OpenBSD Journal
Home : : Add Story : : Archives : : About : : Create Account : : Login :
Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code
Contributed by dwc on Thu Sep 13 03:55:24 2007 (GMT)
from the see-reason dept.

Anonymous Coward writes:

KernelTrap has an interesting article in which Theo de Raadt discusses the legal implications of the recent relicensing of OpenBSD's BSD licensed Atheros driver under the GPL. De Raadt says, "it has been like pulling teeth since (most) Linux wireless guys and the SFLC do not wish to admit fault. I think that the Linux wireless guys should really think hard about this problem, how they look, and the legal risks they place upon the future of their source code bodies." He stressed that the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false, adding, "'in their zeal to get the code under their own license, some of these Linux wireless developers have broken copyright law repeatedly. But to even get to the point where they broke copyright law, they had to bypass a whole series of ethical considerations too."

From: Theo de Raadt
Subject: Further developments regarding the Atheros driver
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:08 -0600

Reyk and I have decided to show something from the private handling of
this Atheros copyright violation issue. It has been like pulling teeth
since (most) Linux wireless guys and the SFLC do not wish to admit
fault.  I think that the Linux wireless guys should really think hard
about this problem, how they look, and the legal risks they place upon
the future of their source code bodies.  There are lessons to be
learned here -- be cautious because there is no such thing this
"relicensing" meme that your user community spreads.

In their zeal to get the code under their own license, some of these
Linux wireless developers have broken copryright law repeatedly.  But
to even get to the point where they broke copyright law, they had to
bypass a whole series of ethical considerations too.

I believe these people have received bogus advice from Eben Moglen
regarding how copyright law actually works in a global setting.
Perhaps the internationally based developers should rethink their
approach of taking advice from a US-based lawyer who apparently knows
nothing about the Berne Convention.  Furthermore, those developers are
getting advice freely from ex-FSF people who have formed an agency
with an agenda.  Some have suggested that the SFLC was formed to avoid
smearing the FSF with dirt whenever the SFLC does something risky.
Don't get trampled; there could be penalties besides looking unethical
and guilty.  Be really cautious, especially with things like this
coming to mess with our communities:
    http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8560536106.html

Below, you can find a mail was sent by me (in consultation with Reyk)
on Sep 5 to various people in the Linux wireless developer community
and their advisors in the SFLC.  Inside that message, you can find
another message from Sep 1 that they never replied to.

On Sep 5 there was finally a reply from Eben Moglen, but it added
nothing constructive to the process, except that Eben Moglen admitted
that the Linux developer's had done an "Adaptation"; I will show one
particular sub-sentence from Eben's reply mail:

    "we wish to secure as much of the work done to adapt Reyk's
    code for use with the Linux kernel as the authors will
    permit, [...]"

I don't think Eben wanted to say that.  In copyright law, the word
"adapt" has a very clear meaning.

From our perspective, we see the SFLC giving bad advice three times to
(some subset of) the Linux wireless developers (who they call their
"clients", after apparently more than a year of consultation):

The first advice given by the SFLC resulted in Luis, Jiri, and Nick
simply replacing Reyk's ISC license with the GPL around large parts of
Reyk's code in various repositories.  (Let us not concern ourselves
with Sam's code for now).  That occurred roughly around August 25.
Our developers have cloned those public/published repositories, though
some of them have now been taken offline by the developers who
operated them.

The second advice given by the SFLC was that a GPL can be wrapped
around another author's work.  That advice was re-posted by John
Linville on Sep 5 at http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/ but it
unfortunately says nothing about _when_ an author of a derivative
receives the right to do such a thing.  The SFLC waives that concern
away.  But that is the clincher -- by law, a new person doing small
changes to an original work is not allowed to assert copyright, and
hence, gains none of the rights given by copyright law, and hence,
cannot assert a license (copyright licenses surrender a subset of the
author's rights which the law gives them; the licenses do not not
assert rights out of thin air).

You can see this 'relicensing approach' is still published in files in
the repository at http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k, for
instance see http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k/ath5k_phy.c.
This repository has also been cloned by some of our developers to show
proof of publishing.

Then my mail (shown below) arrived at the SFLC.  There has been one
reply from Eben to that mail, as noted above.  Naturally I am tempted
to show more mails...

It appears that the mail I sent had some effect; because it seems that
the developers received new advice from SFLC -- a third approach.
Linville did not even follow what he re-posted from the SFLC on the
5th, but took an even more conservative approach.  The Linville
repository replaced Jiri's repository (which Jiri disconnected), and
all of Reyk's original work now appeared with only an ISC license as
Reyk had it.  In this case Nick and Jiri have been added as co-owners
of the copyright, though.

    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=blob;f=drive \
rs/n%20%5Cet/wireless/ath5k_hw.c;h=07ad1278b39037caf68825cabcf9469db059dfc8;hb=everyth \
ing

    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drive \
rs/n%20\et/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything

Those files are still invalidly being distributed -- Nick and Jiri did
not proveably do enough original work to earn copyright on a
derivative work, since their work is just an adaptation.  It is in
their best interest to talk to the original author in respectful tones
and have him recognize their work.  A lawyer like Eben Moglen will not
help at this point since his misrepresentations have caused all this
grief to begin with.

Now it may seem petty to be pointing out the above, but these Linux
wireless developers have ignored the ethical considerations of
honouring the author for his work, and then violated the law _3 times_
under advice from a ex-FSF laywer.  Come on.  By that point someone
should at least be offering the author an apology, and who cares if it
makes the lawyer look like he's incompetent.  The only thing he is
competent at is convincing a bunch of programmers to follow his agenda
and walk into a legal mess.

If those developers who live in Europe want a court case in the EU
where the original author lives, they should perhaps consider that an
American lawyer who has made three bogus assessments in a row
regarding a criminal code won't be able to help them in that
jurisdiction.  Furthermore, the American developers involved should
recognize that copyright law cases decided in one country apply to
other countries.

By the way, Richard Stallman eventually replied with the one liner
"The FSF is not involved in this dispute."

-----------

To: Eben Moglen 
cc: norwood@softwarefreedom.org, bkuhn@softwarefreedom.org,
        fontana@softwarefreedom.org, karen@softwarefreedom.org,
        mcgrof@gmail.com, jirislaby@gmail.com, mickflemm@gmail.com,
        rms@gnu.org
cc: reyk@cvs.openbsd.org
cc: jeremy@kerneltrap.org
Subject: Re: Derivative Works test 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:17:55 MDT."
             <200709012017.l81KHtX8030094@cvs.openbsd.org> 
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:59:06 -0600
From: Theo de Raadt 

Greetings,

I see that the Linux wireless developers and the SFLC have not replied
to my previous mail (perhaps suspecting this shields them in some
way), so I include it below, so that you have a second chance to read
it.  There is still time for you to do what is right.

