> sorry, but calling attribution claims of any sort "petty" is nothing
> short of dangerous ignorance.
Says a man who has a .sig of "SDF Public Access UNIX System -
http://sdf.lonestar.org;
Well sdf.lonestar.org claims to be NetBSD so might I suggest your
dangerous ignorance starts at the Unix
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two
> lines:
>
> > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Petty, isn't it? Let's just
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 11:55 -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >> The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough
> >> original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
> >>
> >> I believe
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except*
>> these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning
>> when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution,
Can E. Acar wrote:
As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the
copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask.
Additional work went in, thus additional copyrights were added.
I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once
such
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except*
> these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning
> when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they
> sure can add their names.
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough
>> original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
>>
>> I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
>>
>> The
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16
> years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.
>
Fortunately, no one seems to miss you so much in the BSD camp ;-)
Gilles
-
To unsubscribe
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
> > be good.
>
> It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
> Theo
hmm, on Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso said that
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
> > be good.
>
> It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing
On 9/18/07, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
> > be good.
>
> It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
> Theo is
hmm, on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08:46AM -0700, David Schwartz said that
> > As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not
> > wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as
> > in "you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice" implicitly implies
>
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
> be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
*BSD
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:00:13AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 23:04]:
> > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
> > have still not been
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Bodo Eggert wrote:
> Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
>> | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of
On Sep 18, 2007, at 7:16 AM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who
consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of
Paul de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
> | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
> | licence is that it does not require
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD
* Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 23:04]:
> Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
> have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
> license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
> HAL
if that is true and stays that
* Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 23:04]:
Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
HAL
if that is true and stays that way -
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD
Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:00:13AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 23:04]:
Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
have still not been
On Sep 18, 2007, at 7:16 AM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who
consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
|
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
*BSD
hmm, on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08:46AM -0700, David Schwartz said that
As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not
wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as
in you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice implicitly implies
being
On 9/18/07, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is kvetching about,
hmm, on Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso said that
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
[...]
Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16
years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.
Fortunately, no one seems to miss you so much in the BSD camp ;-)
Gilles
-
To unsubscribe from
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
The only remaining issue is whether Nick Jiri have enough
original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
The main reason of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except*
these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning
when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they
sure can add their names.
Can E. Acar wrote:
As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the
copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask.
Additional work went in, thus additional copyrights were added.
I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once
such
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except*
these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning
when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they
sure
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 11:55 -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
The only remaining issue is whether Nick Jiri have enough
original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
I believe this needs to be
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two
lines:
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's
sorry, but calling attribution claims of any sort petty is nothing
short of dangerous ignorance.
Says a man who has a .sig of SDF Public Access UNIX System -
http://sdf.lonestar.org;
Well sdf.lonestar.org claims to be NetBSD so might I suggest your
dangerous ignorance starts at the Unix
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:03:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a
> > > derivative work from
> > > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
> > >
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a
> > derivative work from
> > receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
> > elements in that work.
>
> Of course you can.
No you can't.
> What rights do you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 04:40:38PM -0700:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote:
>> so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation?
>> that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with.
>
> if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough
> original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
>
> I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
>
> The main reason of Theo's
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from
> receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
> elements in that work.
Of course you can.
What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made
Adrian Bunk wrote on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:57:14PM +0200:
> But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then
> complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give
> back is simply dishonest.
>
> Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
>> Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
>> modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
>> and by doing that creating something new I would not say
Kryzstof Halasa writes:
> "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Theodore Tso writes:
>
> hardly
A apologize for the error in attribution.
> > Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work.
> > You never need
> > a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
> modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
> and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.
Number 1, some of
"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Theodore Tso writes:
hardly
> Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need
> a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a
> bit differently but get the same effect.)
Really? I thought
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
> > goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.
>
> The BSD license
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
> > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
> > copyright and
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> | > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
> | > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey,
> | > they don't
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:39AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> Theodore Tso writes:
>
> > Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
> > the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
> > a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
> > Do you
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| > I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD
| > licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should
| > give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak
| > for them) trying to
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| > Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
| > give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that "hey,
| > they don't require it, so we don't have to".
| >...
|
| The GPL doesn't require to
deleting this stupid thread...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:25:14AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
> > *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
> > void?
>
> Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> | It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
> | BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
> | licence is that
> And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
> *only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
> void?
Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code. The
code you distribute contains protectable elements from
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to give back.
|
| Something is wrong if your
Theodore Tso writes:
> Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
> the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
> a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
> Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
> the works MS Windows
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or that
> "OpenBSD != Linux kernel"
>
> was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they
> are both open source operating systems.
BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux?
I did, not once :-)
--
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
>...
> Saying something like:
> "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU"
>
> is quite similar to saying:
> "Windows != Microsoft"
>
> In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are
> certainly related. Also in both
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:52AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
>> Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
>>> regardless of
Hannah Schroeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant
> additions/changes*.
Such as a patch? Hardly IMHO, a patch is not a work but an output
of an automated tool. The copyright is not about fragments of works.
You may add a copyright
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Hannah!
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >> >On Sun,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
> especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
> copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
> BSD/ISC
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
The only restrictions on
Jacob Meuser wrote:
when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they
did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings
that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing
the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or
less
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
> regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
> The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution
> must
Am Montag 17 September 2007 15:15 schrieb Jason Dixon:
>
> The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less
> free than the BSD.
>
> Free code + restrictions = non-free code.
The legal restriction that people must not enter your house uninvited
by smashing the door adds
On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the
code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
> > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
> >
> >
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]:
> > you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
> > brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
>
> NetApp
> Do *you* read the GPL and tell me where exactly it does *explicitly*
> allow to change license notices at all. Ya know, that right is reserved
> by law and must be *explicitly* granted. So just not explicitly
> forbidding it isn't enough.
You are mistaken about the law and mistaken about the
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> >So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can
> >create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more
> >restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where
> >no one is allowed to
"Can E. Acar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code
> to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough
> to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright?
"Deserve"? The copyright is automatic, the author (of the
Hannah Schroeter wrote:
> The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
> choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
> altogether).
You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing
license notices, the other is about relicensing. One
Hello!
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 04:57:29AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one
>> >license notice
>> >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one
> >license notice
> >from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
> >derivative work still receives a dual license from the original
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
> and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD community so upset.
when I see the
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>[...]
>If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one license notice
>from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
>derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
>[...]
>What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
>"derivative work".
Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable
on their own.
>Whether or not you can even make a
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-17 02:29]:
> you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
> brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc
--
Henning
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> First, these
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
>On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
>> >>...
>> >> First, these
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community
> > over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it
> > should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain
> > about those
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources
to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back,
and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office?
which
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=118963284332223=2
> >>
> >> and here
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
>> Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
>>
>> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=118963284332223=2
>>
>> and here is a very brief summary:
>>
>>
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118963284332223w=2
and here is a very brief summary:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118965266709012w=2
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118963284332223w=2
and here is a very brief
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources
to WAFL, and claim that they have moral duty to give the code back,
and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office?
which is
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community
over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it
should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain
about those
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc
--
Henning Brauer,
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
[...]
What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
derivative work.
Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable
on their own.
Whether or not you can even make a derivative
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
[...]
If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one license notice
from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD community so upset.
when I see the
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 03:19:41PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
[...]
If you take work that's under a dual-license and remove one
license notice
from it when you create a derivative work, every recipient of that
derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to
1 - 100 of 230 matches
Mail list logo
