subject:"RE\: Wasting our Freedom"

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 can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here?
> 
> Please define "Sufficient contribution".  And in what juristiction that
> definition applies.

Please note that I am not a lawyer. It would be best if you do
your own research, and consult a lawyer.

Please look up the definition of derivative work. Even Wikipedia would
do for
some basic definitions. The copyright laws in most countries adhere to the
"Berne Convention", yet another phrase to look up.

>From my own research, one guideline I would consider is:
"The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself."

But, again, if it comes to that, the lawyers will decide and we can have
no more say on the subject.

Let me, instead tell you how we handle this when working on BSD code:
We communicate. If we feel we did some extensive changes to a file, we ask.
Get OKs from other senior developers, preferably the authors and then add
our name.

During our license audits of the OpenBSD tree, a couple of years ago, our
developers went into great pains to locate the authors and clarify
the questionable licenses that were our tree.  We are actively working
on replacing the remaining non-BSD licensed code in our tree. Not by
slapping
on our own licenses, but by asking the authors nicely to relicense, finding
replacements with an acceptable license, or by rewriting them.

Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Jeff Garzik


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 a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place)


In a purely open development environment, even personal developer trees 
are made public.  That's the way we _want_ development to occur.  Out in 
public, with a full audit trail.


Your implied ideal scenario is tantamount to guaranteeing that mistakes 
are never committed to a public repository anywhere.  Mistakes will 
happen.  Even legal mistakes.  In public.




some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they
are doing is wrong.  Right from the start.


What you are seeing is an example of mistakes that were caught in 
review, and corrected.


That's how any scalable review process works...  the developer reviews 
his own work.  the team reviews the developer's work.  the maintainer 
reviews the team's work.  the next maintainer reviews.  and so on, to 
the top.


Jeff


-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Lennart Sorensen

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. What is so difficult to understand here?

Please define "Sufficient contribution".  And in what juristiction that
definition applies.

--
Len Sorensen
-
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

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 Theo's message, linked earlier, was the
>> lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is
>> dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the
>> developers.
> 
> OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off",
> and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about
> "theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri:

Yes, quite an improvement, considering how it all started, dont you think?
Pity it took so much pushing and dragging to get people to do the right
thing.
There is just one little step to go. It is can not be that hard, can it?

>> * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> [snip rest of BSD license]
> 
> It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two
> lines make, for goodness sake?  It's under a BSD license, so it's not
> like anything won't be "given back".

As a programmer, you sure would know what difference any "two lines"
would make on your program. When it comes to law, you seem to lose
that intuition.

> Whether or not they have made
> enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may
> differ from one jurisdiction to another
> --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later ---

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. What is so difficult to understand here?

I have seen some academic papers, where the first author did all the work,
the second author is the professor who funded the work, and the remaining
five "authors" are just coming along for a ride.  You know what the
difference is? The original author *allows* them to put their names as
authors.

Here, you are adding names, and say "why not". It is both unethical and
illegal.

> does it really make a
> difference?  Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit
> than they deserve?  Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is
> given proper credit, right?

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.

If, at the beginning, Nick and Jiri, and others asked Reyk to be included
in the Copyright for the adaptation work they did on the HAL. I do not
believe he would have refused. I can not talk for him, but things would
be have been resolved in a much nicer and positive way.

Instead they chose to push Reyk for months to dual license his code,
then attempted to change the whole license. Even now, when there is
just a small issue left, people are still dragging and resisting.

I am really disappointed by all this.  I would have expected that once
such a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place)
some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they
are doing is wrong.  Right from the start.  I now see this is not how
things work around here.  Senior developers are either too busy or
reluctant to get their hands dirty. In OpenBSD, (which, I accept is a
much smaller community) when one developer does something wrong,
the clue stick is there to be used by one of the more experienced
developers.
Which means, issues are resolved quickly and with much less pain.

Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Gilles Chehade

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 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 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 kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
> *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
> _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
> they should have their names listed in the headers.  In other words,
> 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]>

Its simple; this is illegal.  Those two fruitcakes didn't do jack and
can therefore not claim copyright.  Would be the same as me taking the
linux kernel and adding myself to each file.  I am pretty sure some
people would be up in arms about that.

> 
> 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.

I don't make the laws and I did not break any so you call it whatever
you like.

> 
>   - Ted
> 
> P.S.  And yes, before those two lines is:
> 
> > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

So what?  you don't get a cookie for abiding the law.

> 
> and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.

Where it belongs.  Again you don't get a cookie for doing what you are
supposed to do.

Just like you don't get a cookie for taking care of your kids; you're
supposed to do that.
-
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

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 keyword is `only'.  only = him and noone else (at the moment)

> Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
> *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
> _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
> they should have their names listed in the headers.  In other words,

are you publicly stating that you have checked, and found the amount
of work done justifying a (c) addition of not even one but 2 persons?

> 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 b.s. like this which is why, 16
> years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.

so you don't mind if a couple of us go around adding say 10 lines
of code to files you authored, and then put our copyrights under
your name?  good!  i am glad to hear that.  a bit of additional
"undeserved credit" is always welcome anyway.
would look good in my cv.

it is not just a bit of undeserved credit.  the (c) owners will
be asked in the future regarding any legal aspects of the files
they hold copyrights to.  i don't think those 2 gentlemen have
earned that yet.

-f
-- 
dum spiro spero --  as long as i breathe i hope
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Denis Doroshenko

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, and which apparently is enough to cause the
> *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
> _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
> they should have their names listed in the headers.

and did they really do enough? if those names shouldn't be there, why
play childish games and insist on putting them in?

>  In other words,
> 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?

and what so petty is there? who can show what those two added to the
original work so that according to the law they are allowed to put
their names in there?

>  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.

and who really cares about why you did this or did that? this OT
sentence sounded like real childish BC. if you want to have fun while
coding and share it with others - do it, if you want also to play
contract games - do it; choose BSD or GPL and go with it. however,
whatever you do you must respect laws. if the law says you can put
your name in only if much of work is done, so it must be. there are no
other variants. and everything will come back to you no matter whether
it is good or bad. if you ignore laws using somebody's work, the same
will be done to you one day.

> - Ted

> P.S.  And yes, before those two lines is:
>
> > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.

P.S. Let's just say that BC like that is why I decided to work with
BSD instead of Linux 11 years ago.
-
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

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 allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B.
> 
> You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep
> GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to
> modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the
> right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*.
> 
> This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license
> notices has no effect on actual licenses.

but how do i know i have a bsd licensed file
if the license notice has been removed from it?

i know copyright applies to a file which has no (c) line in it,
because it's implicit.  but licenses are not implicit, are they?

-f
-- 
treat each day as your last, one day you will be right.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Theodore Tso

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 zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
_themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
they should have their names listed in the headers.  In other words,
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 b.s. like this which is why, 16
years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.

- Ted

P.S.  And yes, before those two lines is:

> * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.
-
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

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 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 - excellenty!
> 
> -- 
> Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
> Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
> Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
> 
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)


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
>> | 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.
>
> You may say it's morally correct for them because they never claimed they'd
> not suck your blood, but did the GPL people claim not to demand others to
> give back? Au contrair, and if it's OK for companies to do what they say
> they would, it will be OK for them and for me, too.
>
>
> *) I did not yet work on a BSD licensed project, but let's asume I did
>
>> It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least.
>> No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
>> software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
>> want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
>> back ? Why not do it yourself ?
>
>> By not giving back you're giving a strange signal.
>
> Gee, since you're demanding back anyway, you can use the GPL for your
> project and use my contribution. Problem solved.
>
> Oh, you want people to be free not to share? Freedom includes having the
> moral right to do something. Am I free not to share? Or is this "freedom"
> just an empty shell?
>
> -- 
> Funny quotes:
> 36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
>
> Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -

How about [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.22.1 on an i686 machine (5588.30 BogoMips).
My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/
_


The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be 
privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic 
Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any 
attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Jason Dixon


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

2007-09-18 Thread Bodo Eggert

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.

You may say it's morally correct for them because they never claimed they'd
not suck your blood, but did the GPL people claim not to demand others to
give back? Au contrair, and if it's OK for companies to do what they say
they would, it will be OK for them and for me, too.

*) I did not yet work on a BSD licensed project, but let's asume I did

> It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least.
> No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
> software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
> want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
> back ? Why not do it yourself ?

> By not giving back you're giving a strange signal.

Gee, since you're demanding back anyway, you can use the GPL for your
project and use my contribution. Problem solved.

Oh, you want people to be free not to share? Freedom includes having the
moral right to do something. Am I free not to share? Or is this "freedom"
just an empty shell?

-- 
Funny quotes:
36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.

Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Helge Hafting


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 community so upset.
  

First, note that I am not really a linux developer as my only
contributions to linux are testing.

But it really looks like bsd people are more unhappy with their
licence than linux people.  You can ask linux developers to
keep the bsd licence - and the request is not unreasonable.
Nobody is forced to give back, so some people choose not
to.  Some of these have a "GPL" agenda, some have
a commercial agenda. 


I am sure some developers are willing to "give back" bsd code,
but you can't do anything about those who don't. You don't
want to have code "locked up" with GPL, these developers
don't want their code improvements "locked up" in proprietary products.

So - either you will have to accept the current situation, or
adjust the BSD licence to cope with this.


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
  

Taking credit for the works of others is wrong of course,
no matter what licence is involved.

that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing
the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or
less "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad.  it would be like losing
a friend.  I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal.

I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, "We
can accept BSD licensed code.  There's no need to add the GPL to
it."  and maybe even, "Although we strongly prefer the GPL,
respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect
for the GPL."
  

Good points.  But note that the linux community is divided on this,
as on many other issues.  And there is nothing to do about
those who disagree.

I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was
truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that
started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have
happened in the first place.
  

My impression is that the actions that started the
debate was an unauthorized (possibly illegal)
change that the linux community also rejected. 
With that problem solved, the debate turned to

gpl/bsd licencing issues.

look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license.
the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same.
and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the
recourse to be?
  

Clearly, there is the risk of less cooperation.  Or some
kind of licencing scheme that makes sure that code with bsd
origin always can go back into bsd as long as it stays open.

That would solve the problem - if such a scheme is possible.


Helge Hafting

-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Henning Brauer

* 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 - excellenty!

-- 
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Henning Brauer

* 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 - excellenty!

-- 
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg  Amsterdam
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Helge Hafting


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 community so upset.
  

First, note that I am not really a linux developer as my only
contributions to linux are testing.

But it really looks like bsd people are more unhappy with their
licence than linux people.  You can ask linux developers to
keep the bsd licence - and the request is not unreasonable.
Nobody is forced to give back, so some people choose not
to.  Some of these have a GPL agenda, some have
a commercial agenda. 


I am sure some developers are willing to give back bsd code,
but you can't do anything about those who don't. You don't
want to have code locked up with GPL, these developers
don't want their code improvements locked up in proprietary products.

So - either you will have to accept the current situation, or
adjust the BSD licence to cope with this.


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
  

Taking credit for the works of others is wrong of course,
no matter what licence is involved.

that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing
the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or
less whatever attitude, it makes me sad.  it would be like losing
a friend.  I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal.