Now that the files can be found in a PUBLISHED repository, some people
are now reading the files of Reyk's which you have wrapped a GPL
license around.  Since it is a published repository, it is obviously
no longer a proposition.  Publication has perhaps occured.

That repository is at

	http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k

We have made copies of this repository, so there is no need to rush
and take it down.

At first glance those changes sure looks like a translation to Linux,
a re-edit for formatting, and it looks like the "authors" add
basically nothing that can be considered original authorship, and thus
nothing makes this a derivative work valid for placing a new copyright
around.  Since you prefer to view these things from a US viewpoint,
I will point you at a document you are more familiar with:

	http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

In particular, note this part of a paragraph:

    To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough
    from the original to be regarded as a new work or must contain a
    substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or
    additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify
    the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material
    must be original and copyrightable in itself.

And, note further:

    The copyright in a derivative work covers only the additions, changes,
    or other new material appearing for the first time in the work. It
    does not extend to any preexisting material and does not imply a
    copyright in that material.

Furthermore, I urge you to understand that Reyk is a German citizen,
and that Germany (like the rest of the world outside the US) impliments
the Berne convention much more strictly than the US does, including in
particular these details which come under the subsection of Moral Rights.
German law would apply in this case, because that is where Reyk
would file against the Linux developers in question.

Some of those files which have had a GPL placed on them are Reyk's
work, with basically only a few small editorial changes, and then a
GPL placed at the top.  That is not legal, and we ask you stop
distributing them immediately.  I suspect that you are being misled
by the SFLC in legal matters, perhaps because some of you have not
given the SFLC the true facts about how minor your changes are, or
perhaps because the SFLC has an agenda.

I think that a further study by you and the SFLC will convince you
that the changes do not create an original work, and thus, are not
acceptable for assertion of copyright.

I sure hope that you are not making a mistake of placing a copyright
on something in an illegal fashion.  There are penalties, and Linux
will suffer greatly from the PR.

I urge you to reply.


> Linux wireless developers, SoftwareFreedom, and a welcome too
> Richard.
> 
> Regarding http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
> 
> 1.  Are you prepared to go to court to test if the work you
> have done lets you put copyright on those files?  Your
> contribution is, we must all agree, rather small compared
> to Reyk's considerable reverse engineering and
> authorship contribution.
> 
> I will remind you of:
> 
> 	http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#derivat
> 
> But please be aware that the authors of the work live in various
> countries, in particular Reyk lives in Germany.
> 
> 2.  Have you read and taken to heart the following paragraph from the
> GPL?
> 
> 	For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
> 	gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
> 	you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
> 	source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
> 	rights.
> 
> Why do you not pass the rights you have on to your brother you got
> it from?  Is that not the road to fanaticism?
> 
> 3.  Would you like to reconsider the monopolistic and anti-community
> action you are taking by appropriating a large body of BSD licensed
> code gotten from your brother in the community, and purposefully
> not giving back to your brother?  Or are you that greedy?
> 
> 
> Please let me know, so that I can proceed.  It appears that we have
> offers for legal representation in Germany.
> 
> I would be happy if you changed your mind based on any of the points
> above, you don't need to accept them all.  You can decide that you are
> (1) unwilling to participate in a court case, (2) believe in your own
> ethos, or (3) generous and sharing members of this planet and
> community.
> 
> Thank you for your rapid attention to this mail.
[topicopenbsd]

<< OpenBSD IPv6 Security Audit | Reply | Flattened | Collapsed | Mergemaster Tutorial >>

Threshold: Help

Related Links
more by dwc


  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 7/43)
by Jeremy Huiskamp (kamper) on Thu Sep 13 01:56:55 2007 (GMT)
  I know it's Reyk's code and he can do what he likes and I trust him and Theo to have the legal details correct, but geez does it ever suck to see open source people talk about suing each other. What a mess!
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 13/39)
by Anonymous Coward (74.13.33.74) on Thu Sep 13 02:53:33 2007 (GMT)
  > I know it's Reyk's code and he can do what he likes and I trust him and Theo to have the legal details correct, but geez does it ever suck to see open source people talk about suing each other. What a mess!

I think it's worse that people were just ignoring other people's rights, the suing is just the after effect of the real bad bit.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 3/39)
by Anonymous Coward (74.97.138.10) on Thu Sep 13 03:32:03 2007 (GMT)
  > I know it's Reyk's code and he can do what he likes and I trust him and Theo to have the legal details correct, but geez does it ever suck to see open source people talk about suing each other. What a mess!

The open source community as a whole is being played. This is an attack of the divide and rule variety. We mustn't forget who's who here. Jiri Slaby didn't understand the consequences of what he was doing. His advisers did.

We don't need to play that game.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 5/33)
by Bob Beck (68.148.128.240) (beck@openbsd.org) on Thu Sep 13 04:07:10 2007 (GMT)
  > I know it's Reyk's code and he can do what he likes and I trust him and Theo to have the legal details correct, but geez does it ever suck to see open source people talk about suing each other. What a mess!

I think it's a mess too, but the fact is if people are not going to respect the copyright under which we release our work. what other recourse do you have? Ideally, seeing as how even *corporate* users of BSD code
have shown time and time again over the years that they can respect it, You would think that most other free software projects would have no problem with this. If you don't do something about it, what stops it the next time?

Notwithstanding the illegalities, I think it's appaling that those wishing to work on Linux and make BSD code run there (which I applaud)
can't understand that wrapping a GPL around it would not be hostile. They know perfectly well that means that BSD can't take it back. Why on earth,
ethicly, would you hand someone an olive branch to say "work with me! thanks - let's do some common good" - and then stab them in the back like that. That is the real damage to the community.




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

         
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 2/24)
by Jeremy Huiskamp (kamper) on Thu Sep 13 04:34:16 2007 (GMT)
  > what other recourse do you have?

I don't know and frankly, I'm glad I'm not the one in the position to decide. I was just offering a general lament (maybe a bit too much of stating-the-obvious), not saying whether or not there should be legal action.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -5/27)
by JD (24.37.242.64) on Thu Sep 13 04:37:38 2007 (GMT)
  According to this link: git.kernel.org

Seems they just add their names and take credit at will or is this fair play for both sides?

If not, and as one person posted on kerneltrap.org, isn't this indeed a form of plagiarism - or is this now the right track to a fair and mutual solution?

