Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote: > > We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and > > we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us > > instead of helping. > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/ > > As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems. > > As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates > the issue at hand. > > Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now. Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the above press release. Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address, there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL. Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing, after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option, are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is well-deserved? http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258 C. - 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/
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote: We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us instead of helping. http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/ As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems. As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates the issue at hand. Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now. Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the above press release. Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address, there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL. Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing, after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option, are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is well-deserved? http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258 C. - 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/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said: > > > Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from > > dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. > > > > This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree) > > neither Jiri nor Alan noticed. > > You know, we *could* have solved this a *hell* of a lot easier if people quit > flaming about it, and we did something *productive* instead. > > Like submit a corrected patch. :) Dear Valdis, The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place -- most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from OpenBSD. It is beneficial for the atmosphere of both projects to keep the licence compatible. If Linux tries to GPL future modifications to Reyk's code, then OpenBSD would not be able to take back the changes. But this would not be the case if all modifications to Reyk's code are continued to be BSD-licensed. This is what this whole issue is about. My understanding, is that Nick Kossifidis never had a problem with licensing his changes with a BSD-license, although Jiri Slaby always used GPLv2. With the last patch posted by Luis [0], Jiri actually recalled his original patch and relicensed all of his GPLv2 work under BSD (!); however, at the very same time, Nick changed his mind, and decided to relicense his BSD code under GPLv2 (!). (Surprise! Yes, it appears that both Nick and Jiri decided to switch their licensing positions, and mutually relicense their work under each other's respective licence. :) Is everyone ready going to go back and forth now? Does this whole story still makes any sense to you? :) I hope that both Nick Kossifidis and Jiri Slaby can agree on licensing their HAL code with a BSD licence, so that the code remains licence-compatible with OpenBSD. If there are any unresolved licensing questions, I personally would be more than happy to answer any such questions as much as I can, and yes -- I am not a lawyer. :) Nick, Jiri -- since much of the work on OpenHAL is based on Reyk's HAL, could you please be so kind as to both agree to licence you changes in OpenHAL with the same licence as Reyk does in OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL? This step will be very welcome in the OpenBSD community at large. Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=2 - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of > them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that > is OK. > > When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door > against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard. > > Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed, > and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds? Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I ask? Why Luis puts the phrase "legal hell" next to entirely free software? [0] Why is he trying to go against the BSD community, which gave him the entire HAL framework for the driver in question? Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=2 - 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/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason Dixon wrote: > > Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must > > remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your > > license, but the original copyright and license permission remains > > intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD > > code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult > > for the Linux brain share to absorb? > > Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing? Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed? C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code > > > > > > > > licensing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even > > > > > > matters > > > > > > to the original dispute. > > > > > > > > > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD > > > > > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago. > > > > > > > > FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on. > > > > > > > > FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also > > > > written by Sam. > > > > > > > > > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this > > > > > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people... > > > > > > > > How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are > > > > no possible licensing accusations and violations. > > > > > > OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types > > > of files changed by Jiri's patch: > > > 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only > > > 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned > > >to make GPL-only > > > 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only > > > > > > For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code > > > without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3. > > > > > > So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan > > > to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is > > > with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3. > > > > > > It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a > > > copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK... > > > > I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts -- > > there were many messages posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and > > to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as > > all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam. > >... > > Then it's your fault that you forwarded the wrong email - in the email > you forwarded the only action for which Theo accused the Linux > developers of breaking the law was for choosing one licence when using > dual licenced code. For the sake of the discussion, at the time I forwarded the message, the obvious licensing problems (e.g. the original infamous patch by Jiri) were already addressed. Personally, these problems were so obvious -- entirely changing the licence under Reyk's Copyright notice -- that I didn't even take them for real when they first came across. BTW, I've now once again re-read the original message that I've forwarded, and it does contain Theo's reiteration of his response that the original re-licensing patch had clear violations. E.g. re-read this part of his message: - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. Really. > > After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the > > problem started being an ethical one. > > > > As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come > > the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was > > reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto > > it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back > > to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at > > OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, > > but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most c
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Luis R. Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. Err... I don't understand why you need a lawyer to interpret this document: /* $OpenBSD: ar5210.c,v 1.39 2007/04/10 17:47:55 miod Exp $*/ /* * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ If you want to add more code to it, and your contribution is significant, simply add you name next to Reyk's. Where's the problem? I don't know how licensing could be any simpler than this. Please, notice, that there are no additional documents (other than the copyright law) to read here -- _this is the complete licence_! (And you have to read the copyright law even if you use the GNU GPL.) C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code > > > > > > licensing. > > > > > > > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? > > > > > > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters > > > > to the original dispute. > > > > > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD > > > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago. > > > > FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on. > > > > FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by > > Sam. > > > > > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this > > > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people... > > > > How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are > > no possible licensing accusations and violations. > > OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types > of files changed by Jiri's patch: > 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only > 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned >to make GPL-only > 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only > > For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code > without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3. > > So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan > to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is > with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3. > > It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a > copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK... I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts -- there were many messages posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam. After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the problem started being an ethical one. As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > ath5k, license is GPLv2 > > > > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. > > Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was > done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to > work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. ( from http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/178 ) - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
> > > > > licensing.
