the latter is good in your eyes and the GPL is evil.
          >
          > Are you jealous of the success of GNU/Linux or do you have a rational explanation for this odd behaviour?

          You're welcome to use BSD code in GPL projects. Just don't remove the copyright notice. Pretty simple.

          1. By Kristian Poul Herkild (80.167.218.175) kristian@herkild.dk on

            >
            > You're welcome to use BSD code in GPL projects. Just don't remove the copyright notice. Pretty simple.

            Nobody removed the copyright notice in the BSD-licensed files, because there were no dual-licensed files. There was two files with two _optional_ licenses, where you can choose one of the licenses but NOT both. It is an XOR-license. Either BSD or GPL but not both. In that situation it is a copyright violation to choose both licenses since the license clearly states that only one license can be chosen. And the license you don't choose you can remove. That's what the license clearly states. It is NOT both. It is EITHER. But Theo and his fanatical followers cannot see the difference between EITHER and BOTH. The files which had their conditions (but not copyright notices) removed were licensed under the ISC-license and not one of the BSD-licenses.

            Besides that, you didn't answer my question.

            Kristian Poul Herkild

            1. By Anonymous Coward (206.248.190.11) on

              > Nobody removed the copyright notice in the BSD-licensed files

              Yes they did.

              because there were no dual-licensed files.

              Yes there were. And those ones they are free to use the GPL for. But some of the files are ONLY ISC licensed, and its clearly and obviously a violation to remove their licence terms.

              The files which had their conditions (but not copyright notices) removed were licensed under the ISC-license and not one of the BSD-licenses.

              The ISC license is basically a 2 clause BSD license. Again, you are free to use it in GPL code if you FOLLOW THE SIMPLE LICENSE. You aren't allowed to remove the copyright or license statement, and that's exactly what he did.

              > Besides that, you didn't answer my question.

              Your question is a logical fallacy and you know it. You can't make a ridiculous conclusion based on your choosing to ignore the facts, and then ask a moronic question about that ridiculous conclusion and expect anyone to bother answering you. If I asked why linux users love eating dicks so much, would you think that's a question worth answering?

        2. By Anonymous Coward (128.158.211.19) on


          > > For further development, you'll have to decide whether you want to
          > > (A) submit your patches to the GPL-only side, where they would be stuck forever under the restrictions of "copyleft", or
          > > (B) submit your patches against the original BSD source; from whence they could then be freely merged down to the GPL-only fork (assuming the GPL devs haven't drifted off too far with tainted patches).

          > How come BSD-zealots are always angry when BSD-licensed code is used in GPL'ed projects, but rejoices when the BSD-licensed code is used in proprietary products thereby effectively closing the code?

          I'm happy whenever *any* open sourced code is used *anywhere*. There is nothing wrong with a project that's mostly made of GPL code using some BSD stuff too. The BSD licensed code plays well within a larger GPL project.

          On the other hand, GPL licensed code does not always play well in BSD projects. The "taint" prevents commercial redistribution with proprietary changes to the GPL licensed components (or derivative works thereof). I respect that aspect of GPL copyleft and use GPL when it's appropriate, so forgive me if I'm a bit annoyed at your labeling me a "BSD-zealot".

          Anyway, looks like the rest of the forum has already modded you into oblivion so I'll stop at this point.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

      Might be too late to call of the hitman

  28. By Anonymous Coward (199.106.103.254) on

    1) It was dual license to begin with.
    2) Check the patch submitter, oops, no story after all.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (70.173.172.228) on

      > 1) It was dual license to begin with.
      > 2) Check the patch submitter, oops, no story after all.

      1) not all of it
      2) the submitter is not the author of all the code, nor the only author of the code he has copyright to.

  29. By Peacenik (71.33.195.60) on

    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.

    1. By sthen (85.158.45.32) on

      > I rarely worry about the license, because I am a user, not a coder.

      I doubt that would wash if you were caught using, say, Microsoft software outside of the license agreement...

      1. By Anonymous Coward (140.226.164.242) on

        > > I rarely worry about the license, because I am a user, not a coder.
        >
        > I doubt that would wash if you were caught using, say, Microsoft software outside of the license agreement...

        I think he meant in the Open Source world, not in the M$ world. In the M$ world you better have a license to get the patches or you are toast.

        1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

          Mmmm .... toast

  30. By kartoffel (128.158.211.19) on

    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]

  31. By Anonymous Coward (66.93.33.5) on

    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.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (74.13.57.76) on

      > Smells like victory.

      I quote this via the fair use terms of copyright.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (66.93.33.5) on

        > > Smells like victory.
        >
        > I quote this via the fair use terms of copyright.

        Bad juju!

    2. By Anonymous Coward (71.130.206.173) on

      > 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.

      Nice, but take a look at the footer once in awhile, ok?

      Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (128.158.211.19) on

      --- > This post is licensed to undeadly.org, however, no one may quote it without this line or bad juju will happen.
      +++ > I like pie.

      +++This reply is released under GPLv2

  32. By Karl Sjödahl (Dunceor) dunceor@gmail.com on 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.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (137.226.102.25) on

      Really good summary! Mod this up on ./ also, so ppl don't get fooled by all the Zealots.

    2. By Anonymous (200.105.168.194) anon@gmail.com on

      kudos for calling the GPL a more restrictive one when it isn't. Good luck getting forked by MS without they releasing any new source code but they just keep the copyright notice, haha.

      1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

        > kudos for calling the GPL a more restrictive one when it isn't.

        The burden of proof is on you

        > Good luck getting forked by MS without they releasing any new source code but they just keep the copyright notice, haha.

        they already have, have a nice day

  33. By Rich (195.212.199.56) on

    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.

    1. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

      It's really easy ...

      If they claim not to be a lawyer then they do not know the law and don't know what they are talking about.

      If they mention Theo de Raadt they are zealots from another camp ( as this issue has nothing to do with Theo de Raadt, so little point dragging his name into it. )

Credits

Copyright © - 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 as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]