Just a question, I'm curious is all - and from what I've read, I'm totally with Theo - if I can donate a little more to help with all this, I will, but hopefully neither side wastes time getting lawyers involved for something the Linux/GPL folks should simply respect, appreciate and understand as Theo has pointed out several times.

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

           
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 1/21)
by Anonymous Coward (74.235.10.190) on Tue Sep 25 06:33:31 2007 (GMT)
  > According to this link: git.kernel.org
>
> Seems they just add their names and take credit at will or is this fair play for both sides?
>
> If not, and as one person posted on kerneltrap.org, isn't this indeed a form of plagiarism - or is this now the right track to a fair and mutual solution?
>
> Just a question, I'm curious is all - and from what I've read, I'm totally with Theo - if I can donate a little more to help with all this, I will, but hopefully neither side wastes time getting lawyers involved for something the Linux/GPL folks should simply respect, appreciate and understand as Theo has pointed out several times.
>
Are you kidding me ? Over half of the software in OpenBSD is GPL ! I am sick of people spreading lies. Mr Beck you try to evoke a divide one more time and I am off change what runs OpenBSD here to NetBSD and OpenBSD can write the "Theo" license or whatever the hell they want to call it. I already have NetBSD computers here so it would be no problem and less BS from people spreading FUD like saying they would never write any GPL code etc. If you don't like the GPL then remove the code and you will not have a running computer ! I don't see the camps You and Theo speak of ? I see licenses and a bunch of brats arguing with lawyers.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Quick Recap... (mod 13/41)
by Darrin Chandler (dwc) (dwchandler@stilyagin.com) on Thu Sep 13 03:21:07 2007 (GMT)
http://www.stilyagin.com/darrin/
  For those of you joining us late, Theo de Raadt has summed up the situation to date in a concise posting to misc@
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Quick Recap... (mod -5/27)
by Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on Thu Sep 13 03:54:01 2007 (GMT)
  > For those of you joining us late, Theo de Raadt has summed up the situation to date in a

Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the year 2047.

hehe... Was this a sarcastic remark or is he serious?

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

         
Re: Quick Recap... (mod 0/26)
by Joel Sing (4a6f656c) on Thu Sep 13 08:57:10 2007 (GMT)
joel.sing.id.au
  > For those of you joining us late, Theo de Raadt has summed up the situation to date in a
>
> Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
> year 2047.
>
> hehe... Was this a sarcastic remark or is he serious?
>

I imagine he is serious. IANAL, however there would be a Statute of Limitations that would apply and any legal proceedings would need to be commenced inside a specific timeframe. That said, I can't find the Statute of Limitations that would apply in this case...
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 4/38)
by Anonymous Coward (71.140.107.53) on Thu Sep 13 03:22:06 2007 (GMT)
  There's an appropriate statement on KernelTrap that I'd like to repeat here, just to stop all the FUD before the flood:

Theo is just trying to make things right. Teach the Linux developers that a license must be respected and the source code __MUST__ have the BSD copyright if it is not significantly changed.

Theo is not trying to remove code, he's just trying to convince them to agree with the license.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 1/27)
by Eduardo Alvarenga (201.87.30.191) on Thu Sep 13 04:05:44 2007 (GMT)
  Nice to see my comment agreed by others :-)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -1/25)
by Bernd (129.132.105.166) on Thu Sep 13 07:55:57 2007 (GMT)
  > Theo is just trying to make things right. Teach the Linux developers that a license must be respected and the source code __MUST__ have the BSD copyright if it is not significantly changed.

Ok, but what is the point in the 'ath5k_hw.c' case? Why is this a violation? Even for small, insignificant changes, it must be possible for the creator of these changes to claim copyright. Every change to some code starts small. Should the author duplicate the BSD license with his/her/its name? What a waste of bandwidth.

BTW, Theo also seems not to be really firm with international copyright law. For example, he completely forgets the fact that copyright does not need to be claimed in Germany. If you did something, you have the copyright to it. No claiming necessary. Thus, if somebody changes somethings to a BSD licensed file, but does not put himself into the BSD clause, he actually gives no permissions about his changes to anyone. Thus, nobody is allowed to do anything with the resulting product without explicit concent from the author.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 8/28)
by Theo de Raadt (199.185.137.1) on Thu Sep 13 08:18:26 2007 (GMT)
  > Ok, but what is the point in the 'ath5k_hw.c' case? Why is this a violation?

Here goes:

> Even for small, insignificant changes, it must be possible for the creator of these changes to claim copyright.

That is absolutely false. Please do the minimum of research. Small, insignificant changes do not get you copyright. Only an original work gets you copyright -- the laws are very clear.

There is one side case specifically described in the laws called a derivative work (where you use parts of something else by another author) -- in that case you only qualify for copyright if your work is in the majority. There are other nasty cases with derived works; it is hard to get copyright on derived works. The Linux port of this code is not a derived work since Reyk's contribution (figuring out the entire chipset and writing a set of code which controls it) is much larger than the rather editorial process of adaptation to Linux.

> Every change to some code starts small. Should the author duplicate the BSD license with his/her/its name? What a waste of bandwidth.

Too bad. It is the law. If you don't like the law, don't use the author's original work.

> BTW, Theo also seems not to be really firm with international copyright law.

I have a way firmer grasp of international copyright law than you because I spent many hours poring over the Berne Convention, the relevant parts of TRIPS, and also the copyright laws of 3 countries.
You appear to not even have used wikipedia to read summaries of the laws. wikipedia does have links to these sources if you ever decide to take the time to actually learn (before you speak).

> For example, he completely forgets the fact that copyright does not need to be claimed in Germany. If you did something, you have the copyright to it.

No, if you "do something" you do not get copyright on it. It must be original. If it includes parts of other author's work, then the original parts must be greater. Otherwise there is no copyright on the material, and the changed parts belong TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. There are various legal tests to determine if you can copyright it, and hence, gain the right to set your own terms.

> No claiming necessary.

You do not need to assert copyright. But an uncopyrightable derivation does not belong to the new person who is tweaking it. It falls under the existing author's copyright and his license. The new person making small changes does not qualify for copyright.

> Thus, if somebody changes somethings to a BSD licensed file, but does not put himself into the BSD clause, he actually gives no permissions about his changes to anyone. Thus, nobody is allowed to do anything with the resulting product without explicit concent from the author.

Wow, you really do have a very inventive mind. All it needs is a good dose of actual research time.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -6/26)
by Bernd Schoeller (129.132.105.166) on Thu Sep 13 13:42:52 2007 (GMT)
  > > Ok, but what is the point in the 'ath5k_hw.c' case? Why is this a violation?
>
> Here goes:
>
> > Even for small, insignificant changes, it must be possible for the creator of these changes to claim copyright.
>
> That is absolutely false. Please do the minimum of research. Small, insignificant changes do not get you copyright. Only an original work gets you copyright -- the laws are very clear.

