Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Mon 2007-09-03 04:58:58, Jeff Garzik wrote: > David Schwartz wrote: > >Either license can grant you the right to distribute > >it, but how you get the > >rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. > >They receive a lawful > >copy and any rights the original author grants them > >under a license from > >that original author. You have no power to grant or > >modify rights to the > >original work. > > Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify > rights, if delegated to them by the original author. > > Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. > How do you think most music gets into consumer hands? License is only a promise not to sue. Only original author is permitted to sue in BSD/GPL case. David seems right here. If Linus releases GPL/BSD program, you choose GPL and distribute it to me, and I put it into proprietary evil app, I am _ok_. You can't sue me, because you are not copyright holder. Linus can't sue me, because he BSD licensed it. => I'm fine. Yep, copyright law is strange, and you may be right outside U.S. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Mon 2007-09-03 04:58:58, Jeff Garzik wrote: David Schwartz wrote: Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get the rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a lawful copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license from that original author. You have no power to grant or modify rights to the original work. Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if delegated to them by the original author. Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think most music gets into consumer hands? License is only a promise not to sue. Only original author is permitted to sue in BSD/GPL case. David seems right here. If Linus releases GPL/BSD program, you choose GPL and distribute it to me, and I put it into proprietary evil app, I am _ok_. You can't sue me, because you are not copyright holder. Linus can't sue me, because he BSD licensed it. = I'm fine. Yep, copyright law is strange, and you may be right outside U.S. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work >> has an implicit "all rights reserved". A licence is just exception. > > And? The fact remains that "All Rights Reserved" means "I am reserving all > rights I do not specifically grant or waive". Sure. That means you can't use a work without obtaining a licence first (unless you are the copyright holder and don't need (can't have) the licence). I.e., as the author, you don't have to write those "copyright xxx" and the work is still protected. > ie: If a license doesn't > state 'The licenser hereby waives the right to revoke this license at any > time' then that right hasn't been lost. Yes, it hasn't been *lost*. It just never existed :-) (with exception of those things starting 40 or so years after the original publication, I think we can safely skip this part). Obviously, the copyright holder is free to distribute the work under a different licence next time (but (s)he has to make sure it's ok with licences (s)he uses, if it's a derived work). -- 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work has an implicit all rights reserved. A licence is just exception. And? The fact remains that All Rights Reserved means I am reserving all rights I do not specifically grant or waive. Sure. That means you can't use a work without obtaining a licence first (unless you are the copyright holder and don't need (can't have) the licence). I.e., as the author, you don't have to write those copyright xxx and the work is still protected. ie: If a license doesn't state 'The licenser hereby waives the right to revoke this license at any time' then that right hasn't been lost. Yes, it hasn't been *lost*. It just never existed :-) (with exception of those things starting 40 or so years after the original publication, I think we can safely skip this part). Obviously, the copyright holder is free to distribute the work under a different licence next time (but (s)he has to make sure it's ok with licences (s)he uses, if it's a derived work). -- 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote: > Chris Friesen writes: > > Daniel Hazelton wrote: > >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > >>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she > may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a > specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but > they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) > > > > The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: > > > > "...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder > > can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals > > are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright > > holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions already > > granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose > > more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work." > > > > http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html > > By my reading, this is supported by 17 USC 203(a)(3): > > (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a > period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years > from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers > the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the > end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the > work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date > of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. > > (from > http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0203000- >.html ) Ah, I am both right and wrong, it seems. Apparently you have to wait anywhere form 35 to 40 years, and then you only have a five year window. Seems damned strange to me, but oh well. (I'd totally forgotten that part of the law - or my mind decided to play tricks on me.) DRH PS: See, I will admit it when I'm shown evidence that I'm wrong :) -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Chris Friesen wrote: > Daniel Hazelton wrote: >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: >> >>> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) > > The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: > > "...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder > can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are > no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright > holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions already > granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose > more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work." > > http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html > > > Chris > - There are other enforceability issues as well. For instance in the US, Copyright Law applies as soon as something is written. So, does Copyright Law apply if I write, "You cannot read this." Of course, it's a trivial example. Revocation of a license to read a work is absurd. Using this theory, once somebody's written "work" has been distributed under some license, a different license would likely be regarded as unenforceable by a court. 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Chris Friesen writes: > Daniel Hazelton wrote: >> On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: >> >>>Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) > > The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: > > "...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder > can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals > are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright > holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions already > granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose > more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work." > > http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html By my reading, this is supported by 17 USC 203(a)(3): (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. (from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0203000-.html ) I would be interested to see what other legal basis is alleged as grounds to rescind a license. Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: "...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work." http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she > > may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a > > specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they > > do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) > > Oh come on, I thought some small country in maybe central Africa, > but certainly not USA. US Law is a twisted maze - you wouldn't believe the contradictions that exist between different sections of the US Federal Code. (And its worse as you move down to the State and the Local levels) > What you write would essentially mean GPL (and any other such licence) > is invalid in the USA. Nope. The GPL is an explicit grant of rights and is fully legal and active as it stands. > The licence is basically a promise not to sue. It wouldn't make any > sense to promise if you could revoke at will. If I was to revoke the license on something I held copyright to, I'd be forced to make an attempt to contact everyone that may have received a copy of the work under that license before I could ever begin filing lawsuits. This process will take at least a month - more if the various localities where someone might be living has laws about what constitutes an attempt to contact. (For instance, here in Pennsylvania an attempt to contact is taking out large format classified ad's in every newspaper in the area where the person is known to reside - or statewide if the region is not known. The ad's have to run for a minimum of one week) This means that it'd take no less than five weeks - and might take as much as six months - before I could begin filing lawsuits. (And even then I'd have to have proof that the person in question was violating my copyright at the time the lawsuit was filed) > > Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general) > > are grants of rights, not a "statements of will". > > Right here grants of rights are some sort of statements of will. Difference in terminology ? A "Grant of Rights" is where you say 'Normally only I could do this, but I am giving you the legal right to do it as well'. A "statement of will" is 'This is what I want to have happen, in perpetuity'. In the US, a "statement of will" can include or imply a "Grant of Rights" and vice-versa, but they are separate entities. > > (Truthfully, in the US a license > > should be read with an implicit "All rights reserved") > > Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work > has an implicit "all rights reserved". A licence is just exception. And? The fact remains that "All Rights Reserved" means "I am reserving all rights I do not specifically grant or waive". ie: If a license doesn't state 'The licenser hereby waives the right to revoke this license at any time' then that right hasn't been lost. (A license acquired through a purchase - as might apply to a novel - is a lot different. And contracts are a different beast entirely) DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote: > Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > >> Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> The fact > >>> remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of > >>> copyright > >>> license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. > >> > >> Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be > >> restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. > > > > I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of > > "The license applies to the copyright holder" that I've seen a lot of > > people make (and kept quiet about). > > I believe you are making the mistake that the license on code has > anything to do with what the author chooses to do in the future. > Releasing something as BSD does not force the author to do anything in > the future with his code, and he/she could add and relicence as he/she > feels fit. HOWEVER, that particular code has already been released as > BSD, and the author no longer has control over that release. I may be mistaken, but it has always been my understanding that, unless you specifically waive your rights, they are automatically retained. (Under the law in the US, at least). Hence, a copyright holder can do such, where the license has not been acquired by money changing hands. (And actually, my above statement isn't rendered false by your rebuttal - it still appears that the person I replied to believes that a copyright license applies to the person holding the copyright in the same manner it applies to the person receiving the item under said license. Though I will admit it if I am wrong - publicly) > > The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a > > license grant at any time. Licenses such as the GPL are not signed > > contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have > > on the copyright holder. > > I believe you are confusing the fact that an author can decide to > release code under another license, with the existence of code under > that earlier license. The license grant comes from THE CODE (which > bears a license), not THE AUTHOR. I can use GPL code I get in the mail > because the license on the work says I can do so, not because I > contacted the author and got a specific grant. If such a grant were > only verbal, your theory might hold, but that doesn't apply to any OSS > software under discussion here. The license is a direct grant from the author. If the author so wished, he/she could pull the license - either entirely or in part. About the only caveat is that the author would have to publish and attempt to contact everyone who may have acquired the item under that license to inform them of such a change - this does make it difficult, hell, makes it nearly impossible, but it can be done. (IANAL, but this does appear to be what the law says) > If your legal theory were true, I could sell you a book and then later > demand that you destroy it. I could also release something as public > domain, and then later rescind that (I still hold the copyright on what > I produced), and charge money from anyone who used it. I think its safe > to say that this does not happen in practice. Please provide some > examples to the contrary or caselaw if you want to convince me otherwise. Actually, no. A purchase does automatically grant the rights inherent in ownership - but that is a *PURCHASE*. Mere transfer of an item with no exchange of money cannot convey those rights. As far as the 'public domain' argument goes... That smells of a straw-man and is as different from a grant of license as it is from a purchase. When you release something into the public domain you are waiving *ALL* of your rights as copyright holder. (Which, I am told, cannot be done in Germany and some other countries) > Furthermore, BSD/GPL software could not really exist under your legal > theory; A programmer who wrote 30 year old core BSD code could wake up > tomorrow and decide to require all BSD derivatives to remove his code or > pay him for it (and the next day he could change the price again). Open > source software would not exist if such a liability were true, and > companies like Sun could not be built up off of derivatives of it. > Linux 0.01 is still available under a pre-GPL license if you can find a > copy, and neither Linus (nor anyone else) can change that. He could, but AFAICT, thirty years ago BSD was still run entirely by UC Berkely and any copyrights that might be held are held entirely by UC Berkely and not the individuals that contributed to such. (Whats more, a 30 year old version of BSD doesn't meet the requirements of the AT agreement, so its only legal in-so-far as it massively predates that agreement (and the lawsuit which spawned it) :) And yes, Linus actually could revoke the license on any copy of
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may > have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific > person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply > to the situation that is being discussed) Oh come on, I thought some small country in maybe central Africa, but certainly not USA. What you write would essentially mean GPL (and any other such licence) is invalid in the USA. The licence is basically a promise not to sue. It wouldn't make any sense to promise if you could revoke at will. > Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general) are > grants of rights, not a "statements of will". Right here grants of rights are some sort of statements of will. > (Truthfully, in the US a license > should be read with an implicit "All rights reserved") Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work has an implicit "all rights reserved". A licence is just exception. -- 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of copyright license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of "The license applies to the copyright holder" that I've seen a lot of people make (and kept quiet about). I believe you are making the mistake that the license on code has anything to do with what the author chooses to do in the future. Releasing something as BSD does not force the author to do anything in the future with his code, and he/she could add and relicence as he/she feels fit. HOWEVER, that particular code has already been released as BSD, and the author no longer has control over that release. The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. I believe you are confusing the fact that an author can decide to release code under another license, with the existence of code under that earlier license. The license grant comes from THE CODE (which bears a license), not THE AUTHOR. I can use GPL code I get in the mail because the license on the work says I can do so, not because I contacted the author and got a specific grant. If such a grant were only verbal, your theory might hold, but that doesn't apply to any OSS software under discussion here. If your legal theory were true, I could sell you a book and then later demand that you destroy it. I could also release something as public domain, and then later rescind that (I still hold the copyright on what I produced), and charge money from anyone who used it. I think its safe to say that this does not happen in practice. Please provide some examples to the contrary or caselaw if you want to convince me otherwise. Furthermore, BSD/GPL software could not really exist under your legal theory; A programmer who wrote 30 year old core BSD code could wake up tomorrow and decide to require all BSD derivatives to remove his code or pay him for it (and the next day he could change the price again). Open source software would not exist if such a liability were true, and companies like Sun could not be built up off of derivatives of it. Linux 0.01 is still available under a pre-GPL license if you can find a copy, and neither Linus (nor anyone else) can change that. If the license was of the "signed contract" type, or contained text stating that the copyright holder was giving up all rights of revocation (etc...) I could agree with you. As it stands, no "Open Source" license that I have seen used on a major project contains any part that does that. In fact, the GPL is the only license I can name (offhand) that even touches on the rights of the copyright holder - and then it is in the form of "If you do X, Y or Z all rights granted under this license are automatically revoked". > That is an "automatic clause" - not a limitation stating that the copyright holder can only revoke under those conditions. The person holding the copyright has quite a few rights - more than people believe - and not even the most generous of Open Source licenses (except those that contain text like "granted in perpetuity" or similar) even come close to being exempt from the holder of the copyright not being able to summarily revoke a given persons license. There are plenty of rights, but retroactive changes to the license terms of something you've already distributed is not one of them. - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of copyright license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of The license applies to the copyright holder that I've seen a lot of people make (and kept quiet about). I believe you are making the mistake that the license on code has anything to do with what the author chooses to do in the future. Releasing something as BSD does not force the author to do anything in the future with his code, and he/she could add and relicence as he/she feels fit. HOWEVER, that particular code has already been released as BSD, and the author no longer has control over that release. The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. I believe you are confusing the fact that an author can decide to release code under another license, with the existence of code under that earlier license. The license grant comes from THE CODE (which bears a license), not THE AUTHOR. I can use GPL code I get in the mail because the license on the work says I can do so, not because I contacted the author and got a specific grant. If such a grant were only verbal, your theory might hold, but that doesn't apply to any OSS software under discussion here. If your legal theory were true, I could sell you a book and then later demand that you destroy it. I could also release something as public domain, and then later rescind that (I still hold the copyright on what I produced), and charge money from anyone who used it. I think its safe to say that this does not happen in practice. Please provide some examples to the contrary or caselaw if you want to convince me otherwise. Furthermore, BSD/GPL software could not really exist under your legal theory; A programmer who wrote 30 year old core BSD code could wake up tomorrow and decide to require all BSD derivatives to remove his code or pay him for it (and the next day he could change the price again). Open source software would not exist if such a liability were true, and companies like Sun could not be built up off of derivatives of it. Linux 0.01 is still available under a pre-GPL license if you can find a copy, and neither Linus (nor anyone else) can change that. If the license was of the signed contract type, or contained text stating that the copyright holder was giving up all rights of revocation (etc...) I could agree with you. As it stands, no Open Source license that I have seen used on a major project contains any part that does that. In fact, the GPL is the only license I can name (offhand) that even touches on the rights of the copyright holder - and then it is in the form of If you do X, Y or Z all rights granted under this license are automatically revoked. That is an automatic clause - not a limitation stating that the copyright holder can only revoke under those conditions. The person holding the copyright has quite a few rights - more than people believe - and not even the most generous of Open Source licenses (except those that contain text like granted in perpetuity or similar) even come close to being exempt from the holder of the copyright not being able to summarily revoke a given persons license. There are plenty of rights, but retroactive changes to the license terms of something you've already distributed is not one of them. - Jim Bruce - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) Oh come on, I thought some small country in maybe central Africa, but certainly not USA. What you write would essentially mean GPL (and any other such licence) is invalid in the USA. The licence is basically a promise not to sue. It wouldn't make any sense to promise if you could revoke at will. Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general) are grants of rights, not a statements of will. Right here grants of rights are some sort of statements of will. (Truthfully, in the US a license should be read with an implicit All rights reserved) Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work has an implicit all rights reserved. A licence is just exception. -- 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 04:50:34 James Bruce wrote: Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of copyright license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of The license applies to the copyright holder that I've seen a lot of people make (and kept quiet about). I believe you are making the mistake that the license on code has anything to do with what the author chooses to do in the future. Releasing something as BSD does not force the author to do anything in the future with his code, and he/she could add and relicence as he/she feels fit. HOWEVER, that particular code has already been released as BSD, and the author no longer has control over that release. I may be mistaken, but it has always been my understanding that, unless you specifically waive your rights, they are automatically retained. (Under the law in the US, at least). Hence, a copyright holder can do such, where the license has not been acquired by money changing hands. (And actually, my above statement isn't rendered false by your rebuttal - it still appears that the person I replied to believes that a copyright license applies to the person holding the copyright in the same manner it applies to the person receiving the item under said license. Though I will admit it if I am wrong - publicly) The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. I believe you are confusing the fact that an author can decide to release code under another license, with the existence of code under that earlier license. The license grant comes from THE CODE (which bears a license), not THE AUTHOR. I can use GPL code I get in the mail because the license on the work says I can do so, not because I contacted the author and got a specific grant. If such a grant were only verbal, your theory might hold, but that doesn't apply to any OSS software under discussion here. The license is a direct grant from the author. If the author so wished, he/she could pull the license - either entirely or in part. About the only caveat is that the author would have to publish and attempt to contact everyone who may have acquired the item under that license to inform them of such a change - this does make it difficult, hell, makes it nearly impossible, but it can be done. (IANAL, but this does appear to be what the law says) If your legal theory were true, I could sell you a book and then later demand that you destroy it. I could also release something as public domain, and then later rescind that (I still hold the copyright on what I produced), and charge money from anyone who used it. I think its safe to say that this does not happen in practice. Please provide some examples to the contrary or caselaw if you want to convince me otherwise. Actually, no. A purchase does automatically grant the rights inherent in ownership - but that is a *PURCHASE*. Mere transfer of an item with no exchange of money cannot convey those rights. As far as the 'public domain' argument goes... That smells of a straw-man and is as different from a grant of license as it is from a purchase. When you release something into the public domain you are waiving *ALL* of your rights as copyright holder. (Which, I am told, cannot be done in Germany and some other countries) Furthermore, BSD/GPL software could not really exist under your legal theory; A programmer who wrote 30 year old core BSD code could wake up tomorrow and decide to require all BSD derivatives to remove his code or pay him for it (and the next day he could change the price again). Open source software would not exist if such a liability were true, and companies like Sun could not be built up off of derivatives of it. Linux 0.01 is still available under a pre-GPL license if you can find a copy, and neither Linus (nor anyone else) can change that. He could, but AFAICT, thirty years ago BSD was still run entirely by UC Berkely and any copyrights that might be held are held entirely by UC Berkely and not the individuals that contributed to such. (Whats more, a 30 year old version of BSD doesn't meet the requirements of the ATT agreement, so its only legal in-so-far as it massively predates that agreement (and the lawsuit which spawned it) :) And yes, Linus actually could revoke the license on any copy of Linux from before he started merging code written by other people into the
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) Oh come on, I thought some small country in maybe central Africa, but certainly not USA. US Law is a twisted maze - you wouldn't believe the contradictions that exist between different sections of the US Federal Code. (And its worse as you move down to the State and the Local levels) What you write would essentially mean GPL (and any other such licence) is invalid in the USA. Nope. The GPL is an explicit grant of rights and is fully legal and active as it stands. The licence is basically a promise not to sue. It wouldn't make any sense to promise if you could revoke at will. If I was to revoke the license on something I held copyright to, I'd be forced to make an attempt to contact everyone that may have received a copy of the work under that license before I could ever begin filing lawsuits. This process will take at least a month - more if the various localities where someone might be living has laws about what constitutes an attempt to contact. (For instance, here in Pennsylvania an attempt to contact is taking out large format classified ad's in every newspaper in the area where the person is known to reside - or statewide if the region is not known. The ad's have to run for a minimum of one week) This means that it'd take no less than five weeks - and might take as much as six months - before I could begin filing lawsuits. (And even then I'd have to have proof that the person in question was violating my copyright at the time the lawsuit was filed) Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general) are grants of rights, not a statements of will. Right here grants of rights are some sort of statements of will. Difference in terminology ? A Grant of Rights is where you say 'Normally only I could do this, but I am giving you the legal right to do it as well'. A statement of will is 'This is what I want to have happen, in perpetuity'. In the US, a statement of will can include or imply a Grant of Rights and vice-versa, but they are separate entities. (Truthfully, in the US a license should be read with an implicit All rights reserved) Actually (and I think it's the same in the USA), a copyrighted work has an implicit all rights reserved. A licence is just exception. And? The fact remains that All Rights Reserved means I am reserving all rights I do not specifically grant or waive. ie: If a license doesn't state 'The licenser hereby waives the right to revoke this license at any time' then that right hasn't been lost. (A license acquired through a purchase - as might apply to a novel - is a lot different. And contracts are a different beast entirely) DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: ...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright holder decide to go commercial he can not revoke permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html Chris - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Chris Friesen writes: Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: ...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright holder decide to go commercial he can not revoke permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html By my reading, this is supported by 17 USC 203(a)(3): (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. (from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0203000-.html ) I would be interested to see what other legal basis is alleged as grounds to rescind a license. Michael - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Chris Friesen wrote: Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: ...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright holder decide to go commercial he can not revoke permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html Chris - There are other enforceability issues as well. For instance in the US, Copyright Law applies as soon as something is written. So, does Copyright Law apply if I write, You cannot read this. Of course, it's a trivial example. Revocation of a license to read a work is absurd. Using this theory, once somebody's written work has been distributed under some license, a different license would likely be regarded as unenforceable by a court. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tuesday 04 September 2007 15:44:31 Michael Poole wrote: Chris Friesen writes: Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 04 September 2007 09:27:02 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) The OpenBSD policy page doesn't agree with you: ...That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright holder decide to go commercial he can not revoke permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html By my reading, this is supported by 17 USC 203(a)(3): (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier. (from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0203000- .html ) Ah, I am both right and wrong, it seems. Apparently you have to wait anywhere form 35 to 40 years, and then you only have a five year window. Seems damned strange to me, but oh well. (I'd totally forgotten that part of the law - or my mind decided to play tricks on me.) DRH PS: See, I will admit it when I'm shown evidence that I'm wrong :) -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of > > "The license applies to the copyright holder" > > Of course not. I'll take this at face value - I might have mis-parsed your earlier statements wrong. > > The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a > > license grant at any time. > > Based on? US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) > > Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, > > and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the > > copyright > > holder. > > Perhaps that is your local laws, but I'd be surprised anyway. I wouldn't. The US Legal system is rather twisted. > Do you sign contracts when shopping, or are you (and the shop) > allowed to "revoke" the transaction after it's made (I'm not > talking about shop's return policy)? A purchase is separate from a grant of copyright under license. If I purchase a book I have the right to read the book and I have the right to sell the book to someone else, but I have no other rights to it. But if I purchase something, there are rights that go along with said purchase. Under a license such as the GPL (I can't say the same for the BSD/ISC license - I haven't spent enough time studying it to know for sure) no money need change hands for access to the program *and* source. All the rights that anyone *BESIDES* the copyright holder have to the program and/or source comes from license. But since money has not changed hands, there is no further set of rights or guarantees - the copyright holder has not, in general, sold a copy of the work or granted any guarantee that the license will not be revoked. > Is what you wrote only valid WRT licences? Yes. For contracts there is slightly different set of laws in play. > Which country has such laws BTW? The USA. > > In Poland, I can't just go and "revoke" a "statement of will" > if I haven't explicite reserved a right to do so. > Obviously I can act contrary to the statement, and be held liable. Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general) are grants of rights, not a "statements of will". If there are to be any limits on the rights of the copyright holder, under US law, they have to be explicitly stated in the license itself. (Truthfully, in the US a license should be read with an implicit "All rights reserved") DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of "The > license applies to the copyright holder" Of course not. > The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a > license grant at any time. Based on? > Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, > and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the > copyright > holder. Perhaps that is your local laws, but I'd be surprised anyway. Do you sign contracts when shopping, or are you (and the shop) allowed to "revoke" the transaction after it's made (I'm not talking about shop's return policy)? Is what you wrote only valid WRT licences? Which country has such laws BTW? In Poland, I can't just go and "revoke" a "statement of will" if I haven't explicite reserved a right to do so. Obviously I can act contrary to the statement, and be held liable. -- 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The fact > > remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of > > copyright > > license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. > > Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be > restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of "The license applies to the copyright holder" that I've seen a lot of people make (and kept quiet about). The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. If the license was of the "signed contract" type, or contained text stating that the copyright holder was giving up all rights of revocation (etc...) I could agree with you. As it stands, no "Open Source" license that I have seen used on a major project contains any part that does that. In fact, the GPL is the only license I can name (offhand) that even touches on the rights of the copyright holder - and then it is in the form of "If you do X, Y or Z all rights granted under this license are automatically revoked". That is an "automatic clause" - not a limitation stating that the copyright holder can only revoke under those conditions. The person holding the copyright has quite a few rights - more than people believe - and not even the most generous of Open Source licenses (except those that contain text like "granted in perpetuity" or similar) even come close to being exempt from the holder of the copyright not being able to summarily revoke a given persons license. DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Daniel Hazelton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The fact > remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of > copyright > license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. -- 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote: > > Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork > > - his code > > is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license > > and was only > > covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that > > carried said dual-license. (I'm not sure how well such a revocation would > > work in reality, but it is Mr. Floeters right.)... > > No. Neither the BSD license nor the GPL license permit you to revoke > rights. Mr. Floeter's code is still available under the BSD/ISC license. > The BSD license does not require you to make derived works available under > a BSD license. *His* code is still available under a BSD/ISC license, of > course, but the changed code is not. Doesn't matter if the BSD license or the GPL *PERMITS* it or not. The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of copyright license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. The GPL codifies certain situations in which the person would not, personally, have to revoke the license, but does not limit the original copyright holders rights (in that regard) in any way. The BSD/ISC license has none of the automatic conditions of the GPL, but it also cannot remove the copyright holder(s) from exercising their rights. (And no, I haven't spoken to a lawyer about this - I did, however, ask a recently graduated law-school student where I could look for case-law and the text of the actual laws. What I got was some background on US copyright law itself and an agreement that a copyright license does not - and can not - affect the person holding the copyright) > Read the BSD license. It does not require changes to be made available > under a compatible license. This is the main difference between the BSD and > GPL licenses. Have done so. And that is the only part of the license that I actually don't like. > Note that it would be an error to remove the BSD license text, as the BSD > license requires you to keep it and you still need the BSD license to grant > you distribution rights to the original work. However, the license does not > apply to protectable aspects of the code not placed under the BSD license > by their original author, and it is important to add a note to that effect. Agreed, and I've never claimed otherwise. (Nor has anyone else. I believe the closest that anyone has come was Alan Cox saying (and I'm going to paraphrase it because I don't think he ever stated it well) "If you've made changes to a file that carries a dual BSD/GPL license and your changes are GPL only, the file can no longer be distributed under the BSD license at all. So it is safe to remove the headers from that individual file." There is no way that a license on a constituent file can alter or affect the license on the whole project (if it is different). It can "muddy the waters", but that is about as far as I can see it going. (I realize I may have said different, originally, but you'll have to forgive me. I was not in the best of moods (or the best state of mind) to be making a completely rational argument when I did such.) DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing]
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 11:25:42PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: > This is a lot more relevant than much of the ongoing > discussion, so perhaps people could take a moment to read it over. > > - Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - > > From: Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:23:04 +0200 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing > > Hi! > > I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks. > So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion. > I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD > users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD > people, and obviously from some trolls. > > I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and > repeat a few words: > > - I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL > or any kind of a "dual"-license. It's your code and it's your choice. (But note that you contributed to then dual-licenced code in the OpenBSD CVS and kept this code dual-licenced. For this code your contributions might be assumed dual-licenced.) > - The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and > even the warranty term. Full agreement (for not dual-licenced code). > - Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for > entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the > controversial code. The email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel [1] centered around Theo telling people that picking one licence for Sam's dual-licenced code would "break the law". He would have better made the mistake in Jiri's patch visible (and therefore better defended your copyright) if he wouldn't have obscured it with these pointless accusations... > - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion > about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they > just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things? > > I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think > about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved > in the linux tree. >... To clarify this myth once again: The patch that mistakenly changed BSD-only code to GPL has never ever been in the Linux tree. > Thanks! > reyk cu Adrian [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/102 -- "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/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing]
This is a lot more relevant than much of the ongoing discussion, so perhaps people could take a moment to read it over. - Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:23:04 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing Hi! I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks. So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion. I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD people, and obviously from some trolls. I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and repeat a few words: - I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL or any kind of a "dual"-license. - The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and even the warranty term. - Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the controversial code. - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things? I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved in the linux tree. But PLEASE DON'T SPAM ME with any other mails about this, even if you want to help/support me, I will talk to the relevant people in private. Thanks! reyk On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > [bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him] > > I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because > Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux > people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him > pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by > the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other > Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there > are even greater potential risks for how the various communities > interact. > > For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change > the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that > conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). > > It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, > because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, > they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two > licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute > the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the > existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have > statements which say that the license may not be removed. > > It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either > license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is > still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal > document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may > not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual > licensed, every time it is distributed. > > Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to > communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what > they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that > Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this > leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level, > a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers). > And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the > larger open source communities who are writing applications. > > Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since > time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel > that a lot of Linux "relicencing" meme-talkin' trolls basically have > attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to > say something public about this. > > In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize > what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a > modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the > authors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I must > caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. > > I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been > taught, how one must handle such licenses: > > - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license > you don't like and the
