OpenBSD Journal
Home : : Add Story : : Archives : : About : : Create Account : : Login :
Theo Responds to License Modification
Contributed by dwc on Sat Sep 1 04:16:36 2007 (GMT)
from the sharing-is-caring dept.

Theo de Raadt wrote a response (on misc@) to the recent licensing issues.

List:       openbsd-misc
Subject:    That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From:       Theo de Raadt
Date:       2007-09-01 1:40:52

[bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him]

I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because
Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux
people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him
pause, so his team could work.  Honestly, I was greatly troubled by
the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other
Linux developers advice to ... break the law.  And furthermore, there
are even greater potential risks for how the various communities
interact.

For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).

It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document.  If there are multiple owners/authors,
they must all agree.  A person who receives the file under two
licenses can use the file in either way....  but if they distribute
the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the
existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have
statements which say that the license may not be removed.

Please see the Read More link for the entire message. It's worth your time.

Yes, we're starting at the beginning to get it in one shot, as written. So sue me.

List:       openbsd-misc
Subject:    That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From:       Theo de Raadt
Date:       2007-09-01 1:40:52

[bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him]

I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because
Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux
people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him
pause, so his team could work.  Honestly, I was greatly troubled by
the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other
Linux developers advice to ... break the law.  And furthermore, there
are even greater potential risks for how the various communities
interact.

For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change
the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that
conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157).

It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document.  If there are multiple owners/authors,
they must all agree.  A person who receives the file under two
licenses can use the file in either way....  but if they distribute
the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the
existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have
statements which say that the license may not be removed.

It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either
license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is
still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal
document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may
not be removed.  Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual
licensed, every time it is distributed.

Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to
communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what
they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level.  I think that
Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this
leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level,
a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers).
And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the
larger open source communities who are writing applications.

Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since
time is running out on people's memory, I am making one.  Also, I feel
that a lot of Linux "relicencing" meme-talkin' trolls basically have
attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to
say something public about this.

In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize
what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a
modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the
authors.  Alan asks "So whats the problem ?".  Well, Alan, I must
caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law.

I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been
taught, how one must handle such licenses:

- If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license
  you don't like and then distribute it.  It has to stay, because you
  may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal
  document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL).

- If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the
  license.  Same principle, since the notice says so.  It's the law.
  Really.

- If you add "large pieces of originality" to the code which are valid
  for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different
  and seperate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file
  above the existing license.

    (Warning: things become less clear as to what the combination of
    licenses mean, though -- there are ethical traps, too).

- If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back.

  That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do
  not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you
  would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file:

     "Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
     us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back.  screw off."

In either case, I think a valuable lessons has been taught us here in
the BSD world -- there are many many GPL loving people who are going
to try to find any way to not give back and share (I will mention one
name: Luis Rodriguez has been a fanatic pushing us for dual licensed,
and I feel he is to blame for this particular problem).  Many of those
same people have been saying for years that BSD code can be stolen,
and that is why people should GPL their code.

Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the
GPL their best tool to take from us!

GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would
take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back.  Nope -- the great
problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and
lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock
us out.  Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving
us code back, all the time.  But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get
it back.

Ironic.

I hope some people in the GPL community will give that some thought.
Your license may benefit you, but you could lose friends you need.
The GPL users have an opportunity to 'develop community', to keep an
ethic of sharing alive.

If the Linux developers wrap GPL's around things we worked very hard
on, it will definately not be viewed as community development.

Thank you for thinking about this.

[I ask that one person make sure that one copy of this ends up on the
linux kernel mailing list]
[topicopenbsd]

<< OpenBSD Plextor install via serial console | Reply | Flattened | Expanded | OpenBSD Calls for Cooperation >>

Threshold: Help

Related Links
more by dwc


  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -20/78)
by openbsd user (74.235.39.149) on Sat Sep 1 05:27:21 2007 (GMT)
  Am I dreaming ? What is the GCC ? G++ ? and more ? Not giving what ? Money ? I think things are off track here. Theo check the copyright on most of your programming books. Check the origin of BSD. That all started before you were born. Look if you want to operate a business and you fear the GPL don't shoot it down. I don't see Stallman living the "rich" life. Do you ? I think once you sell out it is over.

