OpenBSD Journal

OpenBSD Calls for Cooperation

Contributed by deanna on from the Linux calls for silence dept.

Watching the lists the past few days revealed a few Linux developers who agree that it would benefit everyone if the two communities could work together and share code. Communication was beginning to happen (Bob Beck even posted about how he respects the GPL), and then this came out of nowhere, from Luis Rodriguez, a key Linux wireless developer who was behind the SFLC audit. 
List:       linux-netdev
Subject:    Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
From:       "Luis R. Rodriguez" 
Date:       2007-09-01 23:48:28

I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.

  Luis
Bob's reply: 

    List:       linux-wireless
    Subject:    r.kernel.org
    From:       Bob Beck
    Date:       2007-09-02 0:19:13

    >I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
    >Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
    >attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
    >done privately.
    >
    >  Luis

    	What? when we talk about the ethics of cooperating development
    and sharing code the response is "we have lawyers watching your backs"
    and "we know what we are doing and have a plan"

    	What is this? a concerted attack by some organization on
    the BSD projects? Would that be the FSF? or freesoftware.org?  

    	What kind of crap is this? that Free Software developers can't
    respect each others project goals and work together, but instead should
    beware of organizations with hidden agendas to abscond with their work. 

    	What a crock. I urge any developers involved to decide if
    you really want to work in an environment of this sort of amoral baloney.

    	I think you all should decide if you want to work in an environment
    where developers can cooperate on a handshake and respect each others
    differnet goals, or whether discoveries in each camp need to be hidden
    from each other and fought over by lawyers.  You're all being talked
    to by a bunch of zealots who put zealotry above morals.

    	-Bob

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Anonymous Coward (78.32.64.213) on

    The irony of somebody preaching on about "morality" and then accusing people of zealotry is just too delicious not highlight. :-)

  2. By Anonymous Coward (206.13.125.181) on

    Uh, as a BSD fan, I'm wondering where this call for cooperation is?

    Some linux guy says, "I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone." and Bob rips him a new asshole?

    There *are* discussions going on among rational people (or perhaps rational discussions) privately, there was no need to light this guy up.

    There are also zealots in both camps, and I know Bob isn't normally one... but damn, man, he sure looks like one now.

    Comments

    1. By Deanna Phillips (deanna) on

      > Uh, as a BSD fan, I'm wondering where this call for cooperation is?

      The link in the article.. 

      Subject:    I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.
From:       Bob Beck 
Date:       2007-09-01 22:22:43

 [ A copy of this is going to the linux kernel mailing list, regarding the
recent license modifications to reyk's files]

>Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old 
>with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:
>
>/*      $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $  */
>/*      $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $        */
>/*-
> * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
> * All rights reserved.

   Of course you do! because some of reyk's work used some of Sam's
work, and unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems
to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not
*removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors.
That's the point. He's not saying he wrote this piece, and he's not
*changing* the conditions under which Sam distributed the code in the
first place. However what scares me more is the seeming willingness to
make the authors of a derivative work appear to be the primary authors
of something, and a willingness to change an authors copyright
statement (on reyk's code) without his permission. 

   I have always immensely respected the GPL - it has very noble
goals, they are very appropriate in some cases, they don't happen to
be mine, but that's fine, I don't release my code under it - but
that's fine, it's my choice.  Just like many smart people who I know
and respect do their work in GPL land, and this is great too. However,
when it comes time to be looking at someone else's work above all we
have to respect the various authors choice of how they want their hard
work shared with the community. 

  To me, this seems like a portion of the Linux community seems to be
wanting to make their own rules, chosing to rewrite a license at any
time they choose without the original author's agreement. This appalls
and scares me. Why? not only does it show a huge lack of respect for
someone who has worked very hard to produce something the whole
community can use, but seriously undermines software freedom as a
whole. This is a slippery slope. If one community starts modifying the
others licenses for no purpose other than zealotry, I see only two
consequences:

   1) a hugh rift of mistrust between the developers of both camps,
meaning no cooperating to make the world a better place.

   2) A weakening of the respect for licensing on all sides of the
community, which weakens the credibility of both BSD *AND* the GPL
license when tested from the outside. Frankly, this scares the hell
out of me and dismays me. 

   I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads
inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and
the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from
Theo, and he's a great target to bash, and start thinking about what
you are doing to free software as a whole. I think you are on the
verge of doing irreparable damage that will seriously weaken the
ability for all of our projects to move forward, and protect our
rights as code authors in the future.