I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, We
can accept BSD licensed code.  There's no need to add the GPL to
it.  and maybe even, Although we strongly prefer the GPL,
respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect
for the GPL.
  

Good points.  But note that the linux community is divided on this,
as on many other issues.  And there is nothing to do about
those who disagree.

I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was
truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that
started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have
happened in the first place.
  

My impression is that the actions that started the
debate was an unauthorized (possibly illegal)
change that the linux community also rejected. 
With that problem solved, the debate turned to

gpl/bsd licencing issues.

look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license.
the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same.
and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the
recourse to be?
  

Clearly, there is the risk of less cooperation.  Or some
kind of licencing scheme that makes sure that code with bsd
origin always can go back into bsd as long as it stays open.

That would solve the problem - if such a scheme is possible.


Helge Hafting

-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Bodo Eggert

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.

You may say it's morally correct for them because they never claimed they'd
not suck your blood, but did the GPL people claim not to demand others to
give back? Au contrair, and if it's OK for companies to do what they say
they would, it will be OK for them and for me, too.


*) I did not yet work on a BSD licensed project, but let's asume I did

 It may be perfectly legal, but it's interesting to say the least.
 No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
 software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
 want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
 back ? Why not do it yourself ?

 By not giving back you're giving a strange signal.

Gee, since you're demanding back anyway, you can use the GPL for your
project and use my contribution. Problem solved.

Oh, you want people to be free not to share? Freedom includes having the
moral right to do something. Am I free not to share? Or is this freedom
just an empty shell?

-- 
Funny quotes:
36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.

Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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

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 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 - excellenty!
 
 -- 
 Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
 Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
 Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg  Amsterdam
 
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Jason Dixon


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

2007-09-18 Thread linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)


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
 | 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.

 You may say it's morally correct for them because they never claimed they'd
 not suck your blood, but did the GPL people claim not to demand others to
 give back? Au contrair, and if it's OK for companies to do what they say
 they would, it will be OK for them and for me, too.


 *) I did not yet work on a BSD licensed project, but let's asume I did

 It may be perfectly legal, but it's interesting to say the least.
 No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
 software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
 want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
 back ? Why not do it yourself ?

 By not giving back you're giving a strange signal.

 Gee, since you're demanding back anyway, you can use the GPL for your
 project and use my contribution. Problem solved.

 Oh, you want people to be free not to share? Freedom includes having the
 moral right to do something. Am I free not to share? Or is this freedom
 just an empty shell?

 -- 
 Funny quotes:
 36. You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.

 Friß, Spammer: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 -

How about [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.22.1 on an i686 machine (5588.30 BogoMips).
My book : http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/
_


The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be 
privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic 
Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any 
attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Theodore Tso

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 zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
_themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
they should have their names listed in the headers.  In other words,
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 b.s. like this which is why, 16
years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.

- Ted

P.S.  And yes, before those two lines is:

 * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]

and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.
-
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

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 allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B.
 
 You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep
 GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to
 modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the
 right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*.
 
 This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license
 notices has no effect on actual licenses.

but how do i know i have a bsd licensed file
if the license notice has been removed from it?

i know copyright applies to a file which has no (c) line in it,
because it's implicit.  but licenses are not implicit, are they?

-f
-- 
treat each day as your last, one day you will be right.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Denis Doroshenko

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, and which apparently is enough to cause the
 *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
 _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
 they should have their names listed in the headers.

and did they really do enough? if those names shouldn't be there, why
play childish games and insist on putting them in?

  In other words,
 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?

and what so petty is there? who can show what those two added to the
original work so that according to the law they are allowed to put
their names in there?

  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.

and who really cares about why you did this or did that? this OT
sentence sounded like real childish BC. if you want to have fun while
coding and share it with others - do it, if you want also to play
contract games - do it; choose BSD or GPL and go with it. however,
whatever you do you must respect laws. if the law says you can put
your name in only if much of work is done, so it must be. there are no
other variants. and everything will come back to you no matter whether
it is good or bad. if you ignore laws using somebody's work, the same
will be done to you one day.

 - Ted


 P.S.  And yes, before those two lines is:

  * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.

P.S. Let's just say that BC like that is why I decided to work with
BSD instead of Linux 11 years ago.
-
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

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 keyword is `only'.  only = him and noone else (at the moment)

 Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
 *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
 _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
 they should have their names listed in the headers.  In other words,

are you publicly stating that you have checked, and found the amount
of work done justifying a (c) addition of not even one but 2 persons?

 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 b.s. like this which is why, 16
 years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.

so you don't mind if a couple of us go around adding say 10 lines
of code to files you authored, and then put our copyrights under
your name?  good!  i am glad to hear that.  a bit of additional
undeserved credit is always welcome anyway.
would look good in my cv.


it is not just a bit of undeserved credit.  the (c) owners will
be asked in the future regarding any legal aspects of the files
they hold copyrights to.  i don't think those 2 gentlemen have
earned that yet.

-f
-- 
dum spiro spero --  as long as i breathe i hope
-
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 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 kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
 *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_
 _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so
 they should have their names listed in the headers.  In other words,
 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]

Its simple; this is illegal.  Those two fruitcakes didn't do jack and
can therefore not claim copyright.  Would be the same as me taking the
linux kernel and adding myself to each file.  I am pretty sure some
people would be up in arms about that.

 
 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.

I don't make the laws and I did not break any so you call it whatever
you like.

 
   - Ted
 
 P.S.  And yes, before those two lines is:
 
  * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]

So what?  you don't get a cookie for abiding the law.

 
 and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice.

Where it belongs.  Again you don't get a cookie for doing what you are
supposed to do.

Just like you don't get a cookie for taking care of your kids; you're
supposed to do that.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Gilles Chehade

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 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

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 Theo's message, linked earlier, was the
 lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is
 dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the
 developers.
 
 OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of licenses ripped off,
 and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about
 theft, is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri:

Yes, quite an improvement, considering how it all started, dont you think?
Pity it took so much pushing and dragging to get people to do the right
thing.
There is just one little step to go. It is can not be that hard, can it?


 * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [snip rest of BSD license]
 
 It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two
 lines make, for goodness sake?  It's under a BSD license, so it's not
 like anything won't be given back.

As a programmer, you sure would know what difference any two lines
would make on your program. When it comes to law, you seem to lose
that intuition.


 Whether or not they have made
 enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may
 differ from one jurisdiction to another
 --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later ---

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. What is so difficult to understand here?

I have seen some academic papers, where the first author did all the work,
the second author is the professor who funded the work, and the remaining
five authors are just coming along for a ride.  You know what the
difference is? The original author *allows* them to put their names as
authors.

Here, you are adding names, and say why not. It is both unethical and
illegal.

 does it really make a
 difference?  Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit
 than they deserve?  Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is
 given proper credit, right?

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.

If, at the beginning, Nick and Jiri, and others asked Reyk to be included
in the Copyright for the adaptation work they did on the HAL. I do not
believe he would have refused. I can not talk for him, but things would
be have been resolved in a much nicer and positive way.

Instead they chose to push Reyk for months to dual license his code,
then attempted to change the whole license. Even now, when there is
just a small issue left, people are still dragging and resisting.

I am really disappointed by all this.  I would have expected that once
such a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place)
some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they
are doing is wrong.  Right from the start.  I now see this is not how
things work around here.  Senior developers are either too busy or
reluctant to get their hands dirty. In OpenBSD, (which, I accept is a
much smaller community) when one developer does something wrong,
the clue stick is there to be used by one of the more experienced
developers.
Which means, issues are resolved quickly and with much less pain.


Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Lennart Sorensen

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. What is so difficult to understand here?

Please define Sufficient contribution.  And in what juristiction that
definition applies.

--
Len Sorensen
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Jeff Garzik


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 a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place)


In a purely open development environment, even personal developer trees 
are made public.  That's the way we _want_ development to occur.  Out in 
public, with a full audit trail.


Your implied ideal scenario is tantamount to guaranteeing that mistakes 
are never committed to a public repository anywhere.  Mistakes will 
happen.  Even legal mistakes.  In public.




some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they
are doing is wrong.  Right from the start.


What you are seeing is an example of mistakes that were caught in 
review, and corrected.


That's how any scalable review process works...  the developer reviews 
his own work.  the team reviews the developer's work.  the maintainer 
reviews the team's work.  the next maintainer reviews.  and so on, to 
the top.


Jeff


-
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

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 can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here?
 
 Please define Sufficient contribution.  And in what juristiction that
 definition applies.

Please note that I am not a lawyer. It would be best if you do
your own research, and consult a lawyer.

Please look up the definition of derivative work. Even Wikipedia would
do for
some basic definitions. The copyright laws in most countries adhere to the
Berne Convention, yet another phrase to look up.

From my own research, one guideline I would consider is:
The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself.

But, again, if it comes to that, the lawyers will decide and we can have
no more say on the subject.

Let me, instead tell you how we handle this when working on BSD code:
We communicate. If we feel we did some extensive changes to a file, we ask.
Get OKs from other senior developers, preferably the authors and then add
our name.

During our license audits of the OpenBSD tree, a couple of years ago, our
developers went into great pains to locate the authors and clarify
the questionable licenses that were our tree.  We are actively working
on replacing the remaining non-BSD licensed code in our tree. Not by
slapping
on our own licenses, but by asking the authors nicely to relicense, finding
replacements with an acceptable license, or by rewriting them.


Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
-
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 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 resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.

The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the
lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is
dismissing this issue,000d8b92-0010lling its resolution by the
developers.

OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of licenses ripped off,
and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about
theft, is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri:

Yes, quite an improvement, considering how it all started, dont you think?
Pity it took so much pushing and dragging to get people to do the right
thing.
There is just one little step to go. It is can not be that hard, can it?

Apparently.

* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[snip rest of BSD license]

It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two
lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not
like anything won't be given back.

As a programmer, you sure would know what difference any two lines
would make on your program. When it comes to law, you seem to lose
that intuition.

Whether or not they have made
enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may
differ from one jurisdiction to another
--- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later ---

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. What is so difficult to understand here?

So, here is the actual commit of the code in Linville's wireless
networking development tree:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=commitdiff;h=fb32e1730a91e39adcf06ed5254bfc5a65d17a9b

It I am not mistaken, it was Sunday afternoon, so probably 5/6 or more
of this thread consisting of more than 110 messages (according to my
inbox) to LKML was after this time.

As this already had the BSD license ...

Anyway, as for the changes, I am not going to check the original, but
from the first commit up to now is here:

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=blobdiff;f=drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c;h=e4cc307e9590a71bcc8542c45dbd2caf3f9e8fe5;hp=f273c42d4004b81597e7cfc5f7eec757a7c52910;hb=everything;hpb=fb32e1730a91e39adcf06ed5254bfc5a65d17a9b

Running a diffstat shows:

ath5k_hw.c | 344 +
1 file changed, 165 insertions(+), 179 deletions(-)

But not having the original version, and as the other two lines are
already present, I am not going to look closer at the changes.

snip

However, the question I wanted to ask, was this:

Can all those that still feel that there is a problem, please go and
look at the original, compare it to the current, and then determine (ie,
go ask a lawyer or some other appropriate person if need be) if the
changes is enough of a contribution *BEFORE* posting again?