I assume that you are talking about "Threshold of originality". As far as German courts go, this can be very low. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/ wireless-dev.git;a=commitdiff;h=d8a285c8f83f728be2d056e6d4b0909972789d51 do probably already qualify. In Germany, the question of the amount of change is not relevant, but if it could be reproduced by a machine or is a derivation of a template. The "Sweat of the Brow" is not applied in Germany.

Even if a court would decide differently, there is no problem of claiming copyright on a piece of software that one modified. If the threshold of originality is contested, courts can decide later.

[...]

> > BTW, Theo also seems not to be really firm with international copyright law.
>
> I have a way firmer grasp of international copyright law than you because I spent many hours poring over the Berne Convention, the relevant parts of TRIPS, and also the copyright laws of 3 countries.
> You appear to not even have used wikipedia to read summaries of the laws. wikipedia does have links to these sources if you ever decide to take the time to actually learn (before you speak).

I am sorry to have offended you. I excuse myself for that statement.

> > For example, he completely forgets the fact that copyright does not need to be claimed in Germany. If you did something, you have the copyright to it.
>
> No, if you "do something" you do not get copyright on it. It must be original. If it includes parts of other author's work, then the original parts must be greater. Otherwise there is no copyright on the material, and the changed parts belong TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. There are various legal tests to determine if you can copyright it, and hence, gain the right to set your own terms.
>
> > No claiming necessary.
>
> You do not need to assert copyright. But an uncopyrightable derivation does not belong to the new person who is tweaking it. It falls under the existing author's copyright and his license. The new person making small changes does not qualify for copyright.

Could you please clearify "belong"? Copyright ("Urheberrecht") in Germany cannot be transfered at all. The final product is a joint work by multiple authors. The new author only owns his changes, not the entire work. I was always just talking about the changes, never about the whole product.

> > Thus, if somebody changes somethings to a BSD licensed file, but does not put himself into the BSD clause, he actually gives no permissions about his changes to anyone. Thus, nobody is allowed to do anything with the resulting product without explicit concent from the author.
>
> Wow, you really do have a very inventive mind. All it needs is a good dose of actual research time.

Thanks for repeating once more that I did not do my research.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -5/23)
by Anonymous Coward (70.166.181.59) on Fri Sep 14 03:04:01 2007 (GMT)
  I'm studying to be a lawyer right now and, AFAIK, Theo's view of the law is factually correct. In any event the actual substance of the law is mostly beside the point. I seriously doubt Reyk or the Linux developers want to go through the hell that is transnational copyright litigation. If it can be avoided, I expect that it will be.

In any event, with all this talk of suing in Germany, people seem to have missed some of key issues (or at least "key" from a litigator's prosepective).

1. In order for Reyk to sue, he has to sue in a court with personal jurisdiction over the defendants (the Linux developers who he is accusing of violating his copyright). European personal jurisdiction laws are generally pretty stingy and it might be very difficult to drag them to court over there.

2. Even if you get into court in Germany, there is still a choice-of-law issue, and it is not assured that the court would actually apply German law instead of say, US law. The rules about what country's law to apply are generally pretty complicated and vary from country to country so answering this question (and the jurisdictional one above) would require an examination of the German Code of Civil Procedure and seeing how German courts have treated the relevant provisions in the past. I'm not in any position to do this because I can't read German.

3. Even assuming Reyk could sue in a German court, it might be easier, quicker, and/or tactically better to just sue in the US anyway because of procedural differences which may play in Reyk's favor.

4. Reyk's ability to sue in a German court could be imperiled if a US court could somehow get jurisdiction over him because that would allow the Linux guys to beat him to the draw by filing a suit in US court requesting declaratory judgment and an anti-suit injunction (which would bar Reyk from suing in Germany). If they did this than Reyk will have to come to the US to either do the lawsuit or he'll have to try and get their case dismissed for forum non conveniens (which given the nature of the case, may prove difficult).
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -4/24)
by Anonymous Cow (64.18.24.5) on Thu Sep 13 08:57:24 2007 (GMT)
  > > Theo is just trying to make things right. Teach the Linux developers that a license must be respected and the source code __MUST__ have the BSD copyright if it is not significantly changed.
>
> Ok, but what is the point in the 'ath5k_hw.c' case? Why is this a violation? Even for small, insignificant changes, it must be possible for the creator of these changes to claim copyright. Every change to some code starts small. Should the author duplicate the BSD license with his/her/its name? What a waste of bandwidth.
>
> BTW, Theo also seems not to be really firm with international copyright law. For example, he completely forgets the fact that copyright does not need to be claimed in Germany. If you did something, you have the copyright to it. No claiming necessary. Thus, if somebody changes somethings to a BSD licensed file, but does not put himself into the BSD clause, he actually gives no permissions about his changes to anyone. Thus, nobody is allowed to do anything with the resulting product without explicit concent from the author.
>

I don't think Theo has forgotten something about international copyright law, as he explains it here:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118865605929266&w=2
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -10/32)
by Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on Thu Sep 13 14:04:11 2007 (GMT)
  > There's an appropriate statement on KernelTrap that I'd like to repeat here, just to stop all the FUD before the flood:
>
> Theo is just trying to make things right. Teach the Linux developers that a license must be respected and the source code __MUST__ have the BSD copyright if it is not significantly changed.
>
> Theo is not trying to remove code, he's just trying to convince them to agree with the license.
>

Which he does by repeatedly insulting them.

There have been no copyright violations. The changes were proposed, and rejected, by the kernel developers. A diff was posted to the list. It wasn't committed.

At no point has any of the altered code in question been redistributed. But let's not let facts get in the way of Theo's mindless zealotry and hatred against GPL developers.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 0/30)
by Anonymous Coward (71.130.194.156) on Thu Sep 13 20:54:32 2007 (GMT)
  > Which he does by repeatedly insulting them.
Sheesh, he gets pot shots even when he's minding his own damn business.

> There have been no copyright violations. The changes were proposed, and rejected, by the kernel developers. A diff was posted to the list. It wasn't committed.
> At no point has any of the altered code in question been redistributed. But let's not let facts get in the way of Theo's mindless zealotry and hatred against GPL developers.