Go watch web-O-vision at tomgreen.com and chill out my friend.

Rod Ross (you can find me if you want me )
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -13/37)
by openbsd user (74.235.10.100) on Sat Sep 1 12:00:16 2007 (GMT)
  Hi Adam,

> Please take a moment and review http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html before trolling. If you would like assistance in understanding this, I would be happy to explain to you OpenBSD's copyright policy as well as copyright law.
>
> The matter is not who gave money to whom; OpenBSD is not a business.


I am sorry but I disagree with you here. Please tell me what classification openbsd falls under ? Even a public trust is a business and must keep books.

>I know of no OpenBSD developer living the "rich life." Do you have any >facts to the contrary or are you just making blind accusations?


I never said OpenBSD developers were living the rich life. I was just making it clear that the heads within the fsf are not getting rich. My statement was not directed toward OpenBSD developers but rather to make a point that Stallman is not living a "rich" life but rather is more concerned with social issues see his political notes web page on his personal web site.


>Do you think that attacking the BSD community makes the GPL look >better?


I am part of the BSD user community. I have been using a BSD form of OS since my first computer was an AT&T 3B-1.


>Do you think that unlawfully stealing BSD code which could have been >used legally makes the GPL a much more feasible solution for businesses >that are thinking of going Open Source?
>


My point was not to endorse stealing anything. And I think stealing is a very strong word. I wrote to Stallman more than a year ago when I read on one of the mailing lists where Theo was critical of the GPL. Stallman had nothing but praise for the Newer BSD licenses. He did not shoot it down. This is why I don't understand Theo taking the stance he is. If someone is "breaking the law" that is one thing but to extenuate that the GPL is the bad guy when it is just a license is wrong.

> I'm not trying to start a flame war, which it appears you are. All I would like to do is clear up the facts for you. Have a good one.

I am sorry if you feel I was trying to cause trouble. I simply am saddened that Theo would draw a line like he has because I don't see the GPL or BSD licenses as evil. Is this really what Theo thinks that Stallman and others with him think they would say ? This is what Theo said they might say:

"Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."

Again I think that personal emails such as these belong off this site. I did not write his email and so why should I read it here ? I think that once one man has more voice than the sum of the group then problems arise.

You know the GPL is just a license not a group. And personally I have no problem with it. I also have no problems with the BSD license. I just hope that the law breakers will stop breaking the law. But we must remember that most all code has been written into even text books from which it was first learned and those books are copyrighted.

Take Care....
Cheers,
Rod Ross
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  gplssh (mod -12/26)
by dingo (70.8.121.180) on Sat Sep 1 13:58:27 2007 (GMT)
  What if ssh were gpl licensed?

Scary, isn't it?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]
      Re: gplssh (-5/15) by Martin Schröder on Sat Sep 1 14:09:55 2007 (GMT)

  Philosophical Problems With Changing a License (mod 6/32)
by Tom Brown (208.101.168.53) on Sat Sep 1 14:18:56 2007 (GMT)
  I'm just an observer here, with no axe to grind on either the GPL or the BSD side, but it seems to me that the proponents of the GPL do so in the interest of freedom. The goal is to share with others in the community any changes that are made for the benefit of all. This laudable goal is at odds with the business model of proprietary software. But, if removing the BSD half of a dual license is acceptable, how is it that these GPL proponents are any better than the proprietary software vendors they're criticizing?

IMHO, if they do not wish to give their changes back to the BSD community, they shouldn't use the dual licensed code in the first place. They should write their own, from scratch. IANAL, so I don't know if changing the license is legal or not, but it certainly isn't the right thing to do. If somebody's willing to gave you a hand up, you don't respond by smacking them in the face afterwards.