RE: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
> > Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL > > license claim to allow this. > Standard dual license texts do. > > Jeff No, they don't. They simply state that *you* may obtain the right to modify/distribute the work from either license at your option. They do not say anything about relicensing. Again, such an agreement would have to be in writing. What license a distributor uses to acquire the rights to modify or distribute a work has no effect whatsoever on the rights the recipient has to the work. The GPL is absolutely clear about this (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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
> Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork > - his code > is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license > and was only > covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that > carried said dual-license. (I'm not sure how well such a revocation would > work in reality, but it is Mr. Floeters right.)... No. Neither the BSD license nor the GPL license permit you to revoke rights. Mr. Floeter's code is still available under the BSD/ISC license. The BSD license does not require you to make derived works available under a BSD license. *His* code is still available under a BSD/ISC license, of course, but the changed code is not. Read the BSD license. It does not require changes to be made available under a compatible license. This is the main difference between the BSD and GPL licenses. Note that it would be an error to remove the BSD license text, as the BSD license requires you to keep it and you still need the BSD license to grant you distribution rights to the original work. However, the license does not apply to protectable aspects of the code not placed under the BSD license by their original author, and it is important to add a note to that effect. 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
David Schwartz wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if delegated to them by the original author. Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL license claim to allow this. Standard dual license texts do. 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Jeff Garzik wrote: > Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if > delegated > to them by the original author. Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL license claim to allow this. > Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you > think most music gets into consumer hands? Through written agreements to permit this. Neither the BSD nor the GPL license do. You cannot revoke someone's GPL rights to code you did not write because they flow directly from the original author to the recipient. The GPL is quite clear, you do not grant a license to anyone else's code, the original author does. This is why the GPL does not need to be in writing. 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sep 3 2007 04:58, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think > most music gets into consumer hands? uh, p2p? :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
David Schwartz wrote: Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get the rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a lawful copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license from that original author. You have no power to grant or modify rights to the original work. Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if delegated to them by the original author. Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think most music gets into consumer hands? 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
David Schwartz wrote: Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get the rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a lawful copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license from that original author. You have no power to grant or modify rights to the original work. Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if delegated to them by the original author. Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think most music gets into consumer hands? 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sep 3 2007 04:58, Jeff Garzik wrote: Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think most music gets into consumer hands? uh, p2p? :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Jeff Garzik wrote: Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if delegated to them by the original author. Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL license claim to allow this. Relicensing and transfer of rights happens all the time. How do you think most music gets into consumer hands? Through written agreements to permit this. Neither the BSD nor the GPL license do. You cannot revoke someone's GPL rights to code you did not write because they flow directly from the original author to the recipient. The GPL is quite clear, you do not grant a license to anyone else's code, the original author does. This is why the GPL does not need to be in writing. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
David Schwartz wrote: Jeff Garzik wrote: Secondary parties have the power to grant or modify rights, if delegated to them by the original author. Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL license claim to allow this. Standard dual license texts do. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork - his code is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license and was only covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that carried said dual-license. (I'm not sure how well such a revocation would work in reality, but it is Mr. Floeters right.)... No. Neither the BSD license nor the GPL license permit you to revoke rights. Mr. Floeter's code is still available under the BSD/ISC license. The BSD license does not require you to make derived works available under a BSD license. *His* code is still available under a BSD/ISC license, of course, but the changed code is not. Read the BSD license. It does not require changes to be made available under a compatible license. This is the main difference between the BSD and GPL licenses. Note that it would be an error to remove the BSD license text, as the BSD license requires you to keep it and you still need the BSD license to grant you distribution rights to the original work. However, the license does not apply to protectable aspects of the code not placed under the BSD license by their original author, and it is important to add a note to that effect. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Yes, but this has to be done in writing and neither the BSD nor the GPL license claim to allow this. Standard dual license texts do. Jeff No, they don't. They simply state that *you* may obtain the right to modify/distribute the work from either license at your option. They do not say anything about relicensing. Again, such an agreement would have to be in writing. What license a distributor uses to acquire the rights to modify or distribute a work has no effect whatsoever on the rights the recipient has to the work. The GPL is absolutely clear about this (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/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing]
This is a lot more relevant than much of the ongoing discussion, so perhaps people could take a moment to read it over. - Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Reyk Floeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:23:04 +0200 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing Hi! I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks. So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion. I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD people, and obviously from some trolls. I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and repeat a few words: - I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL or any kind of a dual-license. - The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and even the warranty term. - Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the controversial code. - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things? I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved in the linux tree. But PLEASE DON'T SPAM ME with any other mails about this, even if you want to help/support me, I will talk to the relevant people in private. Thanks! reyk On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him] I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact. For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed. Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level, a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers). And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the larger open source communities who are writing applications. Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel that a lot of Linux relicencing meme-talkin' trolls basically have attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to say something public about this. In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the authors. Alan asks So whats the problem ?. Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been taught, how one must handle such licenses: - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the license. Same principle, since