	-Bob

      Comments

      1. By squiggleslash (66.32.106.126) on

        > unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems
        > to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not
        > *removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors.
        {...}
        > I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads
        > inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and
        > the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from
        > Theo, and he's a great target to bash,

        And he probably thinks this is a constructive email, rather than what I can definitely say is an outrageous piece of flamebait.

        Urgh. Perhaps if you re-read this, you'll understand why the Linux community is feeling under attack and how the comment quoted in the article, far from coming "out of the blue", was actually 100% appropriate?

    2. By one_of_the_openbsd_users (75.54.133.203) on

      > Uh, as a BSD fan, I'm wondering where this call for cooperation is?
      >
      > Some linux guy says, "I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone." and Bob rips him a new asshole?
      >
      > There *are* discussions going on among rational people (or perhaps rational discussions) privately, there was no need to light this guy up.
      >
      > There are also zealots in both camps, and I know Bob isn't normally one... but damn, man, he sure looks like one now.
      >

      nah, he is not a zealot, he is only trying to protect the BSD code because some linux devs are trying to steal it.

  3. By Ian McWilliam (202.7.166.169) on

    Watching and reading the actions of the Linux and GNU communities over the whole copyright violation leads me to believe that the Linux kernel is tainted with respect to copyright licenses and potentially a lot of other GNU based projects as well.

    Until there is a fully open process of license auditing of the entire Linux kernel and GNU tools chain, one can only treat Linux as tainted.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (89.159.117.85) on

      > Watching and reading the actions of the Linux and GNU communities over the whole copyright violation leads me to believe that the Linux kernel is tainted with respect to copyright licenses and potentially a lot of other GNU based projects as well.
      >
      > Until there is a fully open process of license auditing of the entire Linux kernel and GNU tools chain, one can only treat Linux as tainted.

      Since openBSD also contained GPL code in the kernel, should we consider openBSD as tainted ?

      Comments

      1. By Ian McWilliam (202.7.166.169) on

        > > Watching and reading the actions of the Linux and GNU communities over the whole copyright violation leads me to believe that the Linux kernel is tainted with respect to copyright licenses and potentially a lot of other GNU based projects as well.
        > >
        > > Until there is a fully open process of license auditing of the entire Linux kernel and GNU tools chain, one can only treat Linux as tainted.
        >
        > Since openBSD also contained GPL code in the kernel, should we consider openBSD as tainted ?

        Potentially YES. That could well be the case if the GPL code came from a tainted GPL source.

        The actions of few have far reaching implications for many.

      2. By gwyllion (81.83.46.38) on

        > Since openBSD also contained GPL code in the kernel, should we consider openBSD as tainted ?

        Sorry, but can you point me to GPL code in the current OpenBSD kernel? I am unable to find any...

      3. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

        > Since openBSD also contained GPL code in the kernel

        When has OpenBSD had GPL'd code in it's kernel.

        Sounds like FUD to me.

    2. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

      > Watching and reading the actions of the Linux and GNU communities over the whole copyright violation leads me to believe that the Linux kernel is tainted with respect to copyright licenses and potentially a lot of other GNU based projects as well.
      >
      > Until there is a fully open process of license auditing of the entire Linux kernel and GNU tools chain, one can only treat Linux as tainted.

      This is really priceless. A post that consists of nothing more than vague allegations of possible copyright infringements gets modded sky hight. Hey, guess what, there's the complete source code:
      http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/
      Which files do you think infringes on whose copyright? Because, you know, unspecific allegations of possible copyright infringement is a textbook example of FUD. I heard of a company that even tried to build a complete lawsuit on that...

    3. By squiggleslash (66.32.106.126) on

      > Watching and reading the actions of the Linux and GNU communities over the whole copyright violation leads me to believe that the Linux kernel is tainted with respect to copyright licenses and potentially a lot of other GNU based projects as well.
      >
      > Until there is a fully open process of license auditing of the entire Linux kernel and GNU tools chain, one can only treat Linux as tainted.

      Sure, right. Not like the shoe was on the other foot a few months ago.

      But you're welcome to do this anyway. You can start by removing all GNU software from OpenBSD. That GCC thing has to go, it's quite obviously tainted by virtue of being licensed by the GPL. Right?

      Right?

  4. By rmg (209.121.199.14) on http://rmgraham.blogspot.com/

    We seem to have run over a horse with this bus. Now everyone jump out and kick it!

    The only real question that remains is: how long before Godwin's Law is actualized in this debate?