Pretty please with sugar on top?

Thanks,

-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Jacob Meuser

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 b.s. like this which is why, 16
 years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.

copyright assertion == claim of ownership, or posession.

posession is 9/10 of the law.

was it petty of UCB to claim copyrights over code USL claimed ownersip
of?

was it also petty of Novell to claim that they, and not SCO, owned
the copyright to UNIX?

sorry, but calling attribution claims of any sort petty is nothing
short of dangerous ignorance.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
-
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

2007-09-18 Thread Alan Cox

 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 trademark.


And please take this where it belongs which is the relevant wireless
list. Better yet leave the dispute to those it actually involves, which
is not most of the OpenBSD community, nor the Linux kernel team, but a
small group of developers in the OpenBSD wireless world and a few people
in the ath5k GPL project.

-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Al Viro

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
> > > elements in that work.
> >
> > Of course you can.
> 
> No you can't.

Gentlemen, please remove your wanking selves back to the gutter you've
crawled from.  This is not slashdot[1].  This is not gnu.misc.discuss.
This is not alt.sex.cartooney.sue.sue.sue.  This is a technical maillist
and that dungpile doesn't belong here.  If you insist on hitting vger,
ask davem to create a new maillist ([EMAIL PROTECTED] would fit that kind
of traffic nicely) and for pity sake, do fuck off already.  Enough is
enough.

[1] the spews from nerds, the spews that splatter...
-
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

> "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 have to BSD-licenced works, made available
> (under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object...

You are equating what rights I have with my ability to exercise those
rights. They are not the same thing. For example, I once bought the rights
to publically display the movie "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". To my
surprise, the rights to public display did not include an actual copy of the
film.

In any event, I never claimed that anyone has rights to a protectable
element that they do not possess a lawful copy of. That's a complete
separate issue and one that has nothing to do with what's being discussed
here because these are all cases where you have the work.

> You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning
> copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee,
> something like "do what you want but I will do what I want with
> my code").

Sure, *you* can grant a BSD-style license to any protectable elements *you*
authored. But unless your recpients can obtain a BSD-style license to all
protectable elements in the work from their respective authors, they cannot
modify or distribute it.

*You* cannot grant any rights to protectable elements authored by someone
else, unless you have a relicensing agreement. Neither the GPL nor the BSD
is one of those.

> >> If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary
> >> licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't
> >> have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario.
> >
> > C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to
> > comply with
> > terms, to every protectable element that is in both the
> > original work and
> > the work he received.

> But he may have received only binary program image - or the source
> under NDA.
> Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public.
> Now what?

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you just trying to be
deliberately dense or waste time? Is it not totally obvious how the
principles I explain apply to a case like that?

Only someone who signs an NDA must comply with it. If you signed an NDA, you
must comply with it. An NDA can definitely subtract rights. It's a complex
question whether an NDA can subtract GPL rights, but again, that has nothing
to do with what we're talking about here.

Sure, you can have the right from me to do X and still not be allowed to do
X because you agreed with someone else not to do it. So what?

> > C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to
> > anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C.

> Sure, the licence covers the >>>entire work<<<, not some "elements".

This is a misleading statement. The phrase "entire work" has two senses. The
license definitely does not cover the "entire work" in the sense of every
protectable element in the work unless each individual author of those
elements chose to offer that element under that license.

If by "entire work", you mean any compilation or derivative work copyright
the "final" author has, then yes, that's available under whatever license
the "final" author places it under. But that license does not actually
permit you to distribute the work.

This is really complicated and I wish I had a clear way to explain it.
Suppose I write a work and then you modify it. Assume your modification
includes adding new protectable elements to that work. When someone
distributes that new derivative work, they are distributing protectable
elements authored by both you and me.

Absent a relicensing agreement, they must obtain some rights from you and
some rights from me to do that. You cannot license the protectable elements
that I authored that are still in the resulting derivative work.

> > Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual
> > license a work is offered under by the original author.
>
> Of course, that's a very distant thing.

Exactly. Every protectable element in the final work is licensed by the
original author to every recipient who takes advantage of the license offer.

> >> BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work
> >> derived from another.
> >
> > In practice it doesn't matter.
>
> Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence
> it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD,
> or sell it to MS (if not based on GPL etc).

Only the author of any protectable element can license it, whether it's in a
derivated work or by itself.

You are seriously confused if you think that just because you create a
derivative work that includes my protectable elements you can then license
the

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Schwarze

[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 Linux community being 
> satisfied with it, it's a matter of the BSD people desiring it based on 
> their selection of license (and the repeated statements that this feature 
> of the BSD license being an advantage compared to the GPL makes it clear 
> that this isn't an unknown side effect, it's an explicit desire).

Indeed, that argument is often paraphrased in a way that makes it
hard to understand.  What i heard people say is not "If people make
derivative works based on BSD code, they should make them less free
instead of fully free", but it is: "If people caring nothing about
free software in the first place are building their own commercial
systems anyway, they should rather reuse BSD code than hacking up
their own bricolage of bug-ridden insecure stuff."

Granted, that's a different approach than taken by the GPL, which
essentially says "... anyway, they deserve to be on their own."

> so the Linux community is following the desires of the BSD community
> by following their license but the BSD community is unhappy, why?

Be careful not to confuse "desires" with "legal requirements"...  :-(

Given BSD code, BSD-licensed substantial improvements
make happier than restrictively licensed substantial improvements
make happier than derived non-free closed-source software
make happier than license violations.

Besides, the Linux communities neither qualify as "caring nothing
about free software" nor as "hacking up their own bricolage of
bug-ridden insecure stuff" (hopefully ;-).  So that argument
simply doesn't apply to you.  Probably, that's why Jacob talked
about "morally equivalent to a corporation".

> 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?  many people honestly don't understand the logic
> behind this.  please explain it.

Several people have already explained this nicely; the degree
of happiness may also depend on the level of cooperation and
understanding you expect from the people building on the code,
given their own intentions and goals.  I may well be thankful
towards an enemy just for not killing me, but at the same time
sad about a friend leaving me out in the rain.

( This just being stated in general; i'm not sure what the state
  of discussions in the various Linux communities is just now. )
-
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 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 message, linked earlier, was the
> lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is
> dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the
> developers.

OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off",
and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about
"theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri:

> * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [snip rest of BSD license]

It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two
lines make, for goodness sake?  It's under a BSD license, so it's not
like anything won't be "given back".  Whether or not they have made
enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may
differ from one jurisdiction to another --- but whether or not they
have now, or maybe will not make until later --- does it really make a
difference?  Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit
than they deserve?  Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is
given proper credit, right?

- Ted
-
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

"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 available
(under BSD) to MS exclusively? You only get the binary object...

You know, this is quite common practice - instead of assigning
copyright, you can grant a BSD-style licence (for some fee,
something like "do what you want but I will do what I want with
my code").

>> If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary
>> licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't
>> have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario.
>
> C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with
> terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and
> the work he received.

But he may have received only binary program image - or the source
under NDA.
Sure, NDA doesn't cover public information, but BSD doesn't mean public.
Now what?

> C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to
> anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C.

Sure, the licence covers the >>>entire work<<<, not some "elements".

> Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual
> license a work is offered under by the original author.

Of course, that's a very distant thing.

>> BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work
>> derived from another.
>
> In practice it doesn't matter.

Of course it does. Only author of a (derived) work can licence
it, in this case he/she could change the licence back to BSD,
or sell it to MS (if not based on GPL etc).

> Would you argue that I can license Disney's "The Lion King" movie to you if
> I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it?

Sure you can :-) that doesn't mean it would protect me from Disney,
but you can.

> You are confusing licenses of two very different types. The BSD and GPL
> licenses only cover modification and distribution, two rights you do not get
> to MS Windows at all. *Use* is not restricted under copyright.

I'm told in the USA use = copying from disk to RAM = distribution,
isn't it true? :-)
It doesn't matter of course.

> There is simply nothing remotely comparable to the BSD or GPL license in the
> case of MS Windows. There is no grant of additional rights beyond those you
> get automatically with lawful possession (such as use).

I don't compare them (though you can). You don't get a licence for
"original elements" in MS-Windows, do you?

> If MS wished to grant someone the right to modify or redistribute Windows,
> that person would also need to obtain the right to modify or distribute
> protectable elements not authored by Microsoft. The only way they could
> obtain those rights, assuming Microsoft didn't have written relicensing
> agreements, is from the original author under the original licenses.

Yes, but it isn't automatic. Imagine you have received something
from MS, under more permissive licence (I think such things did
happen). How do you, for example, recognice boundaries of the
elements, IOW what additional rights do you have to each line in
the code or pixel in the font?

The file itself only states:
(C) MS
portions (C) e.g. Bitstream
licenced under their special agreement

What extra rights do you receive from Bitstream? Perhaps you should
ask them if they have given you some licence? :-)

Or another example, redistributable runtime libraries. What extra
rights do you have?

What you write is true for GPL, but it doesn't mean it's true
everytime. It's just that clause in the GPL.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Ingo Schwarze

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 code 
> and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen?
> 
> And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence.

As this is a recurring argument in the present discussion, let's
address it, even though it lies somewhat beside the main topic.
What i wish and what i try to enforce by legal contracts are two
completely different things.  In particular, it is _not_ a smart
idea to try to enforce all one's wishes by legal means.

For example, i wish that as much as possible of the code i write be
freely available such that others can use it, too, and i wish that
others write useful code and make it free such that i can use it.
When i publish code, i wish bugfixes to be fed back to me, and i
hope that others might free their derivative works, too.  Besides,
i might hope that people at large behave in human and rational ways
and refrain from doing harm to others.  In particular i might wish
the fruits of my work not to be abused to harm or oppress people.
Quite probably, lots of software developers share similar wishes,
whatever licenses they happen to be employing.

But this doesn't imply i should be putting any of the above into
the license for my code.  Once people attach additional conditions
to their licences, sooner or later i get stuck when trying to
combine different code covered by different licences.  However well
intentioned, in practice, those additional conditions habitually
turn out to be incompatible - even when, regarded seperately, all
of them might appear to make some sense.

Now doubtless, the two main additional conditions imposed by the GPL -
derivative works may only be distributed if they are made as open and
as free as the original - are among those making the most sense of all
the additional conditions you might imagine, in the sense that nearly
any developer of free software will wish that anybody holding the
copyright on a derivative work would make that free.  Still, when
trying to combine code with different licences, even the GPL at times
turns out to be a bother.  This does not only apply to the case of
non-free closed-source commercial code, but also to cases where
authors intended to make their code free, but, be it by inexperience
or because they failed to restrain themselves, unfortunately added
some uncommon condition to the license.  Combining such code with ISC
or BSD code is hardly ever problem, combining such code with GPL code
may well be.