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Monday 03 September 2007 05:48:00 David Schwartz wrote: Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork - his code is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license and was only covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that carried said dual-license. (I'm not sure how well such a revocation would work in reality, but it is Mr. Floeters right.)... No. Neither the BSD license nor the GPL license permit you to revoke rights. Mr. Floeter's code is still available under the BSD/ISC license. The BSD license does not require you to make derived works available under a BSD license. *His* code is still available under a BSD/ISC license, of course, but the changed code is not. Doesn't matter if the BSD license or the GPL *PERMITS* it or not. The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of copyright license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. The GPL codifies certain situations in which the person would not, personally, have to revoke the license, but does not limit the original copyright holders rights (in that regard) in any way. The BSD/ISC license has none of the automatic conditions of the GPL, but it also cannot remove the copyright holder(s) from exercising their rights. (And no, I haven't spoken to a lawyer about this - I did, however, ask a recently graduated law-school student where I could look for case-law and the text of the actual laws. What I got was some background on US copyright law itself and an agreement that a copyright license does not - and can not - affect the person holding the copyright) Read the BSD license. It does not require changes to be made available under a compatible license. This is the main difference between the BSD and GPL licenses. Have done so. And that is the only part of the license that I actually don't like. Note that it would be an error to remove the BSD license text, as the BSD license requires you to keep it and you still need the BSD license to grant you distribution rights to the original work. However, the license does not apply to protectable aspects of the code not placed under the BSD license by their original author, and it is important to add a note to that effect. Agreed, and I've never claimed otherwise. (Nor has anyone else. I believe the closest that anyone has come was Alan Cox saying (and I'm going to paraphrase it because I don't think he ever stated it well) If you've made changes to a file that carries a dual BSD/GPL license and your changes are GPL only, the file can no longer be distributed under the BSD license at all. So it is safe to remove the headers from that individual file. There is no way that a license on a constituent file can alter or affect the license on the whole project (if it is different). It can muddy the waters, but that is about as far as I can see it going. (I realize I may have said different, originally, but you'll have to forgive me. I was not in the best of moods (or the best state of mind) to be making a completely rational argument when I did such.) DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of copyright license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. -- 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Monday 03 September 2007 14:26:29 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The fact remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of copyright license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. Not after the licence has been given and accepted (and there might be restrictions), unless of course the licence contained such reservation. I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of The license applies to the copyright holder that I've seen a lot of people make (and kept quiet about). The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. If the license was of the signed contract type, or contained text stating that the copyright holder was giving up all rights of revocation (etc...) I could agree with you. As it stands, no Open Source license that I have seen used on a major project contains any part that does that. In fact, the GPL is the only license I can name (offhand) that even touches on the rights of the copyright holder - and then it is in the form of If you do X, Y or Z all rights granted under this license are automatically revoked. That is an automatic clause - not a limitation stating that the copyright holder can only revoke under those conditions. The person holding the copyright has quite a few rights - more than people believe - and not even the most generous of Open Source licenses (except those that contain text like granted in perpetuity or similar) even come close to being exempt from the holder of the copyright not being able to summarily revoke a given persons license. DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of The license applies to the copyright holder Of course not. The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Based on? Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. Perhaps that is your local laws, but I'd be surprised anyway. Do you sign contracts when shopping, or are you (and the shop) allowed to revoke the transaction after it's made (I'm not talking about shop's return policy)? Is what you wrote only valid WRT licences? Which country has such laws BTW? In Poland, I can't just go and revoke a statement of will if I haven't explicite reserved a right to do so. Obviously I can act contrary to the statement, and be held liable. -- 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Monday 03 September 2007 15:33:01 Krzysztof Halasa wrote: Daniel Hazelton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I hate to belabor the point, but you seem to be making the mistake of The license applies to the copyright holder Of course not. I'll take this at face value - I might have mis-parsed your earlier statements wrong. The person holding the copyright has all the legal standing to revoke a license grant at any time. Based on? US Copyright law. A copyright holder, regardless of what license he/she may have released the work under, can still revoke the license for a specific person or group of people. (There are some exceptions, but they do not apply to the situation that is being discussed) Licenses such as the GPL are not signed contracts, and that means there are limits to what effect they can have on the copyright holder. Perhaps that is your local laws, but I'd be surprised anyway. I wouldn't. The US Legal system is rather twisted. Do you sign contracts when shopping, or are you (and the shop) allowed to revoke the transaction after it's made (I'm not talking about shop's return policy)? A purchase is separate from a grant of copyright under license. If I purchase a book I have the right to read the book and I have the right to sell the book to someone else, but I have no other rights to it. But if I purchase something, there are rights that go along with said purchase. Under a license such as the GPL (I can't say the same for the BSD/ISC license - I haven't spent enough time studying it to know for sure) no money need change hands for access to the program *and* source. All the rights that anyone *BESIDES* the copyright holder have to the program and/or source comes from license. But since money has not changed hands, there is no further set of rights or guarantees - the copyright holder has not, in general, sold a copy of the work or granted any guarantee that the license will not be revoked. Is what you wrote only valid WRT licences? Yes. For contracts there is slightly different set of laws in play. Which country has such laws BTW? The USA. In Poland, I can't just go and revoke a statement of will if I haven't explicite reserved a right to do so. Obviously I can act contrary to the statement, and be held liable. Ah, see - in the US the license(s) in question (and licenses in general) are grants of rights, not a statements of will. If there are to be any limits on the rights of the copyright holder, under US law, they have to be explicitly stated in the license itself. (Truthfully, in the US a license should be read with an implicit All rights reserved) DRH -- Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
(by the way, text in caps surrounded by *'s is meant to indicate vocal stress,
not volume)
On Sunday 02 September 2007 22:01:18 David Schwartz wrote:
> > So I appear to have a
> > right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me
> > receives no right to use it except under the GPL.
>
> Here's where your train goes off the rails. They do not receive any right
> to use it from you. They receive a license to use it under the GPL from the
> original author. Please read 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."
>
> The GPL does not give you *any* right to extend anyone a license to code
> you did not author. (Nor can it as such an extension would have to be done
> in writing in most countries.) When you distribute a GPL'd work, the right
> to use every creative element in that work is licensed to the recipients
> directly from their respective authors. Under no circumstances does the GPL
> ever give you the ability to license someone else's work to a third party.
However, this is not what is happening here. Jiri has made changes that he has
licensed solely under the GPLv2. This means that he now becomes the
licensor - not Mr. Floeter or Mr. Leffler. *BUT* *ONLY* of the version of the
code containing his changes.
Mr. Floeter *CAN* request that his code be removed from said fork - his code
is solely licensed (AFAICT and IIRC) under the BSD/ISC license and was only
covered by the dual-license because it was integrated into a work that
carried said dual-license. (I'm not sure how well such a revocation would
work in reality, but it is Mr. Floeters right.)...
(Sam Leffler could do the same - but I'm not sure how well that would carry.)
> > * 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.
> >
> > The choice appears to be delegated to the recipient very clearly and
> > very specifically by the licencing on the file. It does not say that I
> > must convey the work under both licences. It quite specifically says I
> > may convey the work under whichever of the two I prefer (and probably
> > both if I wish). Clearly if that had not been the intent it would not
> > have included the clause giving the choice.
>
> Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get
> the rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a
> lawful copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license
> from that original author. You have no power to grant or modify rights to
> the original work.
Correct. Doesn't apply in the case of the code in question (unless the changes
that were made are so tiny as to not be copyrightable).
In this case the code is question is a modified version, which means that the
right to distribute said modified version now originates with the person
holding the copyright on the modifications. (Though their right to distribute
the code, in such a situation, is lessened quite a bit by the text of the
license they received the code under)
> This is a common misunderstanding.
No misunderstanding, really.
Alan seems to have given a bad example that doesn't apply to the situation
that is being discussed.
> Note that you may remove the text of either license from a dual-licensed
> file and redistribute under the other license because neither license
> requires you to retain the other license and both licenses give you the
> right otherwise to modify as you wish. But the removal of a license from a
> file has no effect on the grant of license. Your recipients still get a
> dual license to those protectable elements in the file that were placed
> under a dual license. You cannot stop the automatic grant.
Agreed. When re-distributing an un-modified copy of a work. When distributing
a modified work, the "work" has the license that the person who made the
modifications places on it. But individual files and pieces of code will
still retain their original license - this is how it works.
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Alan Cox wrote:
> The ath5k C file in question (not the headers) seems to give recipients
> permission to further convey the work under a choice of two licences.
Correct.
> It doesn't say they must redistribute under both.
Correct. They need the right to redistribute the work, and they may obtain
that right from either license.
> So I appear to have a
> right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me
> receives no right to use it except under the GPL.
Here's where your train goes off the rails. They do not receive any right to
use it from you. They receive a license to use it under the GPL from the
original author. Please read 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."
The GPL does not give you *any* right to extend anyone a license to code you
did not author. (Nor can it as such an extension would have to be done in
writing in most countries.) When you distribute a GPL'd work, the right to
use every creative element in that work is licensed to the recipients
directly from their respective authors. Under no circumstances does the GPL
ever give you the ability to license someone else's work to a third party.