    **No horses were harmed in the writing of this comment.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (24.89.228.211) on

      > We seem to have run over a horse with this bus. Now everyone jump out and kick it!
      >
      > The only real question that remains is: how long before Godwin's Law is actualized in this debate?
      >
      > **No horses were harmed in the writing of this comment.



      Freak'n horse-kicking forum-Nazis! They are as bad as Hitler himself!

      Disclaimer: This is a weak attempt as humour, read:
      <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law"> Godwin's Law</a>

  5. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

    You guys are seriously not thinking this through. Consider the header:

    * Copyright (c) 2002-2007 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
    * All rights reserved.
    *
    * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    * are met:
    * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
    * without modification.
    * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
    * similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
    * redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
    * similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
    * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
    * of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
    * from this software without specific prior written permission.
    *
    * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
    * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
    * Software Foundation.


    Theo has come up with an interesting interpretation that this whole piece forms a "legal document" (L), which would be illegal to modify. The thing is, there is no actual law that states this (feel free to cite the appropriate law if you disagree). The only thing that would forbid it is clause 1. itself, but (L) itself contains the very conditions under which you _can_ relicense the software. It states outright that you may distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2 if you comply with the GPL terms. Since the GPLv2 is a different license than (L) (which is requirements 1,2,3 of the BSD _or_ GPLv2), this spells out the conditions to relicense the software. And this is why Theo has to point to some nebulous law external to the file that makes it illegal to change a "legal document", and people are happy to parrot this because it sounds good, but can't cite any actual laws.

    Now let's consider this whole deal from the perspective of the authors intent. What did Sam Leffler mean by "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the [GPLv2]"? In my interpretation, it means that developer G may fork a branch from the original dual licensed file (A) under the GPLv2 only (call this branch (G)), while developer B may fork his own BSD-only branch (B). "Alternatively" means giving the reader choice between different options. It's forbidden to strip the copyright notice, conditions 1,2,3 and the no guarantee disclaimer from branch (B), but it can be used in closed-source only form, since that's one of the freedoms that the BSD gives you. On the other hand, if you start from branch (G) you're forbidden to use it closed-source only, but you can strip off the BSD conditions. In fact, you _must_ strip off the BSD conditions for the GPL to have any meaning, since if you leave them in the files in branch (G) they actually permit you to close-source branch (G) whenever you wish. Maybe that's the intention of the original author (Sam Leffler), but certainly not of developer G.

    So the key point is Leffler's intentions behind the dual license, behind "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the [GPLv2]". The main philosophical difference between the GPL and BSD is that one forbids closed source forks, while the other permits it. It is my view that Leffler wishes to permit a fork (G) of the original file that is GPL only (so that that branch cannot become closed-source), and also permit a fork (B) that is BSD only (so that that branch may be closed at any time) and leaves the choice to the developer who initiates the fork. And for that to be possible, the BSD clauses must be be stripped from the (G) branches, otherwise it would render the GPL close-source prohibitions moot. Theo and a lot of BSD proponents want to interpret the whole license (L) as saying that the BSD text must remain in all derivations of the original work, because that would make any GPL forks superfluous, effectively making it BSD-licensed with some GPL text that you can always ignore. As long as the BSD or dual-license text remains, the branch can become closed source.

    So ask yourself, setting aside your own prejudices against permitting or forbidding closed-source forks, what did Leffler mean? Did he wish to allow a GPL-only no-source-closing fork? If yes, the BSD language must be stripped from that branch to make the GPL meaningful. If no, why did he dual license in the first place and not just BSD-only? The cause "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the [GPLv2]" is completely redundant in that case.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (91.163.214.61) on