Thus, even when wishing derivative works to be free in their turn,
i still see a strong theoretical and a strong practical argument to
choose the ISC license over the GPL: Theoretically, it's just the
categorical imperative: If everybody would be adding her or his
favorite condition to her or his license, we would not end up in
free software, but in chaos.  Practically, i'm quite fed up with
GPL license incompatibility issues always popping up at the most
inconvenient places, and still more, with all those license
compatibility discussions.  With the ISC license, there are no
incompatibility issues and no incompatibility discussions, it just
works.  Of course, i lose the option to sue people to open up
derivative works, but i keep the hope that some people (especially
those engaged in free software themselves) understand and keep up
the spirit, and above all, i avoid lots of legalese worries.
Ultimately, it's kind of a trade-off.

To summarize, there are valid reasons to wish that people would make
derivative works free, but to not require it in the license.  Just
like there are valid reasons to wish that people should not use the
code for waging war, but to not require that in the license.
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Can E. Acar

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 much.
> 
> Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier
> versions.  No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the
> patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED.

Not all, see below:

> 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 people would only take a look at
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything
> 

from latest ath5k_hw.c:

* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[snip rest of BSD license]

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 message, linked earlier, was the
lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is
dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the
developers.

The rest is, as you say, history.

Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
-
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

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 countries
> > word this a
> > bit differently but get the same effect.)

> Really? I thought you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows.
> Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told
> there are strange things happening there :-)

No, you do not need a license to use MS Windows. Microsoft may choose to
compel you to agree to a license in exchange for allowing you to install a
copy, but that is not quite the same thing.

If you read United States copyright law, you will see that *use* is not one
of the rights reserved to the copyright holder. Every lawful possessor of a
work may use it in the ordinary way, assuming they did not *agree* to some
kind of restriction.

> > If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a
> > derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every
> > protectable
> > element in that work.

> Of course.

> > Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you
> > redistribute the
> > Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
> > receives a license from the original licensor to copy,
> > distribute or modify
> > the Program subject to
> > these terms and conditions."

> Seems fine, your point?

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.

> In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work),
> the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original
> author.
> It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue
> you like in the SCO case.
>
> If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary
> licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't
> have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario.

C most certainly would have a BSD license, should he choose to comply with
terms, to every protectable element that is in both the original work and
the work he received.

C has no right to license any protectable element he did not author to
anyone else. He cannot set the license terms for those elements to C.

Again, read GPL section 6. (And this is true for the BSD license as well, at
least in the United States, because it's the only way such a license could
work.)

Neither the BSD nor the GPL ever give you the right to change the actual
license a work is offered under by the original author. In fact, they could
not give you this right under US copyright law. Modify the license *text* is
not the same thing as modifying the license.

> > To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from
> > multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements
> > and need the
> > rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and
> > in the absence
> > of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not),
> > only the original author can grant that to you.

> Of course.
>
> BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work
> derived from another.

In practice it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you have a single
fixed form or expression that contains creative elements contributed by
different people potentially under different licenses. The issues of whether
it's a derivative work or a combined work and whether the distributor has
made sufficient protectable elements to assert their own copy really has no
effect on any of the issues that matter here.

> > It is a common confusion that just because the final author has
> > copyright in
> > the derivative work, that means he can license the work.

> Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't
> receive additional rights.

No, he can't. He can only license those protectable elements that he
authored.

There is no way you can license protectable elements authored by another
absent a relicenseing agreement. The GPL is explicitly not a relicensing
agreement, see section 6. The BSD license is implicitly not a relicensing
agreement.

> Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright
> holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense.

A license is not just a promise not to sue, it's an *enforceable*
*committment* not to sue. It's an explicit grant of permission against legal
rights.

Would you argue that I can license Disney's "The Lion King" movie to you if
I promise not to sue you over any (no) rights that I possess to it?

> > He cannot license
> > anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement.
>
> Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work.

Right.

> Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single

Re: Wasting our Freedom

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 the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier
versions.  No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the
patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED.

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 people would only take a look at

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything

And yet, the BSD folks seem to continue to nurse the above mantra
(which was true, but quickly corrected) combined with the "and the
Linux folks aren't listening", which is manifestly not true.  We might
not agree with everything you are saying, and we might think you're
being highly hypocritical, but we are listening.

> All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a
> new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil"
> companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright.

In the original BSD 4.3 code, if I recall correctly, /bin/true was 12
lines of AT copyright and the standard "this is proprietary
non-published trade secret" legalease with the standard threats of
bazillions and bazillions of damage due to AT's irreparable harm if
the file was ever disclosed  followed by "exit 0".  :-)

Personally, I find that issues of copyright are much more easily
discussed if people keep a sense of balance and humor.  

- Ted
-
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

"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 you need a licence to use, say, MS Windows.
Even to possess a copy. But I don't know about USA, I'm told
there are strange things happening there :-)

> If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a
> derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable
> element in that work.

Of course.

> Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you redistribute the
> Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
> receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify
> the Program subject to
> these terms and conditions."

Seems fine, your point?
In addition to the rights from you (to the whole derived work),
the recipient receives rights to the original work, from original
author.
It makes perfect sense, making sure the original author can't sue
you like in the SCO case.

If A sold a BSD licence to B only and this B sold a proprietary
licence (for a derived work) to C, C (without that clause) wouldn't
have a BSD licence to the original work. This is BTW common scenario.

> To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from
> multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the
> rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence
> of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not),
> only the original author can grant that to you.

Of course.

BTW: a work by multiple authors is a different thing than a work
derived from another.

> It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in
> the derivative work, that means he can license the work.

Of course he (and only he) can. It doesn't mean the end users can't
receive additional rights.

Come on, licence = promise not to sue. Why would the copyright
holder be unable to promise not to sue? It just doesn't make sense.

> He cannot license
> anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement.

Sure, he can licence only his work, perhaps derived work.

Look at MS Windows - it's a work created by a single company, though
derived from other works, it's (C) MS and you get a licence for the
whole MS Windows from only MS.

You may have some additional rights and MS may have to acknowledge
additional contributors, based on their licences granted by those
contributors (such as using the original UCB licence).
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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 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 promotes goodwill.
> 
> The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control.  How hypocritical that 
> the Linux community fights so hard against the "evils" of corporate greed, 
> while it has no qualms about accepting their NDAs, binary blobs, and 
> non-redistributable drivers.  It will bend over backwards for closed-source 
> vendors, but won't extend the olive branch to Free Software brethren.

Your accusation the Linux community had no problems with "binary blobs 
and non-redistributable drivers" is quite far away from the truth.

> Jason Dixon

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Claudio Jeker

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 license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
> > BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal
> > departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the
> > BSD license those not hinder them in any way.
> 
> Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and
> I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are*
> putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications ---
> which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do
> (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution
> which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of
> using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL
> sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their
> proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a
> GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still
> allows you to see the source.
> 

You assume a lot about what NetApp did. While they can use BSD licensed
code in their system without any issue they can not slam a new copyright
on that code unless the changes create a derivative work.
If you just do an adaption of the code you have no right to add an
additional copyright. You need to make substantial extensions to the
original work. Now adapting code to make it run under linux is in my
opinion not a substantial work. It can be compared to translate a book to
a different language -- which neither allows you to assign copyright on
the result.
I very much doubt that WAFL is a simple adaption of UFS/FFS. So it should
be clear that this work has it's own copyright. Maybe some parts of their
code is using BSD work that they just adapted. On that code they can not
add an additional copyright as the modifications are not substantial
enough.

> > Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often
> > the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back.
> > Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require
> > them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool
> > but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their
> > code just because the used some of my code.
> 
> So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code
> and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license?  You can't
> use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements.  What's the
> difference between those two cases?  Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary
> license is better?
> 

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.

All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a
new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil"
companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright.

-- 
:wq Claudio
-
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 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 require it, so we don't have to".
> | >...
> | 
> | The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less 
> | protection for the code than the GPL does.
> 
> It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was
> alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred
> licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not
> mean you in person]
> 
> | If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything 
> | back on moral grounds.
> 
> I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything
> back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the
> GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal.
> 
> 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 make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of
> the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code.

GPL has a "share and protect" nature.

> | If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being 
> | available with less protection.
> 
> If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code
> available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so
> for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code
> for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence
> and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this
> respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code
> and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a
> rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL].
> 
> If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open
> source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received.
> This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it.
> BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to
> respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or
> other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations]
> 
> I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL].
> I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of
> respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take
> BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you
> should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use
> GPL'ed code without giving back, btw).

If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can 
force them to do so.

BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the
GPL because it allows to take without having to give back.

When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" 
they are using the wrong licence.

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.

And BTW:
Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by
Big Evil Corps. [1]

> | In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an 
> | author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written 
> | driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in 
> | a friendly way.
> 
> This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then
> release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect
> the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of
> licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case
> basis, there's nothing to lose).

First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether
their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms
of the BSD licence.

And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and 
that giving code back in these cases would be friendly.

I for one consider it important that the Linux kernel is protected by 
the GPL - but whether some contribution I send also becomes available 
under a different licence I don't care that much.

> Cheers,
> 
> Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

cu
Adrian

[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at

Re: Wasting our Freedom

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 think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
> > the works MS Windows etc. are based on? :-)

I didn't write the above; please be careful with your attributions.

- Ted
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Paul de Weerd

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 make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of
| > the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code.
| 
| GPL has a "share and protect" nature.

Yes, and I was talking about the 'share' part. The protect part is
fine with me, I understand the reasoning behind it. I would not choose
it as my own licence, but that is a matter of personal choice.

| > I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL].
| > I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of
| > respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take
| > BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you
| > should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use
| > GPL'ed code without giving back, btw).
| 
| If a corporation violates the terms of the GPL lawyers and courts can 
| force them to do so.

The exact same is true for the BSD Licence. If a corporation (or
anyone else for that matter) violates the terms of the BSD licence,
courts can make them stop these violations. It's just easier to
violate the GPL, because it has more restrictions. [I'm still not a
lawyer, btw]

Big Evil Corps can however use GPL'ed code without giving back and
without violating the GPL. Also the same as with the BSD licence.

| BSD people tend to consider the BSD licence as being more free than the
| GPL because it allows to take without having to give back.
| 
| When people then demand getting code back based on "ethics" or "morale" 
| they are using the wrong licence.

Why ? BSD people give their code away for free. They put hard work
into writing quality software and they have their own ethics or
morale. They do not *demand* getting code back, at least I have not
seen any indication of such demands. So then why are they using the
wrong licence ? I was merely pointing out a matter of mutual respect.

| 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.

And the people using the BSD licence are completely aware of this [I
assume, again I do not wish to speak for anyone but myself]. At least
I was surprised that fellow open source / free software developers are
not giving back. I've come to expect this from certain companies, but
to me the free and open software community as a whole (here I'm
lumping everyone and their mother together, I know) should have some
respect towards eachother and the licence they choose and acknowledge
the contributions of other parties, giving back as freely as they've
been given. Not because it is required but because it's just right.