> * 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.
>
> The choice appears to be delegated to the recipient very clearly and
> very specifically by the licencing on the file. It does not say that I
> must convey the work under both licences. It quite specifically says I may
> convey the work under whichever of the two I prefer (and probably both if
> I wish). Clearly if that had not been the intent it would not have
> included the clause giving the choice.
Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get the
rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a lawful
copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license from
that original author. You have no power to grant or modify rights to the
original work.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Note that you may remove the text of either license from a dual-licensed
file and redistribute under the other license because neither license
requires you to retain the other license and both licenses give you the
right otherwise to modify as you wish. But the removal of a license from a
file has no effect on the grant of license. Your recipients still get a dual
license to those protectable elements in the file that were placed under a
dual license. You cannot stop the automatic grant.
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: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
> - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license > you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you > may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal > document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). This is absolute nonsense. By default, you can remove a license if you want to. This is why both the GPL and the BSD licenses have clauses requiring you to leave them in. A file that is under a dual license may be used under either the GPL license or the BSD license. Neither license requires you to retain the *other* license in the file. So there is absolutely no reason you cannot remove one license or the other. To argue otherwise is to argue that you need to comply with *both* licenses in a dual-licensed file to get the rights granted by either, and that's nonsense. You cannot, of course, modify a license and expect your modified license to apply to protectable elements you didn't author. And anyone who receives modified versions of the file still has all the rights the original authors grant them. Let's perform a thought experiment for a moment. Suppose the BSD license explicitly said you could remove the licensing clause if you wanted to. Would you still argue that you couldn't remove it even though it says you can? Well, the GPL says you can modify anything you want to, except *THAT* license. This means you can remove any other license notifications you want. Note that your license editing or removing has no effect on the rights people actually get except to your code. 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to Sam's verbiage. I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included the ability to modify the header (and thus the text of the licensing as I had written) or not. On balance I'd say I believe that the arguments for, on redistribution, picking one or the other license makes sense and honored my general intent. This allows people who modify the code (and presumably improve it) a "chef's choice" based on where they're serving the meal. IANAL, but I believe that none of this keeps me from continuing to put a dual license on stuff I leave up for distribution, or changing that to restricting the code to Martian Triathalon winners or what have 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote: > >Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or > >they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL > >for example does this for version selection. > > So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a > developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed > BSD code if other parties want to do it? Exactly. That's what dual-licensing is. [quote] This is no different from the fact that we have some drivers that are GPLv2/BSD licensed. Within the kernel, they are GPLv2. But on their own, you can choose to use them under the BSD license, make your changes to them, and release them commercially. And correct - I cannot (and neither can anybody else) then accept those *non*GPLv2 changes back. [end quote] That's from Linus and quite recently. FWIW, it's damn hard to codify "... and changes to this code should not change the situation". It's certainly a very good policy and in this case it's the only sane policy. [quote] Actually, normally I *do* have such a trust. It's why I have no problem with drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and in fact, I've told people that I don't want them to turn them into GPL-only, because that is simply not polite. [end quote] Same posting from Linus. And that's much more relevant to shooting the patch in question down (and IMO it ought to be shot down) than references to legality. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: Krzysztof Halasa wrote: WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. Yes. This deserves to be reinforced: There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux. Of course. Sharing knowledge and efforts can only improve both the GPL and BSD licensed code. It is important in all cases, but becomes critical when support from manufacturers is limited or even non existent. In these cases, shared efforts are required to write successful code. Cheers, Igor. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these > licensing terms concurrently. No. E.g.: If I don't agree to the GPL (or if I had violated it and therefore have lost it's privileges), I MUST NOT redistribute it under the GPL because I have no license to do that, but the BSD license would still allow me to redistribute. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Krzysztof Halasa wrote: WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. Yes. This deserves to be reinforced: There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux. 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
IANAL, but: Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a > developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a > single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be equal to GPL. Now, dual BSD/GPL equals BSD. OTOH I'd probable leave the original licence text, something like: The actual licence conditions: GPL or BSD or whatever. Portions of this file were licenced under: [the original licence text, not valid as a licence for current file] WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. -- 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
> > Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> > they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> > for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
If the dual licence permits you to select from two alternatives as
appears to be the case in
"* 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."
Then there is no problem in doing exactly what it says and distributing
it under the terms of the GPL v2 and the GPL v2 alone (or indeed the BSD
licence alone). Anyone who took the project code and produced a binary
only proprietary product from it would for example select the BSD licence
alone and convey almost no rights at all to their customer.
> I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
> under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
Assuming is bad, you should consult caselaw.
> lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
> licensing terms.
>
> We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have
> the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
If the author has conveyed that right to you, then you may usually do so.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
>>> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
>>
>> Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
>> they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
>> for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed
> BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Exactly.
>> A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a
>> boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of
>> ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes.
>> Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as
>> according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these
>> licensing terms concurrently".
>
> I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is
> under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a
> lot of software packages different modules are covered under different
> licensing terms.
>
> We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have the
> ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like.
We have the ability if the author explicitely allowed it.
This is the licencing text we are talking about:
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
*without modification.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
*similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
*redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
*similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
* 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
*of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
*
* NO WARRANTY
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
* ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
* AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
* THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
* OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
* SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
* INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
* IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
* ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
* THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
*/
The author himself offered two _alternatives_ for distributing his code.
> Igor.