Hm...deja vu.
s/Theo/some other f'n dev
s/GPL/BSD
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -3/19)
by Anonymous Coward (194.109.21.4) on Fri Sep 14 19:05:51 2007 (GMT)
  > > Which he does by repeatedly insulting them.
> Sheesh, he gets pot shots even when he's minding his own damn business.
>
> > There have been no copyright violations. The changes were proposed, and rejected, by the kernel developers. A diff was posted to the list. It wasn't committed.
> > At no point has any of the altered code in question been redistributed. But let's not let facts get in the way of Theo's mindless zealotry and hatred against GPL developers.
>
> Hm...deja vu.
> s/Theo/some other f'n dev
> s/GPL/BSD

Not deja vu.

The Linux developer proposed a diff on a mailing list.

The OpenBSD developer actually had the code in a public CVS.

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

             
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 4/22)
by sthen (85.158.44.149) on Fri Sep 14 23:16:59 2007 (GMT)
  > The Linux developer proposed a diff on a mailing list.

Can I just draw your attention to http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k-mcgrof/ath5k_hw.c?rev=2672 for a minute?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod 6/42)
by Anonymous Coward (66.65.128.40) on Thu Sep 13 03:38:29 2007 (GMT)
  Isn't time the Linux wireless developers involved do the right thing? Take for example when some GPL code showed up in one of OpenBSD's drivers - what did Theo do? The whole driver was removed. Problem solved in short time. What do Linux devs do? Go run to agenda driven lawyers who tell them to ignore the BSD license. Isn't it about time they own up the their mistakes and stop messing around?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -9/29)
by Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on Thu Sep 13 14:08:14 2007 (GMT)
  > Isn't time the Linux wireless developers involved do the right thing? Take for example when some GPL code showed up in one of OpenBSD's drivers - what did Theo do? The whole driver was removed. Problem solved in short time. What do Linux devs do? Go run to agenda driven lawyers who tell them to ignore the BSD license. Isn't it about time they own up the their mistakes and stop messing around?

THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE CHANGES THEO IS ACCUSING THEM OF.

There was a PROPOSED change, posted as a diff to a mailing list. It was REJECTED by the Linux development community. There's discussion of whether it was, in whole or part, a genuine copyright violation.

You're telling them to remove code from the kernel that nobody is claiming, at this stage, is in violation of any licenses.

The *BSD community is really showing bad faith by asserting that this is similar in any way to the situation a few months ago, where the copyright violation happened, it was deliberate, and the OpenBSD team were, for a time, redistributing code with an unauthorized license change.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod 4/28)
by sthen (85.158.44.149) on Thu Sep 13 16:05:40 2007 (GMT)
  > There was a PROPOSED change, posted as a diff to a mailing list.

No no, it was published. I have copies of two publically-available repositories (well, one isn't publically-available any more) with the changes in. But that's in the past.

The current status is that the code is still there, wrapped in a GPL. That's what this article is about.

> The *BSD community is really showing bad faith by asserting that
> this is similar in any way to the situation a few months ago, where
> the copyright violation happened, it was deliberate, and the OpenBSD
> team were, for a time, redistributing code with an unauthorized
> license change.

It's not similar at all.

That (copying some functions from the GPL driver with the intention of replacing them) was removed pretty damn quickly. The observant amongst you may have noticed the recent import of some new code: sephe@DragonFly's work-in-progress bwi(4). i.e. a driver for Broadcom wireless chips. Don't you think that's a better way to handle things?

In the case of openhal, it's wholesale "take Reyk's code, adapt it for Linux and change the license". And it's still there.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -9/25)
by Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on Fri Sep 14 13:32:42 2007 (GMT)
  > > There was a PROPOSED change, posted as a diff to a mailing list.
>
> No no, it was published. I have copies of two publically-available repositories (well, one isn't publically-available any more) with the changes in. But that's in the past.
>
> The current status is that the code is still there, wrapped in a GPL. That's what this article is about.

You're talking about something else.

The diffs that were proposed a week or so ago were the ones that would have violated copyright had they been accepted. They were not.

There is BSD code in the kernel, and where it's legal to relicense them under the GPL, that's what's happened. Yes, in some cases relicensing was explicitly allowed. For others, the GPL may have been added, but the previous, GPL compatible, license has not been removed, allowing for a situation where modifications will only be available in the GPL'd form.

Nobody sane (yes, I'm excluding certain hotheads in the BSD community) is suggesting that anything currently in the repositories counts as a genuine license violation.

The only circumstances where what the Linux crew has done can be considered license violations are those where the advantages proposed by BSD advocates over the last few years, including those who issued apologia for the bcw fiasco, are completely false.

> > The *BSD community is really showing bad faith by asserting that
> > this is similar in any way to the situation a few months ago, where
> > the copyright violation happened, it was deliberate, and the OpenBSD
> > team were, for a time, redistributing code with an unauthorized
> > license change.
>
> It's not similar at all.

I know, that's what I said above. The bcw case was an instance of deliberate copyright violation. What we're talking about here, however, is an instance where some BSD zealots are upset because:

1. They're using definitions of dual licensing where black means white, paper means water, and "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" means "You're bound by both the BSD and GPL license, and must always given everyone downstream both licenses, unless you're a BSD project, in which case you can ignore the GPL."

2. They believe that while proprietary software manufacturers are under no moral duty to license their proprietary modifications as source code under the BSD license, because that's the advantage of the BSD license, the Linux community is, and that use by the Linux community of the GPL is a crime against humanity. And a crime.

3. They have no idea why the Linux community would be upset by being called zealots, copyright infringers, code stealers, and other defamous terms.

The Linux community would be better off treating BSD code as poison, which is a shame because both communities work so much better when there's a spirit of cooperation. But with BSD zealots promoting this level of hatred against the Linux developers, and even those pointing out their behavior is counter productive, I don't see anything changing soon.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

             
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -4/30)
by Dunceor (194.237.142.7) on Fri Sep 14 13:53:06 2007 (GMT)
  > The Linux community would be better off treating BSD code as poison, which is a shame because both communities work so much better when there's a spirit of cooperation. But with BSD zealots promoting this level of hatred against the Linux developers, and even those pointing out their behavior is counter productive, I don't see anything changing soon.
>

Level of hatred because they stole the code? Only thing Theo is asking for is that you respect the licence and he PROMOTE that Linux use the code with correct licence. How hard is that to understand? Geez. I wonder who is pushing the hatred.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

               
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -7/29)
by Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on Fri Sep 14 15:34:58 2007 (GMT)
  > > The Linux community would be better off treating BSD code as poison, which is a shame because both communities work so much better when there's a spirit of cooperation. But with BSD zealots promoting this level of hatred against the Linux developers, and even those pointing out their behavior is counter productive, I don't see anything changing soon.
> >
>
> Level of hatred because they stole the code? Only thing Theo is asking for is that you respect the licence and he PROMOTE that Linux use the code with correct licence. How hard is that to understand? Geez. I wonder who is pushing the hatred.