The GPL requires I give changes I distribute back under the same
licence. But if I ever were to change such a program, I would not give
these changes back because of this requirement but because it just
makes sense.

| And BTW:
| Many contributions to the Linux kernel come from people payed by
| Big Evil Corps. [1]

There's also contributions to OpenBSD from people paid by Big Evil
Corps. The same is true for Net- and FreeBSD. Of course, not all Big
Evil Corps are, in fact, Evil.

| First of all, for some developers it wouldn't make a difference whether
| their code was published under the terms of the GPL or under the terms
| of the BSD licence.
| 
| And there are many people who are aware when code comes from *BSD and 
| that giving code back in these cases would be friendly.

Of course, like I said, on a case-by-case basis, there's nothing to
lose.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

-- 
>[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+
+++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/ 


pgpg8iPSFpi22.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Paul de Weerd

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 give back under a licence that gives less 
| protection for the code than the GPL does.

It does not, I may not have been explicit but this is what I was
alluding to. It was, in fact, what I was pointing out. Your preferred
licence doesn't require it, so you don't do it. [and by you, I do not
mean you in person]

| If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything 
| back on moral grounds.

I do take the BSD licence serious and I do not request to get anything
back on any BSD-grounds (moral, legal, other). I was referring to the
GPL's "you must share" attitude that isn't reciprocal.

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 make an argument based on the 'share'-nature of
the GPL that doesn't give back the freedom of BSD licenced code.

| If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being 
| available with less protection.

If you have respect for both licences and you don't want your code
available with less protection, rewrite. BSD developers have done so
for various GPL licenced programs. After having used GPL licenced code
for some time, some developer decides that he prefers another licence
and does a rewrite. Linux Kernel Developers have it easier in this
respect. They do not have to rewrite - they can take BSD licenced code
and use it in their kernel without changing the licence or needing a
rewrite [or so I've understood - IANAL].

If you use someone else's code, show this fellow free software / open
source developer some respect and give back as freely as you received.
This respect is enforced in the GPL, the BSD doesn't even mention it.
BSD folks tend to have lots of respect for good code and they try to
respect licences [not making any observations about other folks or
other subjects here, this is based on my personal observations]

I'm clearly not saying you must give back, legally [but still, IANAL].
I'm saying you should give back as freely as you received, out of
respect. Someone else already mentioned it : Just because you can take
BSD licenced code and do (almost) whatever you wish, doesn't mean you
should. Leave that up to the Big Evil Corps (the ones that also use
GPL'ed code without giving back, btw).

| In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an 
| author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written 
| driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in 
| a friendly way.

This, of course, would be perfect. But in all fairness, why then
release anything under the GPL ? Please, don't get me wrong, I respect
the GPL and the Linux kernel and especially each developers choice of
licence, but I doubt it's that easy (of course, on a case-by-case
basis, there's nothing to lose).

Cheers,

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

-- 
>[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+
+++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/ 


pgpmxomu8gfZZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Wasting My Time (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)

2007-09-17 Thread Eric Furman

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/

Re: Wasting our Freedom

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 people's code. 
> The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different authors. 
> Each element is still offered under whatever license the original author 
> offered it under.
> 
> You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor 
> of code you did not author.
> 
> The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code 
> you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under 
> different licenses.
>...

The licence text we are talking about disagrees with what you claim:

<--  snip  -->

/*-
 * 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
 * ...

<--  snip  -->

We are talking about dual-licenced code, not about BSD licenced code 
incorporated into GPL'ed code.

That other people can distribute the original dual-licenced code 
dual-licenced or BSD-only, and that you can get the code under this 
licences from there, is without a doubt. But *the author* allowed me to 
choose the licence when *I distribute it*.

> DS

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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 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 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".
>...

The GPL doesn't require to give back under a licence that gives less 
protection for the code than the GPL does.

If you take the BSD licence seriously you don't request to get anything 
back on moral grounds.

If you take the GPL seriously you don't want your modifications being 
available with less protection.

In reality, where it makes sense technically, it's quite likely that an 
author will make his modifications, or even a completely self-written 
driver, also available under the terms of the BSD licence when asked in 
a friendly way.

> Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
>...

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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


> 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 different authors. Each 
element is still offered under whatever license the original author offered it 
under.

You cannot affect the license grant from the author to the lawful possessor of 
code you did not author.

The code you *contribute* will be under the GPL *only* forever. But the code 
you distribute will contain elements from different authors offered under 
different licenses.
 
> And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when 
> his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make 
> his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and 
> BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text 
> for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code...

That's true.

DS


-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Paul de Weerd

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".

It may be perfectly legal, but it's "interesting" to say the least.
No, you do not have to give back. But weren't you open source / free
software developers ? Why did you pick the GPL ? Because you didn't
want someone to run of with your code ? You wanted code to be given
back ? Why not do it yourself ? By not giving back you're giving a
strange signal.

Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd

PS: Yes, I know .. but your "giving back" attaches new strings that
weren't there in the first place.

-- 
>[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+
+++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-]
 http://www.weirdnet.nl/ 


pgpv8ba0sAqX2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: Wasting our Freedom

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 etc. are based on? :-)

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.)

If, however, you wanted to get the right to modify or distribute a
derivative work, you would need to obtain the rights to every protectable
element in that work. If the work were under a GPL or BSD type license, only
the original author of each individual element could grant you such a
license.

Read GPL section 6, particularly this part: "Each time you redistribute the
Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically
receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify
the Program subject to
these terms and conditions."

To distribute a derivative work that contains protectable elements from
multiple authors, you are distributing all of those elements and need the
rights to all of them. You need a license to each element and in the absence
of any relicensing arrangements (which the GPL and BSD license are not),
only the original author can grant that to you.

It is a common confusion that just because the final author has copyright in
the derivative work, that means he can license the work. He cannot license
anyone else's creative contributions absent a relicensing arrangement.

The GPL is explicit that it is not such a license. That's what the "from the
original licensor" language in section 6 means. The BSD license is not
explicit, but it couldn't work any other way.

When you receive a Linux kernel distribution, you receive a GPL license to
every protectable element in that work from that element's individual
author. Nobody can license the kernel as a whole to you.

DS

-
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

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 :-)
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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 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 cases, the former term is most often 
> considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under 
> the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You 
> are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common 
> language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though 
> it is pedantically incorrect to do so.
>...

You could equally say that
  "OpenBSD != University of California, Berkeley"

was wrong since OpenBSD uses the licence of the UCB. [1]

Or that
  "OpenBSD != NetBSD"

was wrong since OpenBSD is just a spinoff of NetBSD, and for everyday 
people all the *BSD operating systems are anyway the same.

Or that
  "OpenBSD != Linux kernel"

was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they 
are both open source operating systems.

Or even that
  "OpenBSD != FSF"

was wrong.

In case you wonder about the latter, check at [2] whose project's 
project leaders won the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software 
and whose project's project leader did not.

The FSF and the Linux kernel community have some relationship, but they 
are quite distinct communities with different views on some things.

As an example, Linus Torvalds made clear some years ago that the kernel 
is GPLv2 only and will stay GPLv2 forever. This makes it impossible to 
move the kernel to the FSF's new GPLv3. If you have such differences in 
mind it sounds ridiculous when people don't differentiate between the 
FSF and the Linux kernel community.

> kind regards,
> jcr

cu
Adrian

[1] I don't know the background of the 2-clause BSD licence, but at 
least for the 3-clause and 4-clause BSD licences this was true
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_for_the_Advancement_of_Free_Software

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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 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 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.

This was a mistake in one patch that had never been merged, and this 
mistake has been corrected once it was discovered.

> Jason Dixon

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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

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 _notice_, not a copyright (a right).
The author of a derived work automatically has copyright to the
whole derived work, not only to the "fragments" he has created.
MS Windows is "Copyright Microsoft", not "Microsoft and others".

You can add any licence (not copyright, as it's automatic) to your
(derived or not) work. If it's a derived work, you must comply with
the original licence(s).

Of course, the original work is copyrighted by its original author
and licenced under its original conditions, and nobody is able to
change that.

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 etc. are based on? :-)

You do need a licence from the original author to use the original
work, e.g. unmodified original work distributed by third party.
I.e., you don't need a licence to use MS Windows from the retail
shop, you need it from MS.

Is it that hard to understand?

> However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the
> BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined
> work).

Where exactly?
Have you seen MS EULA maybe?
Such requirement would be impossible to fullfit.

> No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for
> the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever)
> license for the modifications/additions.

Look at MS EULA, does MS Windows in your opinion have such a mixed
licence too? :-)
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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 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, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
> >> >>...
> >> >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
> >> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
> 
> >> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt 
> >> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
> 
> >> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
> >> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
> >> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
> >> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
> >> in one of the licenses.
> 
> >Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose 
> >the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.
> 
> It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
> But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.

On which legal grounds do you base this statement?

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?

And if the author intended to have the BSD licence text kept intact when 
his code gets incorporated into GPL'ed code, why didn't he simply make 
his code BSD-only? In fact the only difference between BSD-only code and 
BSD/GPL dual-licenced code is that you can't remove the BSD licence text 
for the former when incorporating it into GPL'ed code...

> >> Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
> 
> >Noone said otherwise.
> 
> Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
> relicensing.

If anything can be called relicencing, then the act of choosing one of 
the licence. And this happens one level above the actual licences, and 
the licence texts don't matter for this act.

> >> If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
> >> (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
> >> tested before court).
> 
> >The licence in question was:
> 
> ><--  snip  -->
> 
> >/*-
> > * 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
> > * ...
> 
> ><--  snip  -->
> 
> >Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
> >_this_ code. [2]
> 
> I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
> probably right. Value judgements like "you should give code back" (when
> the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
> with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).
> 
> Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
> terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
> probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
> code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
> having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
> you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
> softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
> that instance.

You confuse two completely different situations.

The SFLC talks about how to incorporate *not* dual-licenced
BSD-only code into GPL'ed code.

> >[...]
> 
> >> But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
> >> while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
> >> under different terms with few restrictions.
> 
> >> However, you say "regarding

Re: Wasting our Freedom

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 code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal
> departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the
> BSD license those not hinder them in any way.

Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and
I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are*
putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications ---
which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do
(modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution
which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of
using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL
sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their
proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a
GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still
allows you to see the source.

> Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often
> the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back.
> Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require
> them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool
> but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their
> code just because the used some of my code.

So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code
and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license?  You can't
use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements.  What's the
difference between those two cases?  Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary
license is better?

- Ted
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Jason Dixon


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

2007-09-17 Thread David Newall


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 "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad.  it would be like losing
a friend.  I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal.
  


All very nicely said.

I'd like to add that an insult implicit in the attempt to remove the BSD 
license is that it says to the original authors, "we plan to improve 
this code, and when we do you'll never again be able to ship it as 
BSD."  They weren't the words, but that's what you get when you think to 
the future.


Although opinions seem still to be divided, I think everyone has been 
reminded that just because you can doesn't mean you should.



I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say,


The one shining light in this whole sorry Atheros saga is that it's now 
all history; the only people still talking about it are people not 
directly involved.  The matter could now rest...

-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Sean

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".

Instead of worrying about Evil Corporation "stealing" their code,
they're worrying about Evil GPL folks "stealing".   Why don't you
take a moment to email them with a reminder that whatever GPL group X
does with their *copy*, all users of the code have the same rights.
If they really believe in the BSD license they will then calm down
and we can all go back to work.