I know there is a lot of bad blood between BSD and GPL programmers, but the change that was made to the license was just wrong on so many levels. Those on both sides need to acknowledge that fact, and move on in an amicable fashion.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  What's wrong with these people? (mod 1/29)
by Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on Sat Sep 1 14:26:20 2007 (GMT)
  From http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157 - if I understand this correctly, he basically took 'free' code (BSD) and made it 'semi-free' code (GPL) and by removing the BSD clause, he's trying to take all the credit too???

What's wrong with this guy? Has he no ethical morals and respect for others work? Has he not taken a shower in months?

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183 - Alan is no better, IMO...
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -5/25)
by Andrés Delfino (201.212.220.34) (adelfino@gmail.com) on Sat Sep 1 14:52:34 2007 (GMT)
  http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/usr.bin/sendbug/sendbug.c?rev=1.50&content-type=text/plain

/*
* Written by Ray Lai <ray@cyth.net>.
* Public domain.
*/

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

  Simple question: can you use dual licensed code in closed source binaries? (mod -2/20)
by Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on Sat Sep 1 15:27:54 2007 (GMT)
  This simple question cuts to the heart of the matter: do you believe you cannot use dual GPL/BSD licensed code in closed source binaries without releasing the source? Because that's the obvious implication if you believe that for dual licensed code you must satisfy the conditions of both licenses. Think about this, this would make dual licensed code more restrictive than either GPL or BSD licensed code.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -3/33)
by Stig Kristiansen (84.208.125.93) (stig@srk-holding.com) on Sat Sep 1 16:35:18 2007 (GMT)
  IANAL: But what Theo de Raadt wrote here got to be the biggest pseudo legal bullshit I have ever read.

As I said I'm not a lawyer but I spoken with our company's lawyers about this (the legal firm is specializing in copyright, brand and patent law) and this is basically what they told me:

There is nothing in the law that prevents you from removing one of the licenses (either BSD or (L)GPL) from a dual licensed work.

The only thing the law prevents you from - is to copy someones else's work without a license (any license will do), hence the word copyright.

If the author(s) said, preferably in writing somewhere, that you can use either of the licenses then that is fine and just what you can do.

Which means if you use the choose the GPL license you have to live with the consequences (must open source derivative works).

On the other hand if you choose the BSD you can ignore the GPL and even use the product in a commercial closed source program. But then you cannot remove the license from any source files and have to reproduce it somewhere in a binary distribution (manual, about-box, readme or similar). This is because the BSD license require you to do so to give credit to the original authors, NOT because any law tells you to.

Please note that the law does not require you to follow the BSD license or any other specific license, it only require you to have a valid license to copy the work in question. This means you are only bound by the license in order to copy the work and if the author offers the choice between multiple licenses where you can choose one, then you can completely ignore any other.

If Mr. Theo De Raadt can produce any law text or references to legal precedents that says other ways I would really like to hear about it.

Going a bit off on a tangent:

Mr. Theo also writes:

<quote>
That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do
not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you
would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file:

"Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give
us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off."
</quote>

Well guess what, that is EXACTLY what the BSD license allows you to do. It is even by design.

The only thing the BSD license requires, is that you give credit to whoever wrote the original stuff. You can even close source a derivative work like Microsoft did with their TCP/IP stack. Guess where they lifted that from the day they discovered they needed one. Hint the credit is in a text file on the setup CD's, at least it used to be in Windows 2000.

The fact is that this was exactly what the writers of the BSD license had in mind, they obviously meant that source code is only free if you can do whatever you damn well please with it. The GPL guys disagreed and created the GPL.

If you cannot live with the consequences of your choice of source code license please choose another one and stop bitching about it! The GPL was in fact created to address that fact among other things.

Mr. Theo de Raadt seems to be quite ignorant about both the licenses he writes about and copyright law in general.

Best regards,
Stig R Kristiansen
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -11/23)
by Anonymous Coward (24.79.147.136) on Sat Sep 1 19:47:03 2007 (GMT)
  Dual licensed files:
I don't know how many times it has to be repeated, but the point of dual-licensing is that you can follow either one. If one requires you to do action A, and the other requires action B that is fine. You are not required to keep both simultaneously, or it would be pointless. Therefore regardless of what you may say, or ethically appeal to the license allows you to choose a license, and by extension, because one of those licenses doesn't permit extra terms(GPL), therefore you can remove the BSD license. This is not tampering but following of the license(s)!