1. No code has been stolen.

2. Theo is calling Linux developers names, making outrageous and unsustainable claims of real copyright violations (that he admits are not backed by any real lawyers who have examined the case)

Who is pushing the hatred? The BSD zealots. Quit your zealous apologia for the hotheads in the BSD community, and look at the real world for a moment. Now consider HOW MUCH DAMAGE YOUR INSULTS AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS ARE DOING TO COOPERATION BETWEEN THE OPENBSD COMMUNITY AND EVERYONE ELSE.

Last time the BSD teams violated copyrights, the Linux community bent over backwards to help and get the issue resolved amicably. The OpenBSD community acted with malice and insults then, and they're doing it now. Next time OpenBSD screws up, it's doubtful they'll have a friend to defend them.

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

                 
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -1/21)
by Anonymous Coward (71.130.195.211) on Fri Sep 14 20:18:28 2007 (GMT)
  > Who is pushing the hatred? The BSD zealots. Quit your zealous apologia for the hotheads in the BSD community, and look at the real world for a moment. Now consider HOW MUCH DAMAGE YOUR INSULTS AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS ARE DOING TO COOPERATION BETWEEN THE OPENBSD COMMUNITY AND EVERYONE ELSE.

Phew! Thankfully you don't represent the GPL community either, then.

> Last time the BSD teams violated copyrights, the Linux community bent over backwards to help and get the issue resolved amicably. The OpenBSD community acted with malice and insults then, and they're doing it now. Next time OpenBSD screws up, it's doubtful they'll have a friend to defend them.

Blasting a developer in public is bending over backward? Funny, the OBSD team always had the policy of dealing with such things in private first...
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

                   
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -7/19)
by Anonymous Coward (151.188.247.104) on Fri Sep 21 01:55:01 2007 (GMT)
  > Blasting a developer in public is bending over backward? Funny, the OBSD team always had the policy of dealing with such things in private first...
>

No "blasting" happened. It was a notification of a license violation. I've read it too, and I see nothing wrong with it. Marcus Glocker was DEAD WRONG in what he did, and Michael Buesch was absolutely correct in notifying the maintainers of the OpenBSD repository of the problem.

And yes, Jiri too was with what he did (not all files were dual-licensed). Jiri was totally out of line there, no question. But Theo clearly wanted "revenge". He's a crack developer, and I respect his programming ability highly, but he's also a total asshat when it comes to dealing with other people outside his inner circle. All he had to do with the BCM issue was say, "Oops, sorry, we'll take care of it" and nothing more. Michael would've said, "OK, thanks, now we can talk about a BSD-licensed version of our driver if you want."

I quote Michael:

"We'd like to have this issue resolved. In general we are not against having a free (and BSD licensed) driver in the BSD operating system. But you _have_ to cooperate with us if you'd like to take our code and relicense it under BSD license. We intentionally put the code under GPL license. We did _not_ do this, because "everybody does this". We did this, among other reasons, because we "don't think we should allow proprietary vendors to take our code and close it again."

So, please don't say he wasn't willing to cooperate, because that's not correct. He clearly indicates that the team wasn't against a BSD-licensed driver, but that the BSD folks needed to cooperate with them to use *their* code. I don't see how that can possibly be "bad".
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -10/28)
by Anonymous Coward (208.152.231.254) on Fri Sep 14 13:11:30 2007 (GMT)
  > Isn't time the Linux wireless developers involved do the right thing? Take for example when some GPL code showed up in one of OpenBSD's drivers - what did Theo do? The whole driver was removed. Problem solved in short time. What do Linux devs do? Go run to agenda driven lawyers who tell them to ignore the BSD license. Isn't it about time they own up the their mistakes and stop messing around?

You know, perhaps it is time the Linux wireless developers purged BSD code from the Linux kernel. It's obviously tainted, the OpenBSD developers have obviously been dishonest and duplicitous in suggesting that they're happy about it being incorporated into Linux, and it's probably time OpenBSD was seen not as a free software operating system, but as legal leprosy.

Alternatively, the few reasonable people left in the BSD community need to come out, stand up, say "People like Theo, Deanne, et al do NOT speak for us", and start working with their like minded cousins in the Linux community, rather than letting the BSD license zealots tear the free software community apart.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -5/17)
by couderc (213.41.184.19) on Tue Sep 18 14:54:09 2007 (GMT)
  > Alternatively, the few reasonable people left in the BSD community need to come out, stand up, say "People like Theo, Deanne, et al do NOT speak for us", and start working with their like minded cousins in the Linux community, rather than letting the BSD license zealots tear the free software community apart.

As a BSD coder I stand up and say that they speak for me.
I have no problem to work with my linux friends until they don't try to steal my copyright.

It could be so simple to fix the matter by just saying "sorry we made a mistake" ...

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

         
Re: Do the right thing - Its not too late (mod -1/19)
by Anonymous Coward (216.68.198.57) on Sat Sep 22 01:39:46 2007 (GMT)
  A Reasonable OpenBSD supporter, standing behind OpenBSD.
Groklaw also has a little snide remark in the recent posting of FUD.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -2/36)
by Matthew Dempsky (70.143.82.180) on Thu Sep 13 03:38:36 2007 (GMT)
  The article says "To: Eban Moglen", but it should be "To: Eben Moglen", as Theo's original email stated. :-)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 5/25)
by Darrin Chandler (dwc) on Thu Sep 13 03:56:59 2007 (GMT)
http://www.stilyagin.com/darrin/
  > The article says "To: Eban Moglen", but it should be "To: Eben Moglen", as Theo's original email stated. :-)

Good catch. Restored to showroom quality.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -1/37)
by Karl Sjödahl (Dunceor) (dunceor@gmail.com) on Thu Sep 13 05:24:23 2007 (GMT)
  This is very unfortunate that it has happend because this will only create more hostility between GPL and BSD people. How ever, if the GPL people can't understand that taking code and making it unuseable for us then so be it. Hopefully they will come to their senses and it will be sorten out.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -5/27)
by Anonymous Coward (213.84.147.9) on Thu Sep 13 08:21:08 2007 (GMT)
  No, it won't become unusable. As far as I can see the dual license will cause the following: Anyone can use either license, you just can't remove either license. So if Reyk likes some changes in the dual licensed version he will have to add the dual license as well.

But what is the point of adding the dual license? Anyone can choose either license, so anyone who wants to can choose to the most liberal license, the BSD license.

Adding the dual license is license graphiti. It adds nothing functional and is mighty confusing for everyone.

