[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing]
This is a lot more relevant than much of the ongoing discussion, so perhaps people could take a moment to read it over. - Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:23:04 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing Hi! I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks. So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion. I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD people, and obviously from some trolls. I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and repeat a few words: - I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL or any kind of a "dual"-license. - The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and even the warranty term. - Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the controversial code. - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things? I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved in the linux tree. But PLEASE DON'T SPAM ME with any other mails about this, even if you want to help/support me, I will talk to the relevant people in private. Thanks! reyk On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > [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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing]
This is a lot more relevant than much of the ongoing discussion, so perhaps people could take a moment to read it over. - Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:23:04 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing Hi! I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks. So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion. I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD people, and obviously from some trolls. I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and repeat a few words: - I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL or any kind of a dual-license. - The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and even the warranty term. - Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the controversial code. - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things? I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved in the linux tree. But PLEASE DON'T SPAM ME with any other mails about this, even if you want to help/support me, I will talk to the relevant people in private. Thanks! reyk On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [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
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > > 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. >From http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/docs/macpaper.php "Always be the second operating system port to an undocumented platform. The sterling work done by the OpenBSD/Mac team was a huge help to the Linux project. I'm also happy to say that while half of the world may sit on usenet advocacy groups throwing manure the relationship between the Linux and BSD Macintosh teams has always been one of mutual co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped" Alan Cox circa 1999. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html "well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware thats not the intention of the project ;)" Alan Cox circa 2007. What changed? Why are you guys setting out to break all of the work underpinning UNIX and the Internet done in the 80s at Berkeley? The reason the protocols and infrastructure took off in the first place is due to liberal licenses that let everyone be involved, not wrapping things up in more restrictions and lawyers. - 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 Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: 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. From http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/docs/macpaper.php Always be the second operating system port to an undocumented platform. The sterling work done by the OpenBSD/Mac team was a huge help to the Linux project. I'm also happy to say that while half of the world may sit on usenet advocacy groups throwing manure the relationship between the Linux and BSD Macintosh teams has always been one of mutual co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped Alan Cox circa 1999. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware thats not the intention of the project ;) Alan Cox circa 2007. What changed? Why are you guys setting out to break all of the work underpinning UNIX and the Internet done in the 80s at Berkeley? The reason the protocols and infrastructure took off in the first place is due to liberal licenses that let everyone be involved, not wrapping things up in more restrictions and lawyers. - 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/