      > You guys are seriously not thinking this through. Consider the header:
      >
      > * Copyright (c) 2002-2007 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
      > * All rights reserved.
      > *
      > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
      > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
      > * are met:
      > * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      > * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
      > * without modification.
      > * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
      > * similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
      > * redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
      > * similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
      > * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
      > * of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
      > * from this software without specific prior written permission.
      > *
      > * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
      > * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
      > * Software Foundation.
      >
      >
      > Theo has come up with an interesting interpretation that this whole piece forms a "legal document" (L), which would be illegal to modify. The thing is, there is no actual law that states this (feel free to cite the appropriate law if you disagree). The only thing that would forbid it is clause 1. itself, but (L) itself contains the very conditions under which you _can_ relicense the software. It states outright that you may distribute it under the terms of the GPLv2 if you comply with the GPL terms. Since the GPLv2 is a different license than (L) (which is requirements 1,2,3 of the BSD _or_ GPLv2), this spells out the conditions to relicense the software. And this is why Theo has to point to some nebulous law external to the file that makes it illegal to change a "legal document", and people are happy to parrot this because it sounds good, but can't cite any actual laws.
      >
      > Now let's consider this whole deal from the perspective of the authors intent. What did Sam Leffler mean by "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the [GPLv2]"? In my interpretation, it means that developer G may fork a branch from the original dual licensed file (A) under the GPLv2 only (call this branch (G)), while developer B may fork his own BSD-only branch (B). "Alternatively" means giving the reader choice between different options. It's forbidden to strip the copyright notice, conditions 1,2,3 and the no guarantee disclaimer from branch (B), but it can be used in closed-source only form, since that's one of the freedoms that the BSD gives you. On the other hand, if you start from branch (G) you're forbidden to use it closed-source only, but you can strip off the BSD conditions. In fact, you _must_ strip off the BSD conditions for the GPL to have any meaning, since if you leave them in the files in branch (G) they actually permit you to close-source branch (G) whenever you wish. Maybe that's the intention of the original author (Sam Leffler), but certainly not of developer G.
      >
      > So the key point is Leffler's intentions behind the dual license, behind "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the [GPLv2]". The main philosophical difference between the GPL and BSD is that one forbids closed source forks, while the other permits it. It is my view that Leffler wishes to permit a fork (G) of the original file that is GPL only (so that that branch cannot become closed-source), and also permit a fork (B) that is BSD only (so that that branch may be closed at any time) and leaves the choice to the developer who initiates the fork. And for that to be possible, the BSD clauses must be be stripped from the (G) branches, otherwise it would render the GPL close-source prohibitions moot. Theo and a lot of BSD proponents want to interpret the whole license (L) as saying that the BSD text must remain in all derivations of the original work, because that would make any GPL forks superfluous, effectively making it BSD-licensed with some GPL text that you can always ignore. As long as the BSD or dual-license text remains, the branch can become closed source.
      >
      > So ask yourself, setting aside your own prejudices against permitting or forbidding closed-source forks, what did Leffler mean? Did he wish to allow a GPL-only no-source-closing fork? If yes, the BSD language must be stripped from that branch to make the GPL meaningful. If no, why did he dual license in the first place and not just BSD-only? The cause "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the [GPLv2]" is completely redundant in that case.



      The point is not author intents or something like it. Only the author can remove licensed terms from a file.

      If your are not the original author and din't have any authorization from him, you should keep the dual license terms in the file. So dual license could continue to exist and be applied to the code in the file. You add some parts under another license, just add your license if it comply with others licenses in the file. This is what a license or any copyright law is designed for. If you removed dual license terms how could it continue to exist ? How could someone know that it existed ....


      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (2002:4334:4d36:0:215:6dff:fe66:17) on


        > The point is not author intents or something like it. Only the author can remove licensed terms from a file.
        >
        > If your are not the original author and din't have any authorization from him, you should keep the dual license terms in the file. So dual license could continue to exist and be applied to the code in the file. You add some parts under another license, just add your license if it comply with others licenses in the file. This is what a license or any copyright law is designed for. If you removed dual license terms how could it continue to exist ? How could someone know that it existed ....

        Of course, since Leffler is the original author, if he gave permission (authorization), then its all fine. Has anyone asked Leffler?

        What Theo is all wrapped up about, of course, is that Leffler is also the original author of much of what Reyk has claimed as "his" code. If I were Leffler, I'd be plenty pissed about the situation.

        Someday it will all come out in the wash.



        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

          > Of course, since Leffler is the original author, if he gave permission (authorization), then its all fine. Has anyone asked Leffler?
          >
          > What Theo is all wrapped up about, of course, is that Leffler is also the original author of much of what Reyk has claimed as "his" code. If I were Leffler, I'd be plenty pissed about the situation.
          >
          > Someday it will all come out in the wash.
          >

          As someone already has posted, Sam has spoken:

          http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0709.0/0159.html

          "I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.

          Sam"

          There you have it folks, from the horses mouth.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

            > Indeed, and the key words are any of my code that just applies to his code not anyones else's.

            Of course. Modifying the ISC-only files was clearly wrong. But Theo's latest post mainly concerned the dual-licensed files, and he and his supporters claimed that all modifications of the dual licensed files must always remain dual licensed until the author(s) change the license. Sam Leffner, the author of one of those dual licensed files just stated that for his file this interpretation is bunk. He put in the license specifically to allow GPL-only forks.