I'd really like it if people who want to contribute code to another coders project would respect the opinion of that coder and simply submit the changes under the same license. I mean... they're all free licenses!

http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/pictures/LicenseWars.png

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

         
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 5/27)
by Miod Vallat (miod) on Thu Sep 13 10:18:44 2007 (GMT)
  > http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/pictures/LicenseWars.png

Tsk, tsk, tsk, you could at least give the original URL for this image:
http://www.brunothebandit.com/comics/20000731a.gif (from http://www.brunothebandit.com/d/20000731.html)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 0/24)
by Anonymous Coward (213.84.147.9) on Thu Sep 13 12:52:50 2007 (GMT)
  > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/pictures/LicenseWars.png
>
> Tsk, tsk, tsk, you could at least give the original URL for this
> image:
> http://www.brunothebandit.com/comics/20000731a.gif
>
> (from http://www.brunothebandit.com/d/20000731.html)

Yes Moid, good idea. =)

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

       
Hostility to GPL people, no.. (mod -1/25)
by Bob Beck (129.128.11.43) (beck@openbsd.org) on Thu Sep 13 17:58:32 2007 (GMT)
 
I don't think it (should) create hostility toward "GPL people" - I have lots of freinds who prefer the GPL and know my preferences. We respect
each other and find common ground - if we're working together we ensure
that each others changes are not given with a poison pen.

Now, hostility towards people with hidden agendas who obviously do not treat such relationships with respect? Sure. there's hostility there.
But that's not about the particular license. that's about a lack of respect for each other. People like that come in all flavours of license.




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

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -1/35)
by Anonymous Coward (81.11.148.226) on Thu Sep 13 07:58:13 2007 (GMT)
  I'm just wondering here. Would it be legal for me to make changes to a piece of BSD licenced code, create a diff, and then distribute this diff under the GPL? I have absolutely no desire to do so, I don't like the GPL, but I am curious.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 4/36)
by Theo de Raadt (199.185.137.1) on Thu Sep 13 08:23:42 2007 (GMT)
  > I'm just wondering here. Would it be legal for me to make changes to a piece of BSD licenced code, create a diff, and then distribute this diff under the GPL? I have absolutely no desire to do so, I don't like the GPL, but I am curious.

If your original work is a larger part of the total, you gain copyright and get the full rights to control the future of the work; then you can use a license to partially surrender your rights as you see fit.

You however may not delete the license statements the original author put on his parts, if his license said they cannot be deleted. (All the licenses we use stipulate that in one way or another)
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -4/22)
by Anonymous Coward (172.132.173.203) on Fri Sep 14 01:00:25 2007 (GMT)
  So you are saying his diff, a <= 50% diff, is not copyright-able?

As well, he cannot add his license to his diff?

I think that is what he asked. IOW, Mr. BSD Coder's 1000 line driver is BSD licensed. I come along, add a comma, make a diff, add the GPL to my comma-diff. I can't do that you say?

So a solution be for the GPL developers to add the GPL to their diffs is moot?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

           
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 2/24)
by Anonymous Coward (71.130.194.156) on Fri Sep 14 01:03:27 2007 (GMT)
  > As well, he cannot add his license to his diff?

More along the lines of not removing the previous license in the same diff.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Why is this such a problem now? (mod -5/35)
by Chas (147.154.235.53) on Thu Sep 13 14:41:39 2007 (GMT)
 

There is a great deal of BSD-licensed code in the Linux kernel. IIRC, a credit to the Regents of the University of California appears in Linux's dmesg. AFAIK, the vast majority of BSD code in the Linux kernel is properly attributed and the legal requirements for licensing have been met and are intact.

So why is it that these few developers can't resist the urge to scribble all over the license for the code that they have appropriated? What process is now breaking down that heretofore has worked so well?

This does have the scent of a vendetta, but Theo appears ready to go to court over the issue, so I would wager that a judge would find the infraction to be real.

I do wish that sharing was easier between the GPL and BSD camps. There should be a /bsd-gpl (tainted) kernel in OpenBSD that has additional support for devices that only have GPL drivers or other GPL kernel features.

This scorched earth policy between the camps forces far too much reinvention of the wheel. It's not productive.

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

       
Re: Why is this such a problem now? (mod -2/26)
by Anonymous Coward (24.22.214.92) on Thu Sep 13 18:26:00 2007 (GMT)
  > I do wish that sharing was easier between the GPL and BSD camps. There should be a /bsd-gpl (tainted) kernel in OpenBSD that has additional support for devices that only have GPL drivers or other GPL kernel features.

And then people get used to using the GPL-tainted kernel, and there's little motivation to improve the pure-BSD kernel. Soon enough, it would end up being in the same boat Linux is with regards to wireless and video cards -- settle on some binary blob and there's almost nobody to write a free driver anymore.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Why is this such a problem now? (mod 4/30)
by Bernd Schoeller (schoelle) on Thu Sep 13 18:45:20 2007 (GMT)
  Very true. That tainting functionality is broken, DRM like code that should never have maid it into the Linux kernel. For some time, it was not possible to compile the Linux kernel with a proprietary modules, because a header file had be marked under the wrong license.

That is what is great about Theo: he is very strong about his legal positions, but I could never imagine him adding DRM code to OpenBSD, just to enforce legal matters.

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

       
Re: Why is this such a problem now? (mod -6/20)
by Anonymous Coward (219.90.211.166) on Fri Sep 14 03:55:09 2007 (GMT)
  > IIRC, a credit to the Regents of the University of California appears in Linux's dmesg.
[grg@rak ~]$ uname -a
Linux rak 2.6.22.6 #1 SMP Sun Sep 9 17:56:18 CST 2007 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU          6400  @ 2.13GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
[grg@rak ~]$ dmesg | grep -i regents
[grg@rak ~]$ strings /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/arch/x86_64/boot/bzImage | grep -i regents
[grg@rak ~]$ grep -i regents /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/README
[grg@rak ~]$ grep -i regents /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build/CREDITS
[grg@rak ~]$ 
?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

         
Re: Why is this such a problem now? (mod -8/20)
by Anonymous Coward (219.90.211.166) on Fri Sep 14 04:01:29 2007 (GMT)
  I figured maybe I had a kernel with no regents contributed drivers included... the only driver which prints this is:
[grg@rak linux-2.6.22]$ grep -rin -A 5 print * | grep -i regents               
drivers/net/slip.c:1340:        printk(KERN_INFO "CSLIP: code copyright 1989 Regents of the University of California.\n");
Better look in the sources themselves if you want to see the copyright attributions.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 9/43)
by Clay Dowling (12.37.120.99) (clay@lazarusid.com) on Thu Sep 13 15:00:14 2007 (GMT)
http://www.lazarusid.com
  It is unfortunate that the Linux wifi developers have decided that their political agenda is more important than intellectual honesty. Open source works because we all cooperate to make better software. Getting credit for the work we do is a big incentive for people to contribute their code.