Regards,
S.
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Hans-Jürgen Koch

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 to your freedom, don't you think so?

Hans
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Jason Dixon


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

2007-09-17 Thread Claudio Jeker

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...
> > 
> > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
> > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
> > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
> > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
> > in one of the licenses.
> > 
> > Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.
> > 
> > If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
> > (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
> > tested before court).
> 
> Hannah,
> 
> What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
> "derivative work".  Whether or not you can even make a derivative
> work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is
> strictly up to the license of the original.  For example, the BSD
> license says:
> 
>   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>   are met
> 
> Note the "with or without modification".  This is what allows people
> to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes.  The
> conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about
> licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you
> are allowed to redistribute them.  So for example, this is what allows
> Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive,
> proprietary copyright.
> 
> 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 get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or
> source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license.  It is not a
> relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still
> available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work
> which is under the more restrictive copyright.   
> 

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 code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal
departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the
BSD license those not hinder them in any way.

Now comes the funny part, as the BSD code in NetApp is available
from public sources -- for example from OpenBSD -- it is actually not
covered by the NDA. NDAs can only cover information that is not
publicly available -- you can only forbit disclosure of information that
is secret in the first place.

Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often
the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back.
Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require
them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool
but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their
code just because the used some of my code.
-- 
:wq Claudio
-
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 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.

Some people consider the BSD licence more free since NetApp or Linux or 
Microsoft can take your code and never gove back.

Although I don't agree with it, I can understand the rationale of the 
latter.

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 code 
and never give back, or is your intention that this shouldn't happen?

And whatever your intention is should be stated in your licence.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

-
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


> 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 GPL.

As far as the law goes, the GPL and BSD are not typical licenses. They do
not impose *any* restrictions on the use of the work. If you cite a law that
prohibits modifying or removing grants of additional rights, please do, but
I'll bet you can't do it.

I would agree there's probably a legal issue if you modify license text so
as to misrepresent to a person that they have rights they don't actually
have. But I don't think there's any legal obligation to inform people of all
the rights they might be able to get.

Note that the GPL is not a use license or EULA. It is an offer. If you
comply with it, you get additional rights. If you think you can find
something in copyright law that says you must put any offers of additional
rights that a person might be able to obtain to the work in the work, please
show me. But I'm 99.% sure no such thing exists because it's so absurd.

As for what the GPL says, read section 2 and 2c. The GPL is quite clear that
it permits all modifications except those it expressly prohibits. Nowhere
does it say you can remove a BSD license, but nowhere does it say you can
rename functions either.

> It permits modifications of the *work*, but not of the license.
> (Re)Licensing is a *seperate* reserved right of copyright holders.

I've already explained this to you several times but for some reason you
still don't get it. Modifying license *NOTICES* is not the same as modifying
the actual license. The whole relicensing thing is bogus. Nobody is talking
about relicensing anything.

> >Copyright law permits you to impose all kinds of restrictions on
> >what people
> >can do with your work.

> No. Copyright reserves rights. Copyright imposes *all* restrictions by
> itself. You need to explicitly relinguish the restrictions for others to
> be allowed to do just nearly *anything* (except fair use rights) with
> the work.

Right, and the GPL grants the right to modify and distribute subject only to
a very precisely laid out set of rules. You may not impose any restrictions
not found in the GPL.

> >However, when you offer a work under the GPL, you
> >lose any right to insist that the work remain in any particular form or
> >contain any particular elements, except the GPL itself. The GPL grants
> >modification rights limited only by the restrictions in the GPL itself.

> It grants modification rights to the *work*, but not modification of
> license (relicensing).

For the last time, modifying a license and relicensing are completely
different things. Your attempts to deliberately confuse them is getting
extremely tedious.

Let's try it one more time and maybe you'll finally understand it:

1) Relicensing. This is when a person other than the author of protectable
elements grants others rights to those elements normally reserved to the
author under copyright law. Neither the GPL nor the BSD license permit this.

2) Modify license notices. This is when a person changes the text of the
license in a file that contains protectably expression. This has no effect
on the actual license granted over any code the modifier did not author.

See? They are not the same thing. Modifying license notices and relicensing
are completely different issues. Nobody is relicensing because nobody can
relicense.

> >You cannot use any form of subterfuge to get something into a
> >GPL-compatible
> >file that I cannot remove, by any means. (Other than the GPL license, of
> >course.) See GPL section 6.
>
> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
>   Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
>   original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
>   these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
>   restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
>   You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
>   this License.

> Now, the copyright holder hirself can exercise any rights anyway, as zie
> doesn't need any license at all, anyway. And then, you just are not
> allowed to restrict *rights granted herein*. But the *rights granted
> herein* do not include relicensing (or where does the GPL explicitly
> grant the right of relicensing?). So one *may* restrict relicensing.
> In fact relicensing is restricted by "default" (law).

Sure, relicenseing is impossible. There is no need to restrict it as the GPL
already prohibits it. In section 6 which you quote above, do you see the
"from the original licensor" part? There is no relicensing under either the
GPL or the BSD license. It is impossible. Not prohibited, *impossible*.

However, the GPL permits modification of license notices, other than the

Re: Wasting our Freedom

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 get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or
> >source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license.  It is not a
> >relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still
> >available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work
> >which is under the more restrictive copyright.   
> 
> No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for
> the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever)
> license for the modifications/additions.

Yes, agreed.  I was being sloppy.  In actual practice, the GPL is more
restrictive, aod so the terms of the GPL are what tend to have more
effect, but you are absolutely correct.

> *If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part
> of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative
> work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive
> conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing).

Yes, although actually, the place where the BSD license must be
honored is in a binary distribution, since the BSD license and
copyright attribution must be distributed as part of the binary
distribution.  (Even Microsoft does this when they use BSD code.)

For a source distribution, retaining the copyright attribution and
permission statement in the comments is sufficient to meet the BSD
license requirements, and since the open source world normally deals
mostly with source, we sometimes get sloppy with how we phrase things.

Regards,

- Ted
-
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

"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
derivative work) may like it or not.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
-
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

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 has nothing whatsoever
to do with the other.

No amount of changing license notices affects the license a recipient gets
to any code that the license changer did not contribute. You cannot, in the
sense of it being legally impossible, affect the license your recipients get
to code you did not author.

Relicensing is simply impossible under either the BSD license or the GPL
license. Neither grants you any relicensing rights.

Remove the BSD license from a dual-licensed work doesn't relicense anything.
Everyone who gets the work still gets a dual license from the original
author.

> It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
> But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.

Of course not. But since the GPL does not require you to keep a BSD license
notice intact and the BSD license does not require you to keep a GPL license
notice intact, the result is that you do have the right to remove the other
license's terms altogether. Note that this has no effect whatsoever on the
rights anyone actually gets. Rights come from licenses, not license notices.

If you were right, a dual-licensed work would not be GPL compatible. Since
the GPL prohibits the use of any mechanism to prohibit modification to the
work (other than the inability to remove the GPL itself).

> Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
> relicensing.

Umm, no. That's so obviously mind-bogglingly crazy that I don't even know
where to start. Let's try a hypothetical:

I download the entire Linux kernel and remove every single GPL license
notice and replace it with a public domain notice. I then distribute the
result. Am I relicensing the Linux kernel?

Isn't it obvious that I'm not. I *can't*. I have no right to change the
license under which other people's code is offered.

When you change a license notice, that has no effect on the actual license
anyone gets to anyone else's work. You license notice changes can only
affect licenses that *you* grant.

Nothing requires a license that exists to be documented in the accompanying
file. There is nothing in copyright law that is offended by the idea that
someone might remove a license notification even though the license still
applies so long as the license only *adds* rights.

The only reason we can't remove the GPL license from the Linux kernel is
because the GPL says so.

> 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 allowed to remove A altogether should you choose B.

You are confusing licenses with license notices. The GPL says you must keep
GPL license notices intact. Otherwise, it gives you complete freedom to
modify. This means that if you choose the GPL, you gain (from the GPL) the
right to remove the BSD license *NOTICE*.

This has no effect on anyone's substantive rights though. Removing license
notices has no effect on actual licenses.

DS

-
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

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 that
>> >derivative work still receives a dual license from the original author to
>> >every protectable element still in the distributed work.

>> But you may *not* remove the license notices on GPL/BSD dual-licensed
>> works. *Both* forbid removing the licensing terms.

>No, I'm sorry, this is not correct. The GPL gives you the right to remove
>the BSD license. Read the GPL and please tell me where it says you must keep
>the BSD license notice intact.

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.

>[...]

>But in the case of a dual-licensed work, you can obtain the right to modify
>or distribute it from the GPL. In that case, you can totally ignore anything
>the BSD license says. You are under no obligation to comply with it.

>As for copyright law prohibiting it, the GPL is quite clear about allowing
>it. The GPL permits all modifications except those it specifically restricts
>(and none of those rules would prohibit removing a BSD license).

It permits modifications of the *work*, but not of the license.
(Re)Licensing is a *seperate* reserved right of copyright holders.

>[...]

>Copyright law permits you to impose all kinds of restrictions on what people
>can do with your work.

No. Copyright reserves rights. Copyright imposes *all* restrictions by
itself. You need to explicitly relinguish the restrictions for others to
be allowed to do just nearly *anything* (except fair use rights) with
the work.

>However, when you offer a work under the GPL, you
>lose any right to insist that the work remain in any particular form or
>contain any particular elements, except the GPL itself. The GPL grants
>modification rights limited only by the restrictions in the GPL itself.

It grants modification rights to the *work*, but not modification of
license (relicensing).

>You cannot use any form of subterfuge to get something into a GPL-compatible
>file that I cannot remove, by any means. (Other than the GPL license, of
>course.) See GPL section 6.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
  Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
  original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
  these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
  restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
  this License.

Now, the copyright holder hirself can exercise any rights anyway, as zie
doesn't need any license at all, anyway. And then, you just are not
allowed to restrict *rights granted herein*. But the *rights granted
herein* do not include relicensing (or where does the GPL explicitly
grant the right of relicensing?). So one *may* restrict relicensing.
In fact relicensing is restricted by "default" (law).

>DS

Kind regards,

Hannah.
-
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 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
> >every protectable element still in the distributed work.

> But you may *not* remove the license notices on GPL/BSD dual-licensed
> works. *Both* forbid removing the licensing terms.

No, I'm sorry, this is not correct. The GPL gives you the right to remove
the BSD license. Read the GPL and please tell me where it says you must keep
the BSD license notice intact.

> >2) You can remove a BSD license notice from BSD-only code. (The
> >BSD license
> >prohibits this.)

> The BSD license prohibits this anyway, regardless of whether BSD is the
> only license or not (dual-licensing). Heck, copyright law itself forbids
> it unless explicitly allowed.

It doesn't matter that the BSD license prohibits it, its terms only apply to
you if you agree to it. Generally, you agree to it implicitly by doing
something that only the BSD license could give you the right to do, such as
modify or distribute a BSD-only work.