          2. By frequency_tesla (75.54.133.203) on

            > > Of course, since Leffler is the original author, if he gave permission (authorization), then its all fine. Has anyone asked Leffler?
            > >
            > > What Theo is all wrapped up about, of course, is that Leffler is also the original author of much of what Reyk has claimed as "his" code. If I were Leffler, I'd be plenty pissed about the situation.
            > >
            > > Someday it will all come out in the wash.
            > >
            >
            > As someone already has posted, Sam has spoken:
            >
            > http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0709.0/0159.html
            >
            > "I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
            >
            > Sam"
            >
            > There you have it folks, from the horses mouth.

            how can dual-licensed code be GPL only, would that go against the code being dual-licensed if the BSD license is strip by anoter dev along the road, oh shoot, I'm confused. head hurts.

            Comments

            1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

              > how can dual-licensed code be GPL only, would that go against the code being dual-licensed if the BSD license is strip by anoter dev along the road, oh shoot, I'm confused. head hurts.
              >

              Leffner, the author of this particular dual licensed file states that any dev can choose to fork a GPL-only (or BSD-only or dual GPL/BSD) fork at his own discretion. How can that be hard to understand? The author of the code explicitly permits forking a GPL branch that cannot be closed-sourced (which is the main point of GPL). Of course, others are free to fork a dual or BSD-only branch that _can_ be closed sourced, it's all about choice. Theo wants take away this choice and impose his own world-view (that all branches can always be closed-sourced per BSD-license) by insisting that the BSD-part of the text remains in all branches (in which case any GPL-only forks lose their source-closing protections).

              It's OK for Theo and the BSD crowd to think the BSD license with its freedom to close-source it at any time is superior to the GPL. What is NOT ok in this case is to override the intention of Leffner (that a closed-source protected GPL-only branch can be forked from the dual-licensed file) by insisting that all BSD-text must remain in all branches, thereby disabling the GPL defenses agains close-sourcing. That amounts to making all branches BSD-only (the _text_ of the optional GPL license remains, but you're free to ignore the conditions as long as it's dual-licensed). If an author choses the option of dual-licensing to give others the choice of going GPL-only (or BSD-only or dual GPL/BSD), Theo should respect that.

              Comments

              1. By Anonymous Coward (75.54.133.203) on

                > > how can dual-licensed code be GPL only, would that go against the code being dual-licensed if the BSD license is strip by anoter dev along the road, oh shoot, I'm confused. head hurts.
                > >
                >
                > Leffner, the author of this particular dual licensed file states that any dev can choose to fork a GPL-only (or BSD-only or dual GPL/BSD) fork at his own discretion. How can that be hard to understand? The author of the code explicitly permits forking a GPL branch that cannot be closed-sourced (which is the main point of GPL). Of course, others are free to fork a dual or BSD-only branch that _can_ be closed sourced, it's all about choice. Theo wants take away this choice and impose his own world-view (that all branches can always be closed-sourced per BSD-license) by insisting that the BSD-part of the text remains in all branches (in which case any GPL-only forks lose their source-closing protections).
                >
                > It's OK for Theo and the BSD crowd to think the BSD license with its freedom to close-source it at any time is superior to the GPL. What is NOT ok in this case is to override the intention of Leffner (that a closed-source protected GPL-only branch can be forked from the dual-licensed file) by insisting that all BSD-text must remain in all branches, thereby disabling the GPL defenses agains close-sourcing. That amounts to making all branches BSD-only (the _text_ of the optional GPL license remains, but you're free to ignore the conditions as long as it's dual-licensed). If an author choses the option of dual-licensing to give others the choice of going GPL-only (or BSD-only or dual GPL/BSD), Theo should respect that.
                >
                >
                thanks for the reply,it was a big help. I'm not to knowledgeable in how dual-licensing work.so,that is what was giving me a hard time to understand.