Non-dual licensed files:
These must remain under a BSD license, quite simply. These files should be marked and rewritten if necessary under the GPL, or the original copyright owners could relicense the files as being under both licenses(BSD & GPL).

BTW: It seems that Theo doesn't read comments, and that the community is a bunch of flamers and it is quite lame. I'm never trying OpenBSD, because I really don't want to get involved in idiotic repetitious nuttery. It seems like a publicity stunt at best, but now I'm never going to contribute financially to OpenBSD, because I'm not giving money to closed-minded illiterates.

BTW, the title in Slashdot is deceiving and the description, he didn't think about the issue and give a well-informed response, he just repeated his ignorance.

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

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod 0/18)
by Anonymous Coward (86.16.156.42) on Sat Sep 1 19:53:19 2007 (GMT)
  This still doesn't answer the fundamental question: (*)

If *both* licenses are required, but they're not compatible with each other, how can dual-licensing actually work at all?

The GPL and BSD licenses have contradictory clauses. They *cannot* be in operation at the same time on the same piece of code. Therefore, how can you be bound by both of them?


The thing is, that if this code is bound by both licenses in the way that Theo has claimed here, that would mean if it's used in the BSD world, it would have to include the GPL license... which surely makes it incompatible here as well, even before the Linux people started working with it?

The only answer I can see is that the author intended to allow either license to be used, at the discretion of the user. The other license, is therefore irrelevant. The user should still be able to distribute it with the package (to allow users further down the line to also make the same choice) if he chooses, and as long as it doesn't contradict any other licenses in place, but he doesn't have to do so -- once you've chosen your license, that's the only one you have to be bound by or redistribute, as long as the license you've chosen doesn't say anything about retaining the other.

Either dual-licensing allows you to pick one or other license as you see fit, or else the whole concept of dual-licensing (at least as it applies to GPL+BSD) is impossible.



(*) fundamental question == the question that is bugging me about this whole sorry saga.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  BSD in proprietary (mod -3/19)
by Alex T (80.7.100.176) on Sat Sep 1 23:19:29 2007 (GMT)
  Err BSD gets used in commercial things with no one seeing it but if people use the GPL license option in a dual situation they are expected to hand it back in BSD license form. That makes no sense as people choosing the GPL will be usually choosing it in preference to the BSD in order to not have their work disappear into the black hole of commercial realms.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -8/24)
by Harry Johnston (203.173.174.226) on Sun Sep 2 00:42:38 2007 (GMT)
  The core of Theo's argument seems to be this:

"It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document."

I'm not aware of any law that requires you to retain copyright notices in a derivative work, unless the license under which you create the derivative work requires you to do so.

If Theo (or anyone else) *is* aware of such a law they should say so, and reference the exact legislation. Otherwise this argument is just FUD.

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

  Why no facts? (mod -10/22)
by Anonymous Coward (213.112.89.52) on Sun Sep 2 10:14:23 2007 (GMT)
  Why does Theo post these opinions of his and masquerade it as facts? I honesty believe he is wrong, but IANAL of course, and since he does not present the reasoning behind his opinions there is nothing for me to critisize or discuss.

Is he not interested in getting his point across? Or is his ego simply so big that he thinks his opinions ARE the facts? Either way, it is with sadness I see OpenBSD become more and more marginalized, since I use it a lot and deeply respect the freedom it stands for.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -6/16)
by Leonardo Rodrigues (201.88.87.66) on Sun Sep 2 18:51:25 2007 (GMT)
  This was posted on misc@ by Gregg Reynolds
It actually points to laws.

On 9/2/07, Dave Anderson <dave@daveanderson.com> wrote:

> IIRC this is true for any country which has adopted the Berne
> Convention, which is currently almost every country which has any
> copyright law in place. It includes the U.S.

Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't
be bothered to check facts on their own, here's the relevant text
(http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html):

"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in
fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately
becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the
author or those deriving their rights through the author can
rightfully claim copyright...

"The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently
misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the
Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.

"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law,
... Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public
that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright
owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the
event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright
appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a
copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given
to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent
infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages..."

"Copyright is a personal property right,..."

"Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any
subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of
exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and
signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly
authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not
require a written agreement."

"Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract..."

"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to
make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright.
However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection..."

I had thought that the only remedy against infringement is legal
action by the injured party. Law enforcement doesn't get involved,
normally, since it's a civil matter. However, it turns out that isn't
quite true. Check this out
(http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html):

"(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent
intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the
same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with
fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public
distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person
knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500."

"(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with
fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing
on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500."

That's criminal infringement, folks. A federal crime.

From which we can conclude, among other things:

1) appearance of the copyright _notice_ on BSD or any other code is
irrelevant. The creator owns the copyright from the get-go. Removing
a copyright notice has no legal effect, although it's easy to imagine
a practical effect, to wit, a good lawyer could use it to show malice
and win a larger settlement. Although it's possible that licensing
terms affect this; this is where we should all shut up and ask Real
Lawyers.

2) nonexclusive transfer of rights is "normally" a matter of
contract law; however, my understanding is whether software licensing
falls under contract law is a murky area in the law right now.

3) the original author of the code in question might well be able
to seek criminal charges against the people who removed the license.

This "Rui" is obviously a troll; can we please stop taking the bait
and bring this thread to a close?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -8/18)
by Ricardo (200.44.87.123) on Mon Sep 3 23:31:27 2007 (GMT)
  It is WRONG to assume that you in dual-license code you're "free" to
choose one license and ignore the other.
Then it would be possible to circumvent the BSD license just by modifying
the code a little, add the GPL license and then strip the BSD one.

My sympathy for Theo for naming things like it is because it's called
stealing...
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo Responds to License Modification (mod -3/19)
by Petrus (202.7.176.130) on Thu Sep 6 01:30:54 2007 (GMT)
  From a lot of what I've seen, the belief that exists in the minds of most GPL zealots (and I'm also guessing Eben Moglen himself, privately if not publically) is that the GPL is the only license with the inherent right to exist at all. These people also feel that they have a moral duty to relicense everything possible under the GPL.

I really worry about how the BSDs and the BSD license can survive, since I've seen a lot of sentiment expressed by GPL advocates that suggests that they would like to see it erradicated entirely. I used to read Slashdot myself a lot, but recently it's become a lot more difficult to, because I am honestly caused an enormous amount of emotional pain by what seems to be the predominant attitude among GPL advocates and Linux users. They seem to be dominated by fear, anger, bitterness, and a desire to utterly destroy anything which deviates in any way from the dictates of Richard Stallman. It's actually caused me to feel that I need to distance myself from using open source in general, and I get the feeling that the recent resurgence of the FSF, and the release of the GPL 3 has caused a lot of other people to feel the same way; I don't think I'm the only one.

The one thing I truly wish I had the technical knowledge to do is write another C compiler, because then from what I've read it would be possible for a form of open source UNIX to exist that could be genuinely divorced from the FSF entirely. Unfortunately however, I don't...I wouldn't even know where to begin...and so the only real option for someone who feels as strongly opposed to the FSF as I do is to walk away from using open source in general.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  It's not dual licensed. Never has been. (mod -3/19)
by Bob Beck (129.128.11.43) (beck@openbsd.org) on Thu Sep 13 21:23:44 2007 (GMT)
 
A whole bunch of people are trolling away here over dual licensing.
That's sam leffler's code, which is *not* the issue because sam leffler has given his permission to relicense it under the gpl. without that, that would not be legal.

Reyk's code however, is not dual licensed. Lots of people keep spouting
off about dual licensing, and it's bunk. Go read reyk's post to lkml on the subject. Reyk has never said his code is dual licensed. period.

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

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

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