But in the case of a dual-licensed work, you can obtain the right to modify
or distribute it from the GPL. In that case, you can totally ignore anything
the BSD license says. You are under no obligation to comply with it.

As for copyright law prohibiting it, the GPL is quite clear about allowing
it. The GPL permits all modifications except those it specifically restricts
(and none of those rules would prohibit removing a BSD license). In fact,
the GPL specifically prohibits the imposition of "additional restrictions".

Copyright law permits you to impose all kinds of restrictions on what people
can do with your work. However, when you offer a work under the GPL, you
lose any right to insist that the work remain in any particular form or
contain any particular elements, except the GPL itself. The GPL grants
modification rights limited only by the restrictions in the GPL itself.

You cannot use any form of subterfuge to get something into a GPL-compatible
file that I cannot remove, by any means. (Other than the GPL license, of
course.) See GPL section 6.

DS

-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Jacob Meuser

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 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 "whatever" attitude, it makes me sad.  it would be like losing
a friend.  I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal.

I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, "We
can accept BSD licensed code.  There's no need to add the GPL to
it."  and maybe even, "Although we strongly prefer the GPL,
respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect
for the GPL."

I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was
truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that
started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have
happened in the first place.

look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license.
the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same.
and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the
recourse to be?

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
-
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

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
>every protectable element still in the distributed work.

But you may *not* remove the license notices on GPL/BSD dual-licensed
works. *Both* forbid removing the licensing terms.

>[...]

>2) You can remove a BSD license notice from BSD-only code. (The BSD license
>prohibits this.)

The BSD license prohibits this anyway, regardless of whether BSD is the
only license or not (dual-licensing). Heck, copyright law itself forbids
it unless explicitly allowed.

>DS

Kind regards,

Hannah.
-
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

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
>work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is
>strictly up to the license of the original.  For example, the BSD
>license says:

>  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>  are met

>Note the "with or without modification".  This is what allows people
>to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes.  The
>conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about
>licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you
>are allowed to redistribute them.  So for example, this is what allows
>Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive,
>proprietary copyright.

Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant
additions/changes*. However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the
BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined
work).

>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 get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or
>source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license.  It is not a
>relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still
>available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work
>which is under the more restrictive copyright.   

No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for
the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever)
license for the modifications/additions.

*If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part
of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative
work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive
conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing).

>[... dual-licensing issues etc. already handled in other mails ...]

Kind regards,

Hannah.
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Henning Brauer

* [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, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
-
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

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 questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
>> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.

>> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt 
>> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...

>> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
>> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
>> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
>> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
>> in one of the licenses.

>Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose 
>the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.

It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.

>> Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.

>Noone said otherwise.

Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
relicensing.

>> If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
>> (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
>> tested before court).

>The licence in question was:

><--  snip  -->

>/*-
> * 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
> * ...

><--  snip  -->

>Theo claimed it would "break the law" [1] to choose the GPL for
>_this_ code. [2]

I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
probably right. Value judgements like "you should give code back" (when
the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).

Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
that instance.

>[...]

>> But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
>> while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
>> under different terms with few restrictions.

>> However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level.
>> Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
>> OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the
>> reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some
>> modifications back?

>Is it really ethical to use a licence that does not require to give 
>back, but then demand that something has to be given back?

IMO Theo didn't demand (as in try to enforce with legal pressure), but
state it'd be the *morally* right thing to do even if *not* legally
required (which isn't debated).

>Why don't you use a licence that expresses your intentions in a legally 
>binding way?

Because BSD people don't want to enforce it in every thinkable case. And
BSD people don't want to enforce it using as much text as the GPL needs.

But still I think it'd be the (morally!) right thing to do with respect
to the Atheros HAL even if *not* legally bound to do so.

>[...]

>But the truth is a bit less harsh:

>In reality most Linux kernel developers might not mind to give back - 
>and e.g. much of the ACPI code is BSD/GPL dual-licenced, and there 
>doesn't

Re: Wasting our Freedom

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 questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
>> >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.

>> >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
>> >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...

>> JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
>> dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
>> by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
>> *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
>> in one of the licenses.

>That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows 
>distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can 
>follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. 
>And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and 
>ignore the GPL)

>It's not "relicensing" - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more 
>agreeable.

The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
altogether).

>I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused.

Refrain from personal attacks.

Regards,

Hannah.
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread J.C. Roberts

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 (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on
> > code with the BSD license.
> >
> > And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the
> > MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only
> > people that accepted the patches in question.
>
> Although it's true the code is not yet upstream...
>
> Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is
> sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm,
> rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem"
> > with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate
> > Reyk's copyright.
>
> Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant.  We want to
> make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make
> sure any copyright problems are fixed.
>
> On a side note:  "MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k
> driver, the driver at issue here.  Some mistakes were made by Linux
> wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected.
>
> > Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
> >
> > If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with
> > faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2
> > is a better license than v3
>
> Amen.  100% agreed.
>
> Jeff

Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both 
politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list 
was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue 
with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in 
bad faith, the code in question is per se "intended" to become part of 
the Linux kernel. The code has not been "accepted upstream" as you say 
but that is still the intended goal.

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 cases, the former term is most often 
considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under 
the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You 
are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common 
language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though 
it is pedantically incorrect to do so.

Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an 
insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example.

There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their 
hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers 
are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their 
continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair 
minded and well thought than I will ever be.

With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the 
GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free 
thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go?

The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer.

As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel 
mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's 
a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you.

If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team 
were to contact the people who have been illegally messing with 
licenses on the atheros code and ask them to quit messing around, it 
could do a lot of good towards resolving this issue. In doing so, 
you'll not only end the current pointless waste of time between 
GPL/GNU/BSD, but you'll also prevent the pointless waste of time of 
discussing this to death on lkml when the time comes to move the code 
upstream so you have better atheros support.

The people who have done this illegal license swapping nonsense will not 
listen to Reyk, will not listen to Theo (which some will say is a 
difficult thing to do) and will not listen to me (which is probably 
more difficult than listening to Theo). All of three us are in 
the "wrong camp" simply because we use a different license.

My hope is the people responsible for the illegal license swapping will 
hopefully listen to you, the Linux kernel developers. If you'd like to 
see all of this end, rather than carry on and on and on until it winds 
up in court, please do something. Please try asking the people 
responsible to quit messing with licenses.

kind regards,
jcr
-
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

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Helge Hafting


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 _exactly_ what you guys are doing.

so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation?

that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with.
  

A difference between linux and corporations: Linux actually
gives changed source code back - just not with a BSD licence on it.
So you can at least see what the linux community did, and do
the same. Although not by direct copying.

But why complain when the linux community do what the
BSD licence lets them?  If you think the linux community
is abusing a loophole in the licence, why don't you just close
the hole? For example, require that changes made to your
code when used in the linux kernel must be made
available under a BSD licence also. Still possible to use
the code anywhere, but with a guarantee of getting stuff back.

Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.

Helge Hafting









-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Daniel Hazelton

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 is a very brief summary:
> >>
> >>   http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=118965266709012=2

BTW, I didn't say anything the last time, but the above mail is a load of 
horse-shit. Theo is pointing fingers and making claims that anyone capable of 
independent thought can see aren't related to reality.

Quoted in full (my comments are in the curly-braces):

I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
Here it is (with a few more changes)

{Okay, this starts off good. Theo is going to make sure people understand what 
is going on and what has happened. Perhaps he has realized things are 
different from when he claimed that people were being advised to break the 
law.}

-
starting premise:

   you can already use the code as it is

steps taken:

1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
   - get told no, repeatedly

{Alright - not a problem here. Happens all the time}

2. climb over ethical fence

{Off the deep end already, but lets keep going...}

3. remove his license
   - get caught, look a bit stupid

{Caught? Well, yeah. Caught by the Linux Kernel developers before it became a 
real problem. This has been fixed, although the code still hasn't been added 
to the core Kernel tree - and the current iteration still hasn't been offered 
for review}

4. wrap his license with your own
   - get caught, look really stupid

{Not done, although this was, apparently, suggested by the SFLC. Nice FUD 
there, Theo.}

5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
   - get caught, look even more stupid

{Not done. Again, nice FUD there}

Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of
evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what
will happen next.  We wait, to see what will happen.

{Theo, embrace reality. It'll solve all kinds of problems. It's a simple fact 
that reality has split from Theo's view of things between numbers 3 and 4. 
What has happened is that the licenses have been maintained and the two 
people that have been working on it for the Linux kernel has added their own 
copyrights - covering the code they have added. If someone outside the Linux 
Kernel development team has followed the above path then there is no reason 
to doubt that they have created problems for themselves.}

Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.

{While there are ways to handle the situation that don't involve lawsuits I 
don't think this is the best solution. I don't know what avenues that Reyk 
and the OpenBSD community have already tried, but from what I've been told 
all that's been done is a "private" message to the MadWifi people that they 
are violating a copyright. The rest has been flames and FUD on the Linux 
Kernel ML - which solves nothing and just creates problems. Maybe if the 
OpenBSD community slammed the MadWifi mailing lists over this instead of the 
Linux Kernel ML the problem there would go away...}

> >> If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these
> >> links, and think about it.
> >
> > No need. Here are the facts:
>
> It is now obvious that you have no interest in facts,
> You blindly repeat what you made yourself to believe.

I believe the truth. All the facts I have are derived from the mail exchanges 
I've witnessed. If you disagree with the facts as I understand them say so - 
don't just say that I'm "making myself believe them". If I've made a mistake 
in judging the facts from available evidence then let me know - and provide a 
reference that shows where I made the mistake. (ie: a public e-mai, etc...)

Anyway...

The facts I stated could be shown from the LKML archives, but I believed you'd 
have seen the same posts I have - almost all the relevant posts were in 
threads that were CC'd to at least one of the OpenBSD ML's.

I dissected the logic presented and pointed out how *ALL* the arguments that 
have been presented so far have been either handled - either by being shown 
to be false or in the most logical (and legal) manner possible. But instead 
of the most expected answer - that is, attacks on the core Linux Kernel 
developers - ie: those that discuss development and exchange patches on LKML 
stopping - Theo continues to stir up the trouble by claiming that *ALL* Linux 
Kernel developers are making a concentrated attempt to "steal" code.

That is sheer and utter bullshit. I've finished a quick look through the 
Atheros code in the git repo that Theo pointed out and don't see how 
his "Just an

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Can E. Acar

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:
>>
>>   http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=118965266709012=2
>>
>> If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these
>> links, and think about it.
> 
> No need. Here are the facts:

It is now obvious that you have no interest in facts,
You blindly repeat what you made yourself to believe.

I will waste no more time with you.

Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Can E. Acar

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

 If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these
 links, and think about it.
 
 No need. Here are the facts:

It is now obvious that you have no interest in facts,
You blindly repeat what you made yourself to believe.

I will waste no more time with you.

Can

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, in practice, there is.
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Daniel Hazelton

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 summary:
 
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118965266709012w=2

BTW, I didn't say anything the last time, but the above mail is a load of 
horse-shit. Theo is pointing fingers and making claims that anyone capable of 
independent thought can see aren't related to reality.