              2. By Anonymous Coward (91.163.24.215) on

                > > how can dual-licensed code be GPL only, would that go against the code being dual-licensed if the BSD license is strip by anoter dev along the road, oh shoot, I'm confused. head hurts.
                > >
                >
                > Leffner, the author of this particular dual licensed file states that any dev can choose to fork a GPL-only (or BSD-only or dual GPL/BSD) fork at his own discretion. How can that be hard to understand? The author of the code explicitly permits forking a GPL branch that cannot be closed-sourced (which is the main point of GPL). Of course, others are free to fork a dual or BSD-only branch that _can_ be closed sourced, it's all about choice. Theo wants take away this choice and impose his own world-view (that all branches can always be closed-sourced per BSD-license) by insisting that the BSD-part of the text remains in all branches (in which case any GPL-only forks lose their source-closing protections).
                >
                > It's OK for Theo and the BSD crowd to think the BSD license with its freedom to close-source it at any time is superior to the GPL. What is NOT ok in this case is to override the intention of Leffner (that a closed-source protected GPL-only branch can be forked from the dual-licensed file) by insisting that all BSD-text must remain in all branches, thereby disabling the GPL defenses agains close-sourcing. That amounts to making all branches BSD-only (the _text_ of the optional GPL license remains, but you're free to ignore the conditions as long as it's dual-licensed). If an author choses the option of dual-licensing to give others the choice of going GPL-only (or BSD-only or dual GPL/BSD), Theo should respect that.
                >
                >


                gpl-only, bsd-only this isn't the problem since it's dual licensed. So you can choose the compatible license you want for your work based on these files. Where you clearly wrong is that you think it authorize you to remove the dual license terms from the files. You _can't remove previous rights_ on the file. What you could do if you are author or have its rights is to stop the dual licensing from now. That's why there are date on copyright. 19*-09/2007 copyriht. 2007- ... other copyright.

                Law is sometimes and often logical ...

                Comments

                1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

                  > gpl-only, bsd-only this isn't the problem since it's dual licensed. So you can choose the compatible license you want for your work based on these files. Where you clearly wrong is that you think it authorize you to remove the dual license terms from the files. You _can't remove previous rights_ on the file. What you could do if you are author or have its rights is to stop the dual licensing from now. That's why there are date on copyright. 19*-09/2007 copyriht. 2007- ... other copyright.
                  >
                  > Law is sometimes and often logical ...


                  The authors already stated that it's OK to make them GPL-only, which by definition removes previous rights on the file. They already authorized you to do so. If you don't believe that you can ask Leffner or Slaby or Kossifidis directly.

                  Comments

                  1. By benoitc (91.163.24.215) on

                    > > gpl-only, bsd-only this isn't the problem since it's dual licensed. So you can choose the compatible license you want for your work based on these files. Where you clearly wrong is that you think it authorize you to remove the dual license terms from the files. You _can't remove previous rights_ on the file. What you could do if you are author or have its rights is to stop the dual licensing from now. That's why there are date on copyright. 19*-09/2007 copyriht. 2007- ... other copyright.
                    > >
                    > > Law is sometimes and often logical ...
                    >
                    >
                    > The authors already stated that it's OK to make them GPL-only, which by definition removes previous rights on the file. They already authorized you to do so. If you don't believe that you can ask Leffner or Slaby or Kossifidis directly.

                    Some of the authors yes.

                    But you are wrong it doesn't remove previous right. What I buy yesterday continue to be true today. Previous rights can't be removed. New rights are applied on a file. But previous rights are still ok until now. That's why now we have 2 files with same name but with different rights until they start to derive. That what we call a fork.

                    I know this is some kind of blahblah :) Was just precised the thing.But what I don't understand is why it happened. Why linux developpers wan't remove any notice to previous work. Especially if it don't stop them to distribut as gpl the work. This is some kind of predator action. Some authors are ok now that someone remove any notice to them. That's ok. But well it was previous done without asking to them. What about others changes without permission that could be unoticed ? Just a talk ...

    2. By Anonymous Coward (128.171.90.200) on

      > You guys are seriously not thinking this through.

      Are you a lawyer ?

      Have you consulted a lawyer on this issue ?

      If not we are just going round in circles.

  6. By Anonymous Coward (80.32.164.76) on

    > I dual-licensed the code so folks could adopt and use it however they
    > saw fit. As I've said before I don't care what people do with the work
    > I give away so long as they don't claim it's their own.
    [...]
    > I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual license
    > in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my
    > code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
    >
    > Sam

    http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0709.0/0159.html

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on

      > > I dual-licensed the code so folks could adopt and use it however they
      > > saw fit. As I've said before I don't care what people do with the work
      > > I give away so long as they don't claim it's their own.
      > [...]
      > > I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual license
      > > in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my
      > > code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
      > >
      > > Sam
      >
      > http://uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0709.0/0159.html

      * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org>
      * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com>
      *
      - * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
      - * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
      - * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

      Don't forget, he still went and removed the last three lines that he wasn't supposed to in the first place.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (86.89.125.77) on

        > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org>
        > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com>
        > *
        > - * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
        > - * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
        > - * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
        >
        > Don't forget, he still went and removed the last three lines that he wasn't supposed to in the first place.

