Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 the BSD | licence is that it does not require you to give back. | | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that | something has to be given back. 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". If you may demand me to give back, why should I(*) not demand the same thing for my contributions? You're not only asking to contribute to your project, but you're asking me to throw my code to the feet of Apple amd Microsoft, who will user it, make big bucks and lock out alternatives as far as possible, especially free ones. This happens to not be my idea of sharing code. Here we go again with the "Evil Corporation". What exactly have they "lock[ed] out"? How have they magically stopped you from distributing your "free" code? Are you somehow able to make "big bucks" on your own with the GPL that you wouldn't have otherwise been able to under the BSD? If so, please let me know. I want big bucks too! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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: Wasting our Freedom
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 the BSD | licence is that it does not require you to give back. | | Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you do not | require getting anything back but you then argue on moral grounds that | something has to be given back. 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. If you may demand me to give back, why should I(*) not demand the same thing for my contributions? You're not only asking to contribute to your project, but you're asking me to throw my code to the feet of Apple amd Microsoft, who will user it, make big bucks and lock out alternatives as far as possible, especially free ones. This happens to not be my idea of sharing code. Here we go again with the Evil Corporation. What exactly have they lock[ed] out? How have they magically stopped you from distributing your free code? Are you somehow able to make big bucks on your own with the GPL that you wouldn't have otherwise been able to under the BSD? If so, please let me know. I want big bucks too! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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: Wasting our Freedom
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 my code is that copyright and attribution must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code is being "stolen". They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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: Wasting our Freedom
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 NetApp ok and Linux evil? NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom. Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence since it doesn't defend that the code stays free. 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 remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) "stealing" my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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: Wasting our Freedom
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 NetApp ok and Linux evil? NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc GPL and BSD are two different philosophies of freedom. Some people (e.g. me) consider the BSD licence a less free licence since it doesn't defend that the code stays free. 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 remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) stealing my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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: Wasting our Freedom
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 my code is that copyright and attribution must remain intact. All users of my code have the same rights, regardless of what Company X does with their *copy*. The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less free than the BSD. Free code + restrictions = non-free code. (1) GPL advocates deep-down really like the BSD license. Unfortunately, they keep getting hung up on the idea of the Evil Corporation (TM) stealing my code. Nobody has stolen anything. That corporation is entitled to the same rights as Joe User. Neither EC or JU are required to redistribute any of their changes to their *copy* of my code. They are only required to keep attribution intact. Does that make MY CODE any less free? OF COURSE NOT! Your post is incredibly ironic considering how up in arms all the BSD folks are right now. Many of them claiming that their code is being stolen. They did not KEEP ATTRIBUTION INTACT. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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 Sep 1, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote: Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix made the code not work with the original? We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and we fully intend to cover our balls. Since when is this *your* code? Oh that's right, when Jiri decided to steal it by deleting Reyk's copyright and license. Oh wait, that's already been corrected. What was your point again? The problem is yours to fix. If you actually care, use a license that SAYS you care. Right now there's a big /* I don't give a shit */ on top of every BSD file. We took you at your word and assumed you didn't. Now its too late and you suddenly care, don't you? The BSD license, in effect, says that we care about good code. We allow anyone to use it. The only stipulation is that the copyright and license permissions must remain intact. Are you trying to be hateful, or are you really this ignorant? --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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 Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: 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. The BSD license plainly states: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or 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." 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? As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm appalled that fellow open-source developers would see fit to cavalierly disregard the rights of the original copyright holder. You wield the GPL when it suits you, and trample the courtesies of non-GPL developers just because you [think you] can. As bad as Jiri's offense was, it pales to the impudence displayed by Alan Cox, one of the so-called defenders of free software. Shame on you all. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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 Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: 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. The BSD license plainly states: Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or 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. 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? As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm appalled that fellow open-source developers would see fit to cavalierly disregard the rights of the original copyright holder. You wield the GPL when it suits you, and trample the courtesies of non-GPL developers just because you [think you] can. As bad as Jiri's offense was, it pales to the impudence displayed by Alan Cox, one of the so-called defenders of free software. Shame on you all. --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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 Sep 1, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote: Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix made the code not work with the original? We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and we fully intend to cover our balls. Since when is this *your* code? Oh that's right, when Jiri decided to steal it by deleting Reyk's copyright and license. Oh wait, that's already been corrected. What was your point again? The problem is yours to fix. If you actually care, use a license that SAYS you care. Right now there's a big /* I don't give a shit */ on top of every BSD file. We took you at your word and assumed you didn't. Now its too late and you suddenly care, don't you? The BSD license, in effect, says that we care about good code. We allow anyone to use it. The only stipulation is that the copyright and license permissions must remain intact. Are you trying to be hateful, or are you really this ignorant? --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - 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/