Quoted in full (my comments are in the curly-braces):

I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
Here it is (with a few more changes)

{Okay, this starts off good. Theo is going to make sure people understand what 
is going on and what has happened. Perhaps he has realized things are 
different from when he claimed that people were being advised to break the 
law.}

-
starting premise:
 
   you can already use the code as it is

steps taken:

1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
   - get told no, repeatedly

{Alright - not a problem here. Happens all the time}

2. climb over ethical fence

{Off the deep end already, but lets keep going...}

3. remove his license
   - get caught, look a bit stupid

{Caught? Well, yeah. Caught by the Linux Kernel developers before it became a 
real problem. This has been fixed, although the code still hasn't been added 
to the core Kernel tree - and the current iteration still hasn't been offered 
for review}

4. wrap his license with your own
   - get caught, look really stupid

{Not done, although this was, apparently, suggested by the SFLC. Nice FUD 
there, Theo.}

5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
   - get caught, look even more stupid

{Not done. Again, nice FUD there}

Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of
evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what
will happen next.  We wait, to see what will happen.

{Theo, embrace reality. It'll solve all kinds of problems. It's a simple fact 
that reality has split from Theo's view of things between numbers 3 and 4. 
What has happened is that the licenses have been maintained and the two 
people that have been working on it for the Linux kernel has added their own 
copyrights - covering the code they have added. If someone outside the Linux 
Kernel development team has followed the above path then there is no reason 
to doubt that they have created problems for themselves.}

Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.

{While there are ways to handle the situation that don't involve lawsuits I 
don't think this is the best solution. I don't know what avenues that Reyk 
and the OpenBSD community have already tried, but from what I've been told 
all that's been done is a private message to the MadWifi people that they 
are violating a copyright. The rest has been flames and FUD on the Linux 
Kernel ML - which solves nothing and just creates problems. Maybe if the 
OpenBSD community slammed the MadWifi mailing lists over this instead of the 
Linux Kernel ML the problem there would go away...}

  If you really want to know the latest situation, please read these
  links, and think about it.
 
  No need. Here are the facts:

 It is now obvious that you have no interest in facts,
 You blindly repeat what you made yourself to believe.

I believe the truth. All the facts I have are derived from the mail exchanges 
I've witnessed. If you disagree with the facts as I understand them say so - 
don't just say that I'm making myself believe them. If I've made a mistake 
in judging the facts from available evidence then let me know - and provide a 
reference that shows where I made the mistake. (ie: a public e-mai, etc...)


Anyway...

The facts I stated could be shown from the LKML archives, but I believed you'd 
have seen the same posts I have - almost all the relevant posts were in 
threads that were CC'd to at least one of the OpenBSD ML's.

I dissected the logic presented and pointed out how *ALL* the arguments that 
have been presented so far have been either handled - either by being shown 
to be false or in the most logical (and legal) manner possible. But instead 
of the most expected answer - that is, attacks on the core Linux Kernel 
developers - ie: those that discuss development and exchange patches on LKML 
stopping - Theo continues to stir up the trouble by claiming that *ALL* Linux 
Kernel developers are making a concentrated attempt to steal code.

That is sheer and utter bullshit. I've finished a quick look through the 
Atheros code in the git repo that Theo pointed out and don't see how 
his Just an Adaptation argument works - there is more

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Helge Hafting


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 _exactly_ what you guys are doing.

so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation?

that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with.
  

A difference between linux and corporations: Linux actually
gives changed source code back - just not with a BSD licence on it.
So you can at least see what the linux community did, and do
the same. Although not by direct copying.

But why complain when the linux community do what the
BSD licence lets them?  If you think the linux community
is abusing a loophole in the licence, why don't you just close
the hole? For example, require that changes made to your
code when used in the linux kernel must be made
available under a BSD licence also. Still possible to use
the code anywhere, but with a guarantee of getting stuff back.

Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.

Helge Hafting









-
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

2007-09-17 Thread J.C. Roberts

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 (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on
  code with the BSD license.
 
  And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the
  MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only
  people that accepted the patches in question.

 Although it's true the code is not yet upstream...

 Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is
 sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm,
 rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

  *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* fix the problem
  with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate
  Reyk's copyright.

 Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant.  We want to
 make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make
 sure any copyright problems are fixed.

 On a side note:  MadWifi does not really describe the Linux ath5k
 driver, the driver at issue here.  Some mistakes were made by Linux
 wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected.

  Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
 
  If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with
  faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2
  is a better license than v3

 Amen.  100% agreed.

 Jeff

Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both 
politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list 
was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue 
with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in 
bad faith, the code in question is per se intended to become part of 
the Linux kernel. The code has not been accepted upstream as you say 
but that is still the intended goal.

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 cases, the former term is most often 
considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under 
the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You 
are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common 
language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though 
it is pedantically incorrect to do so.

Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an 
insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example.

There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their 
hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers 
are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their 
continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair 
minded and well thought than I will ever be.

With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the 
GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free 
thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go?

The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer.

As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel 
mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's 
a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you.

If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team 
were to contact the people who have been illegally messing with 
licenses on the atheros code and ask them to quit messing around, it 
could do a lot of good towards resolving this issue. In doing so, 
you'll not only end the current pointless waste of time between 
GPL/GNU/BSD, but you'll also prevent the pointless waste of time of 
discussing this to death on lkml when the time comes to move the code 
upstream so you have better atheros support.

The people who have done this illegal license swapping nonsense will not 
listen to Reyk, will not listen to Theo (which some will say is a 
difficult thing to do) and will not listen to me (which is probably 
more difficult than listening to Theo). All of three us are in 
the wrong camp simply because we use a different license.

My hope is the people responsible for the illegal license swapping will 
hopefully listen to you, the Linux kernel developers. If you'd like to 
see all of this end, rather than carry on and on and on until it winds 
up in court, please do something. Please try asking the people 
responsible to quit messing with licenses.

kind regards,
jcr
-
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

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 questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
  developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.

 The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
 who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...

 JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
 dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
 by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
 *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
 in one of the licenses.

That advice wasn't regarding relicensing. Dual-licensed code allows 
distribution and use under either license. If I get BSD/GPL code, I can 
follow the GPL exclusively and I don't have to follow the BSD license at all. 
And the alternative is also true. (ie: follow the BSD license exclusively and 
ignore the GPL)

It's not relicensing - it's following *WHICH* of the offered terms are more 
agreeable.

The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
altogether).

I'll just snip the rest, since you seem confused.

Refrain from personal attacks.

Regards,

Hannah.
-
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

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 questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
  developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.

 The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt 
 who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...

 JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
 dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
 by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
 *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
 in one of the licenses.

Dual licenced code by definition explicitely states that you can choose 
the licence - otherwise it wouldn't be called dual-licenced.

It does state you can choose which terms to follow, indeed, of course.
But that does *not* imply removing the other terms altogether.

 Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.

Noone said otherwise.

Removing the terms you choose not to follow in one instance *is*
relicensing.

 If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
 (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
 tested before court).

The licence in question was:

--  snip  --

/*-
 * 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
 * ...

--  snip  --

Theo claimed it would break the law [1] to choose the GPL for
_this_ code. [2]

I re-read Theo's mail and still think the factual issues Theo states are
probably right. Value judgements like you should give code back (when
the license doesn't require it) are of course debatable (I tend to agree
with Theo there too, but it's no mandatory requirement of course).

Theo did *not* claim it breaks the law if you choose to obey by the
terms of the GPL in said dual-licensing. Theo *did* claim (in my eyes,
probably rightfully, and if it should ever be needed with respect to
code related to OpenBSD, I could try to give a few bucks in support of
having that claim legally verified) it's illegal to remove the license
you chose to not follow in one instance of redistribution. IIRC the
softwarefreedom.org people involved agreed with Theo's assessment in
that instance.

[...]

 But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
 while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
 under different terms with few restrictions.

 However, you say regarding ethics and just go back to the legal level.
 Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
 OSS community, to share things only in one direction? To take the
 reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some
 modifications back?

Is it really ethical to use a licence that does not require to give 
back, but then demand that something has to be given back?

IMO Theo didn't demand (as in try to enforce with legal pressure), but
state it'd be the *morally* right thing to do even if *not* legally
required (which isn't debated).

Why don't you use a licence that expresses your intentions in a legally 
binding way?

Because BSD people don't want to enforce it in every thinkable case. And
BSD people don't want to enforce it using as much text as the GPL needs.

But still I think it'd be the (morally!) right thing to do with respect
to the Atheros HAL even if *not* legally bound to do so.

[...]

But the truth is a bit less harsh:

In reality most Linux kernel developers might not mind to give back - 
and e.g. much of the ACPI code is BSD/GPL dual-licenced, and there 
doesn't seem to be any problem with this.

*nods* Why not the same for the Atheros code?

But Theo's wrong accusations

Re: Wasting our Freedom

2007-09-17 Thread Henning Brauer

* [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, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BS Web Services, http://bsws.de
Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services
Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg  Amsterdam
-
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

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
work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is
strictly up to the license of the original.  For example, the BSD
license says:

  Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
  modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
  are met

Note the with or without modification.  This is what allows people
to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes.  The
conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about
licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you
are allowed to redistribute them.  So for example, this is what allows
Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive,
proprietary copyright.

Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant
additions/changes*. However, BSD/ISC explicitly requires to retain the
BSD/ISC terms, too (applicable to the original part of the combined
work).

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 get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or
source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license.  It is not a
relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still
available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work
which is under the more restrictive copyright.   

No. The derivative work altogether has a *mixed* license. BSD/ISC for
the parts that are original, the other (restrictive, GPL, whatever)
license for the modifications/additions.

*If* you choose to distribute source along with the binaries, the part
of the source that's original is BSD/ISC licensed even in the derivative
work (though one may put *the additions/modifications* under restrictive
conditions, e.g. of commercial non-disclosure type source licensing).

[... dual-licensing issues etc. already handled in other mails ...]

Kind regards,

Hannah.
-
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

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
every protectable element still in the distributed work.

But you may *not* remove the license notices on GPL/BSD dual-licensed
works. *Both* forbid removing the licensing terms.

[...]

2) You can remove a BSD license notice from BSD-only code. (The BSD license
prohibits this.)

The BSD license prohibits this anyway, regardless of whether BSD is the
only license or not (dual-licensing). Heck, copyright law itself forbids
it unless explicitly allowed.

DS

Kind regards,

Hannah.
-
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

2007-09-17 Thread Jacob Meuser

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 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 whatever attitude, it makes me sad.  it would be like losing
a friend.  I don't like losing friends, so I get vocal.

I don't understand why the linux community can't seem to say, We
can accept BSD licensed code.  There's no need to add the GPL to
it.  and maybe even, Although we strongly prefer the GPL,
respect for other licenses is every bit as important as respect
for the GPL.

I could be wrong, but I strongly believe that if the above was
truly accepted and believed by the community, the actions that
started and spread this whole debacle^Wdebate would not have
happened in the first place.

look, the GPL legally forces others to keep the same license.
the BSD community is asking the linux community do the same.
and when the linux community refuses, what do you expect the
recourse to be?

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
-
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