        Yes, changing the ISC-licensed files was clearly wrong. However, changing the dual licensed ones (which was what Theo's latest posting was mainly about), e.g. from Sam Lefffner was perfectly legitimate, as Sam has made clear.

  7. By Cindy (142.179.158.99) on

    I feel bad about what is going on. Why, because fighting among groups which have common (or at least appear to have) goals, hurts everyone. What is that common goal, to produce the best software possible and have it as free/open as possible.

    A lot of good work has gone into making both Gnu/Linux and OpenBSD high grade software. Currently, both systems have a lot to offer each other. Granted OpenSSH is not part of the Linux kernel, but it does ship with many Gnu/Linux distros. I am sure there are benefits to Gnu/Linux which has been thought about, that might be brought into OpenBSD.

    Licenses are very important. Does not matter if it is a Microsoft license agreement, or a license like BSD, or GPL. Those licenses should be respected. If they are not respected, then the rights to use those licenses become less and less.

    When people do not respect licenses, tbey become thieves.

    Everyone should make a good honest attempt at resolving this issue, with out having to use legal means. When legal means are used, only the lawyers wins.

    If both side can not make a good, open, and completely public effort to resolve this issue, then I wish all sides good luck.

    - Cindy

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (81.164.105.103) on

      > A lot of good work has gone into making both Gnu/Linux and OpenBSD high grade software. Currently, both systems have a lot to offer each other. Granted OpenSSH is not part of the Linux kernel, but it does ship with many Gnu/Linux distros. I am sure there are benefits to Gnu/Linux which has been thought about, that might be brought into OpenBSD.

      GCC ships with many non GNU/Linux operating systems

    2. By Anonymous Coward (24.37.242.64) on

      > I feel bad about what is going on. Why, because fighting among groups which have common (or at least appear to have) goals, hurts everyone. What is that common goal, to produce the best software possible and have it as free/open as possible.
      >
      > A lot of good work has gone into making both Gnu/Linux and OpenBSD high grade software. Currently, both systems have a lot to offer each other. Granted OpenSSH is not part of the Linux kernel, but it does ship with many Gnu/Linux distros. I am sure there are benefits to Gnu/Linux which has been thought about, that might be brought into OpenBSD.
      >
      > Licenses are very important. Does not matter if it is a Microsoft license agreement, or a license like BSD, or GPL. Those licenses should be respected. If they are not respected, then the rights to use those licenses become less and less.
      >
      > When people do not respect licenses, tbey become thieves.
      >
      > Everyone should make a good honest attempt at resolving this issue, with out having to use legal means. When legal means are used, only the lawyers wins.
      >
      > If both side can not make a good, open, and completely public effort to resolve this issue, then I wish all sides good luck.
      >
      > - Cindy

      Personally, I don't think anyone should take legal action against this Jiri guy if that's what you mean??? Just because he violated the license (mostly because he removed some lines he wasn't allowed to) doesn't necessarily make him a thief - people make stupid mistakes all the time and this should be a lesson learned for everyone - something to help us all work together and hopefully for the Linux people to stop being so 'Linux / GPL' rules, everything else sucks, kinda people...

  8. By Stefan Sonnenberg (91.0.199.172) on

    Dual licensing code is not needed.
    BSD license is enough. It has ever been. It will ever be.
    Holly crap, I didn't know how narrow-minded one must
    be to not get the BSD license right.
    It is of such a beauty, because it is simple, precise and uncompromising.
    I love it.
    GPL 2 was hard, version 3 is even harder.
    Some people fear of some bad companies taking their code and use it never
    give something back.
    And if this happens unnoticed as with so many code ?
    Your license means nothing - GPL 2/3 means shit then as BSD license does.
    It is so more to worry about that companies do never (or seldom) return docs for developers or do not spend some money back to projects they rely on.
    Companies who are playing fair, do support developers by giving things back: code/money/time/resources/gear.

    Some people may think: if it is open-sourced then I can use the license I like: _wrong_ !

    I have to thank Theo once more.
    In what he does, he is as uncompromising as his best loved license.
    Sadly, the one time or the other, he may look more like Don Cichote -
    cause the world is full of windmills - AND PEOPLE KEEPING THE WIND BLOWING !