I urge the Linux wireless developers to consider how well they would like having their own work stripped of its license and their own credits for writing it removed. It's not a nice thing to do, and it is damaging to the community. Honor the work of others as you would like your own work honored.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -3/33)
by Rich (195.212.199.56) on Fri Sep 14 15:47:20 2007 (GMT)
  I sort-of agree with Clay.

I for one don't understand why, after all these years of banging the "free" drum, there are certain Linux developers who seem to simply not care any more. I'm not just referring to this latest incident. There's also all the nonsense with blobs.

They seem to be more and more accepting of cobbling together whatever they can get their hands on regardless of the consequences, just to get something working. They seem to have no pride in their work, or maybe they lack ability (though I'm sure many don't). I don't know.

And what do they get for their troubles? They may (sometimes) get a quick fix, but 9 times out of ten it's a very dirty, half-baked fix as well, which (of course) never gets cleaned up. They are backing themselves into several corners and the whole thing seems incredibly short-sighted.

Collectively, they are doing neither themselves or anyone else any favours at all.
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -5/25)
by Anonymous Coward (89.163.146.247) on Fri Sep 14 18:17:18 2007 (GMT)
  > I sort-of agree with Clay.
>
> I for one don't understand why, after all these years of banging the "free" drum, there are certain Linux developers who seem to simply not care any more. I'm not just referring to this latest incident. There's also all the nonsense with blobs.
>
> They seem to be more and more accepting of cobbling together whatever they can get their hands on regardless of the consequences, just to get something working. They seem to have no pride in their work, or maybe they lack ability (though I'm sure many don't). I don't know.
>
> And what do they get for their troubles? They may (sometimes) get a quick fix, but 9 times out of ten it's a very dirty, half-baked fix as well, which (of course) never gets cleaned up. They are backing themselves into several corners and the whole thing seems incredibly short-sighted.
>
> Collectively, they are doing neither themselves or anyone else any favours at all.

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

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -3/31)
by Anonymous Coward (216.68.198.57) on Sat Sep 15 02:09:48 2007 (GMT)
  OSS competition is rough at all levels, expect and demand proactive measures, nothing new.

The OpenBSD team is thankfully a leader with proactive measures for BSD OSS. I'm starting to build my IT legal knowledge.

IANAL, IANetc, but trademark law was used by Redhat lawyers with Enterprise Linux to ~stifle CentOS, a RHEL clone, through Redhat notices or references. I'm open to interpretation on the RHEL and CentOS matter, but is BSD code hampered under trademark law as well, and under what constraints? Sure would be nice to have a FAQ FGA list for many of these matters. More legal work ahead, grr, teeth pulling, and slows down my IT learning.

BSD code might need its own legal eagles, like the FSF, something that OpenBSD is doing thankfully. However, legal matters seems to be a dedicated fight, much like coding is. I just hope BSD code gets it legal representation it deserves. I am uncertain how much the FSF protects BSD, perhaps I'll research the FSF more.

Any comments on the above, I'd be interested in.

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

       
Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -1/23)
by Anonymous Coward (151.188.247.104) on Fri Sep 21 01:38:46 2007 (GMT)
 
> IANAL, IANetc, but trademark law was used by Redhat lawyers with Enterprise Linux to ~stifle CentOS, a RHEL clone, through Redhat notices or references. I'm open to interpretation on the RHEL and CentOS matter, but is BSD code hampered under trademark law as well, and under what constraints? Sure would be nice to have a FAQ FGA list for many of these matters. More legal work ahead, grr, teeth pulling, and slows down my IT learning.
>

Yes, it was a trademark issue, but not to "stifle" anybody. The issue at hand was the use of the Red Hat name and their red fedora logo. Yellow Dog Linux, being based on Red Hat Linux, had the same issue, and they simply replaced all the logos and Red Hat trademarks with their own. Red Hat didn't have Problem #1 with that.

After CentOS did likewise, Red Hat (correctly) backed off. Now, if anything, they kinda like the existence of CentOS, because they've found that it furthers sales of RHEL. "Prototype on CentOS, deploy on RHEL," they've publicly said. I've deployed on both.

So, no, there was no attempt to stifle CentOS, White Box Enterprise Linux, Yellow Dog Linux, Pink Tie Enterprise Linux, Oracle's so-called "Unbreakable Linux", or any other similar projects. Red Hat are indeed correct to police their trademark, or they'll lose it (remember what nearly happened with Kirk McKusick and the BSD Daemon).
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod -8/28)
by Anonymous Coward (193.200.150.167) on Mon Sep 17 11:04:11 2007 (GMT)
  "Fraudulent Software Foundation" anyone?
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 2/12)
by &#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1575;&#1576; (66.85.185.78) (ztmayto4o@moakt.ws) on Mon Aug 22 12:48:11 2016 (GMT)
&#1576;&#1606;&#1575;&#1578;
  إن ألعاب الفلاش تعرف تطورا كبيرا، خصوصا في مجال الجرافيك والأداء، لقد أصبح الإهتمام بهندسة الصورة من الأولويات، إضافة إلى البحث عن الإمتاع في اللعبة، وهذا ما ستلمسه في لعبة خرجت سنة 2016 وهي لعبة الدبابة المدمرة، إحدى روائع موقع العاب سيارات الحربية. العاب سيارات لعب العاب سيارات 2017 al3ab العاب تلبيس بنات العاب باربي العاب فلاش العاب عربيات
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 3/11)
by jeuxbanat (178.62.31.125) (admin@al3ab.com) on Fri Aug 26 23:27:38 2016 (GMT)
  محبى العاب بنات نقدم لكم اللعبة المميزة وهى لعبة سير استيل المميزة والتى تمكنك من تلبيس بنات بطريقة الشير المميزة والرائعة والجذابة al3ab banat
  [ Show thread ] [ Reply to this comment ] [ Mod Up ] [ Mod Down ]

  Re: Theo de Raadt on Relicensing BSD Code (mod 0/4)
by mxffiles (218.11.246.179) on Tue Feb 7 06:29:32 2017 (GMT)
  This is a very good post which I really enjoy reading. It is not every day that I have the possibility to see something like this. Software mxf Software mxf converter free download to convert HD camcorder files. ts converter convert ts video files to avi, mp4, wmv, mov mts to avi mp4 mov mkv iMovie, FCP/FCE with mts converter, so to convert mts files for your PC and mobiles. mod converter and convert tod files just free download mod video converter. m2ts
  [ 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.]