> > > >
> > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
> > >
> > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
> > > to the original dispute.
>
> 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.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
> * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
> * are met:
> * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
> *without modification.
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
> *similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
> *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
> *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
> * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
> *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
> *from this software without specific prior written permission.
> *
> * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
> * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
> * Software Foundation.
> *
> * NO WARRANTY
> * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
> * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
> * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
> * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
> * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
> * OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
> * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
> * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
> * IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
> * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
> * THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
> */
Where exactly do you see Reyk's copyright in the above quote?
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=ath=4#AUTHORS
C.
-
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/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code > > > > licensing. > > > > > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? > > > > Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters > > to the original dispute. > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago. FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on. FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam. > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people... How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are no possible licensing accusations and violations. > > That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate. > > Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this > "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the > two choices alternatively offered. > > According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"... FreeBSD's ath(4) code, both the driver and the HAL, is entirely written by Sam Leffler, who can licence it in whichever way he seems reasonable. The driver part of Sam's code is also present in OpenBSD, but the HALs in OpenBSD and FreeBSD are entirely different. C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. > > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters to the original dispute. That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate. C. - 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/
Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. C. -- Forwarded message -- From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 31-Aug-2007 21:40 Subject: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him] I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact. For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed. Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level, a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers). And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the larger open source communities who are writing applications. Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel that a lot of Linux "relicencing" meme-talkin' trolls basically have attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to say something public about this. In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the authors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been taught, how one must handle such licenses: - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. Really. - If you add "large pieces of originality" to the code which are valid for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different and seperate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file above the existing license. (Warning: things become less clear as to what the combination of licenses mean, though -- there are ethical traps, too). - If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file: "Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off." In either case, I think a valuable lessons has been taught us here in the BSD world -- there are many many GPL loving people who are going to try to find any way to not give back and share (I will mention one name: Luis Rodriguez has been a fanatic pushing us for dual licensed, and I feel he is to blame for this particular problem). Many of those same people have been saying for years that BSD code can be stolen, and that is why people should GPL their code. Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the GPL their best tool to take from us! GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would
Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. C. -- Forwarded message -- From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 31-Aug-2007 21:40 Subject: That whole Linux stealing our code thing To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him] I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact. For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed. Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level, a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers). And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the larger open source communities who are writing applications. Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel that a lot of Linux relicencing meme-talkin' trolls basically have attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to say something public about this. In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the authors. Alan asks So whats the problem ?. Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been taught, how one must handle such licenses: - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. Really. - If you add large pieces of originality to the code which are valid for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different and seperate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file above the existing license. (Warning: things become less clear as to what the combination of licenses mean, though -- there are ethical traps, too). - If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file: Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off. In either case, I think a valuable lessons has been taught us here in the BSD world -- there are many many GPL loving people who are going to try to find any way to not give back and share (I will mention one name: Luis Rodriguez has been a fanatic pushing us for dual licensed, and I feel he is to blame for this particular problem). Many of those same people have been saying for years that BSD code can be stolen, and that is why people should GPL their code. Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the GPL their best tool to take from us! GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Constantine A. Murenin wrote: This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters to the original dispute. That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate. C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Constantine A. Murenin wrote: This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters to the original dispute. It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago. FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on. FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam. So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people... How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are no possible licensing accusations and violations. That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate. Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this Alternatively means everyone can always choose to remove one of the two choices alternatively offered. According to Theo, that is breaking the law... FreeBSD's ath(4) code, both the driver and the HAL, is entirely written by Sam Leffler, who can licence it in whichever way he seems reasonable. The driver part of Sam's code is also present in OpenBSD, but the HALs in OpenBSD and FreeBSD are entirely different. C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Constantine A. Murenin wrote: This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters to the original dispute. 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. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer, *without modification. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer *similar to the NO WARRANTY disclaimer below (Disclaimer) and any *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution. * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived *from this software without specific prior written permission. * * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free * Software Foundation. * * NO WARRANTY * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, * OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER * IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF * THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. */ Where exactly do you see Reyk's copyright in the above quote? http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi?query=athsektion=4#AUTHORS C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Constantine A. Murenin wrote: This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters to the original dispute. It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago. FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on. FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam. So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people... How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are no possible licensing accusations and violations. OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types of files changed by Jiri's patch: 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned to make GPL-only 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3. So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan to change the semantics of the word alternatively), the problem is with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3. It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK... I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts -- there were many messages posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam. After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the problem started being an ethical one. As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: ath5k, license is GPLv2 The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. ( from http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/178 ) - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Luis R. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. Err... I don't understand why you need a lawyer to interpret this document: /* $OpenBSD: ar5210.c,v 1.39 2007/04/10 17:47:55 miod Exp $*/ /* * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ If you want to add more code to it, and your contribution is significant, simply add you name next to Reyk's. Where's the problem? I don't know how licensing could be any simpler than this. Please, notice, that there are no additional documents (other than the copyright law) to read here -- _this is the complete licence_! (And you have to read the copyright law even if you use the GNU GPL.) C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Constantine A. Murenin wrote: This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing. What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing? Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters to the original dispute. It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago. FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on. FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam. So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people... How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are no possible licensing accusations and violations. OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types of files changed by Jiri's patch: 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned to make GPL-only 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3. So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan to change the semantics of the word alternatively), the problem is with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3. It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK... I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts -- there were many messages posted to [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list and to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam. ... Then it's your fault that you forwarded the wrong email - in the email you forwarded the only action for which Theo accused the Linux developers of breaking the law was for choosing one licence when using dual licenced code. For the sake of the discussion, at the time I forwarded the message, the obvious licensing problems (e.g. the original infamous patch by Jiri) were already addressed. Personally, these problems were so obvious -- entirely changing the licence under Reyk's Copyright notice -- that I didn't even take them for real when they first came across. BTW, I've now once again re-read the original message that I've forwarded, and it does contain Theo's reiteration of his response that the original re-licensing patch had clear violations. E.g. re-read this part of his message: - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. Really. After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the problem started being an ethical one. As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. Is it a legal problem or is it only an ethical problem? I don't particularly like to repeat myself -- after the obvious licensing issues were addressed, it has indeed become an ethical problem: why do you think that you as the Linux community has to act ruder to the *BSD community than the supposed corporations that we always hear about in the BSD/GPL licensing arguments? I really like the response that Bob Beck gave on this question: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/197 If choosing one licence when using dual licenced code is not a legal problem then Theo repeatedly talking about it would break the law in the email you forwarded was very unethical and the worst he could do for his cause. My understanding is that with dual-licensed code, you choose to comply with all of the terms of either
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jason Dixon wrote: Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your license, but the original copyright and license permission remains intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult for the Linux brain share to absorb? Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing? Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed? C. - 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/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that is OK. When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard. Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed, and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds? Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I ask? Why Luis puts the phrase legal hell next to entirely free software? [0] Why is he trying to go against the BSD community, which gave him the entire HAL framework for the driver in question? Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2 - 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/
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said: Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree) neither Jiri nor Alan noticed. You know, we *could* have solved this a *hell* of a lot easier if people quit flaming about it, and we did something *productive* instead. Like submit a corrected patch. :) Dear Valdis, The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place -- most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from OpenBSD. It is beneficial for the atmosphere of both projects to keep the licence compatible. If Linux tries to GPL future modifications to Reyk's code, then OpenBSD would not be able to take back the changes. But this would not be the case if all modifications to Reyk's code are continued to be BSD-licensed. This is what this whole issue is about. My understanding, is that Nick Kossifidis never had a problem with licensing his changes with a BSD-license, although Jiri Slaby always used GPLv2. With the last patch posted by Luis [0], Jiri actually recalled his original patch and relicensed all of his GPLv2 work under BSD (!); however, at the very same time, Nick changed his mind, and decided to relicense his BSD code under GPLv2 (!). (Surprise! Yes, it appears that both Nick and Jiri decided to switch their licensing positions, and mutually relicense their work under each other's respective licence. :) Is everyone ready going to go back and forth now? Does this whole story still makes any sense to you? :) I hope that both Nick Kossifidis and Jiri Slaby can agree on licensing their HAL code with a BSD licence, so that the code remains licence-compatible with OpenBSD. If there are any unresolved licensing questions, I personally would be more than happy to answer any such questions as much as I can, and yes -- I am not a lawyer. :) Nick, Jiri -- since much of the work on OpenHAL is based on Reyk's HAL, could you please be so kind as to both agree to licence you changes in OpenHAL with the same licence as Reyk does in OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL? This step will be very welcome in the OpenBSD community at large. Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2 - 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/