    Cheers,




  9. By Anonymous Coward (216.68.198.57) on

    Proactive measures and small "fights" are necessary and inevitable to resolving emerging matters.
    Cooperation is a very important matter in programming. Code is a high stakes futuristic forward tainted and expensive investment to build, resolve and maintain!
    I think most of us hope for and are working towards building and maintaining stable productive cooperating communities, rather than a ruthless business warfare legal environment, which only allows others to game us and win to our dismay.
    If we don't work to keep these communities, others will come with chains...

    Thanks go out to Theo, Bob Beck, and OpenBSD team, to protect OpenBSD, and keep its community working through these complex matters. You all have helped me learn about IT legal issues, and keeping everything together in this business, and other GPLers would want everything to just work out.

    Peace all.

  10. By Anonymous Coward (81.83.82.123) on

    Ah.. yes .. internet arguments. Petty namecalling and Godwin's Law. This whole discussion is pretty pointless, in my opinion. I know plenty of GPL guys who get along fine with BSD guys. I know of a few who work together on some projects. When I'm at events like Fosdem, there's never any such rivalry to be seen. Sure, there'll be the occasional "my licence is bigger than yours"-remark, but that's about as far as it goes. Enter the Internet. Suddenly, the guys on the other side of the fence is a whole world away and won't punch you in the nose if you act like a tit. This gives you some sort of sense of "balls" and makes you say "manly" things which you normally probably wouldn't.

    How about the GPL and BSD guys just go out, have a friendly chat in person, have a few beers, and sort things out. All this crying on the Internet really isn't getting anyone anywhere at all (I'm not saying anything about the validity, or lack thereof, of anyone's points). Seriously, chill.

    That being said, the only licence I like, is the Beer Ware licence.

  11. By Tim Rue (74.166.12.69) on http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html

    Because there is so much code out there under both licenses and so many authors who chose one license or another for reasons only they can say (as a matter of intent), its not at all likely that a common ground will be found and agreed upon by all involved. Agreeing not to agree is the best it is going to get. And that was already established before this was brought up.

    You can take most any legal document, perhaps an apartment lease or EULA and take it to its covered extremes and find unfair concerns.

    Intent is what is at the heart of such licensing. And when the intent is not an extremism applied of such a license then any court room involved would like to know.

    Didn't MS recently present to the OSI an open source license for their approval? Who could and would take advantage of any such licensing conflict in the open source circle?

    Perhaps what is needed is a guideline that supports the common intent of open source licenses. If you can't get the OK from the involved authors to change the license then rewrite the functionality in your own words... code..

    Just as what Open source does when it wants something from the proprietary circle. It takes the public API and creates functionality that fits the API.

    I'm a supporter of giving credit where it is due and honoring genuine intent. Though I don't always get it, good or bad.

    BSD license gets credit for allowing the source to be closed up. So I become confused when someone then claims the GPL circle doesn't give back to the BSD circle.

    Perhaps a solution is one of using Diffs to draw the line between code licensing when they are mixed??? Soo that when one opposes one of the licenses, they can more easily remove/revert out the code of that license. Or ultimately not mixing them to begin with.

    Problem solved. Cause it ain't gonna get any better than that.
    To much code, to many authors with their intent.

    The ultimate solution is to make coding so easy to do that most anyone can do it where upon such friction as found on this topic simple won't exist. Like roman numeral accountant elites being dismissed by the hindu-arabic decimal system with its zero place holder, such that most anyone can do the majority of what all math calculations are done, themselves.

    But is the software industry ready for that or will it hold it off for 300 years like the roman numeral accountants did to the decimal system?

  12. By squiggleslash (66.32.106.126) on

    > unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems
    > to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not
    > *removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors.
    {...}
    > I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads
    > inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and
    > the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from
    > Theo, and he's a great target to bash,

    We will have the respectful environment that fosters cooperation once BSD license advocates cease to use the word "zealot" whenever they describe people who prefer the GPL.

    Once people like Bob stop pretending that Linux developers (lead by the oh-so-ideological Linus Torvalds) are motivated primarily by ideology and hatred of Theo, you might actually start creating the sharing environment you so often claim to be in favour of.

    Bob, you're inhuman. (Just kidding.) Seriously though, drop the attitude. Saying you "respect the GPL" does nothing to foster good relations if the issue is how you treat and insult people who use the GPL.

Latest Articles

Credits

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