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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL for example does this for version selection. So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes. Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently". I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a lot of software packages different modules are covered under different licensing terms. We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like. Igor. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there was permission to do so. There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really? Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices, you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient. Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing terms (BSD). A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a licence) then putting such a "both" GPL/BSD licence piece of code into OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent. Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it under one of the licences only. I think that Theo explained this point clearly quite a few times in the last days. And as we've already established the header files are quite different. Is a simple change in the header files a reason to vindicate the people that changed the licensing terms? Obviously, it isn't. Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very different things. No, because this change is both rude and illegal. Igor - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors > agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL for example does this for version selection. A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes. Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as according to your argument "it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently". Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Igor Sobrado wrote: When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is illegal. The plain English in the dual-license text directly contradicts this fiction. 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST) Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: > > You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove > > the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there > > was permission to do so. > > There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really? The code pieces I quoted contained that choice. As far as I am concerned that is what the discussion was about. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote: Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing terms (BSD). Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and code Reyk contributed to leaving the file dual licenced. Ok. You mixed two completely different things in your email: 1. Jiri's patch (that was never merged into Linux) not only removed the BSD header from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. 2. Theo accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one licence for dual licenced code was "advising people to break the law". Jiri's patch was legally not OK regarding 1. - there's no discussion regarding this. The point 2 is what the email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel is about and what the discussion is about. That's quite a rude action by Theo unless he's able to prove that this accusation is correct. When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is illegal. So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD license that a modification of the distribution terms is illegal. It is the first clause on the BSD license: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer, *without modification. So, removing (or changing) the list of conditions on the BSD license is not allowed. Igor. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote: > On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: >> You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove >> the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there >> was permission to do so. > > There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really? > >> Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with >> dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices, >> you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient. > > Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing > terms (BSD). Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and code Reyk contributed to leaving the file dual licenced. >> A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a >> work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must >> always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a >> licence) then putting such a "both" GPL/BSD licence piece of code into >> OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL >> licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent. >> >> Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is >> conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two >> offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it >> under one of the licences only. > > I think that Theo explained this point clearly quite a few times in the > last days. > >> And as we've already established the header files are quite different. > > Is a simple change in the header files a reason to vindicate the people > that changed the licensing terms? Obviously, it isn't. > >> Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very >> different things. > > No, because this change is both rude and illegal. You mixed two completely different things in your email: 1. Jiri's patch (that was never merged into Linux) not only removed the BSD header from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. 2. Theo accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one licence for dual licenced code was "advising people to break the law". Jiri's patch was legally not OK regarding 1. - there's no discussion regarding this. The point 2 is what the email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel is about and what the discussion is about. That's quite a rude action by Theo unless he's able to prove that this accusation is correct. > Igor 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: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sep 1 2007 18:36, Theo de Raadt wrote: > >When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of >them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that >is OK. For companies it's ok, but for linux people it is not? (1) You do not know how much of the modifications companies did are actually returned (2) You do not know whether the ath5k linux part authors will give back at a later point (much like companies) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
> - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the > license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. > Really. You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there was permission to do so. > My understanding is that with dual-licensed code, you choose to comply > with all of the terms of either licence. However, you cannot simply > remove either of these licences from the code, unless you specifically > receive such right from the copyright holder (remember, with the > copyright law, unless the rights are specifically given, they are > retained). This is what Theo was trying to educate the community on. I > don't see anything unethical in explaining the legal issues. Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices, you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient. A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a licence) then putting such a "both" GPL/BSD licence piece of code into OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent. Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it under one of the licences only. And as we've already established the header files are quite different. Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very different things. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
> co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of > the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped" > > Alan Cox circa 1999. > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html > > "well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware > thats not the intention of the project ;)" > Alan Cox circa 2007. > > What changed? Nothing that I am aware of. You can't take Linux/Mac68K code back into BSD either. BSD code is being used according to the BSD licence. You could adopt a different licence if the way your code is being used bothers you, thats. Where I've reused BSD code I've aways tried to contribute it back to the BSD people or share the knowledge (and the knowledge far more than the code mattered both ways for Mac68K systems) I suggest you read drivers/net/wan/syncppp.c, which is I think the only BSD derived bit of code of mine left in the kernel - and its quite specific what it says. Ath5k isn't my code so I don't get to pick. Having the OpenBSD maintainer make bogus remarks about that doesn't help anyone, especially when he's wrong and doesn't appear to know about the subject in the first place. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped Alan Cox circa 1999. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware thats not the intention of the project ;) Alan Cox circa 2007. What changed? Nothing that I am aware of. You can't take Linux/Mac68K code back into BSD either. BSD code is being used according to the BSD licence. You could adopt a different licence if the way your code is being used bothers you, thats. Where I've reused BSD code I've aways tried to contribute it back to the BSD people or share the knowledge (and the knowledge far more than the code mattered both ways for Mac68K systems) I suggest you read drivers/net/wan/syncppp.c, which is I think the only BSD derived bit of code of mine left in the kernel - and its quite specific what it says. Ath5k isn't my code so I don't get to pick. Having the OpenBSD maintainer make bogus remarks about that doesn't help anyone, especially when he's wrong and doesn't appear to know about the subject in the first place. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sep 1 2007 18:36, Theo de Raadt wrote: When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that is OK. For companies it's ok, but for linux people it is not? (1) You do not know how much of the modifications companies did are actually returned (2) You do not know whether the ath5k linux part authors will give back at a later point (much like companies) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote: On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there was permission to do so. There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really? Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices, you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient. Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing terms (BSD). Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and code Reyk contributed to leaving the file dual licenced. A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a licence) then putting such a both GPL/BSD licence piece of code into OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent. Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it under one of the licences only. I think that Theo explained this point clearly quite a few times in the last days. And as we've already established the header files are quite different. Is a simple change in the header files a reason to vindicate the people that changed the licensing terms? Obviously, it isn't. Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very different things. No, because this change is both rude and illegal. You mixed two completely different things in your email: 1. Jiri's patch (that was never merged into Linux) not only removed the BSD header from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. 2. Theo accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one licence for dual licenced code was advising people to break the law. Jiri's patch was legally not OK regarding 1. - there's no discussion regarding this. The point 2 is what the email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel is about and what the discussion is about. That's quite a rude action by Theo unless he's able to prove that this accusation is correct. Igor 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote: Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing terms (BSD). Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and code Reyk contributed to leaving the file dual licenced. Ok. You mixed two completely different things in your email: 1. Jiri's patch (that was never merged into Linux) not only removed the BSD header from dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. 2. Theo accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one licence for dual licenced code was advising people to break the law. Jiri's patch was legally not OK regarding 1. - there's no discussion regarding this. The point 2 is what the email of Theo that was forwarded to linux-kernel is about and what the discussion is about. That's quite a rude action by Theo unless he's able to prove that this accusation is correct. When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is illegal. So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD license that a modification of the distribution terms is illegal. It is the first clause on the BSD license: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer, *without modification. So, removing (or changing) the list of conditions on the BSD license is not allowed. Igor. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST) Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there was permission to do so. There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really? The code pieces I quoted contained that choice. As far as I am concerned that is what the discussion was about. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Igor Sobrado wrote: When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code and documentation *without* an authorization from all the author(s) is illegal. The plain English in the dual-license text directly contradicts this fiction. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL for example does this for version selection. A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes. Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as according to your argument it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there was permission to do so. There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really? Your understanding isn't quite right. One of many things you may get with dual licensed code is the right to pick a licence from several choices, you may also get the right to remove some choices from the recipient. Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing terms (BSD). A work that combines GPL and BSD licensed material is not the same as a work which says I may choose between two licences. If both licences must always apply (which is a perfectly possible condition to put in a licence) then putting such a both GPL/BSD licence piece of code into OpenBSD would require any OpenBSD distributed containing it was GPL licenced when conveyed, which I am *very* sure is not the intent. Thus what you appear to be doing by putting the ath5k C code in OpenBSD is conveying it under the BSD licence (making a choice between the two offered) and conveying a right for parties down the chain to convey it under one of the licences only. I think that Theo explained this point clearly quite a few times in the last days. And as we've already established the header files are quite different. Is a simple change in the header files a reason to vindicate the people that changed the licensing terms? Obviously, it isn't. Doesn't mean its not somewhat rude but illegal and rude are two very different things. No, because this change is both rude and illegal. Igor - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL for example does this for version selection. So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes. Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as according to your argument it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a lot of software packages different modules are covered under different licensing terms. We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like. Igor. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote: On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote: So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL for example does this for version selection. So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? Exactly. A multi-licensed work (note work not file - don't assume a file is a boundary of a work) which conveys the choice of licence (as some bits of ath5k did) allows a receiving party to choose the licence it wishes. Failing that OpenBSD would have turned itself GPL by adding that file as according to your argument it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a lot of software packages different modules are covered under different licensing terms. We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like. We have the ability if the author explicitely allowed it. This is the licencing text we are talking about: /*- * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions * are met: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer, *without modification. * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer *similar to the NO WARRANTY disclaimer below (Disclaimer) and any *redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially *similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution. * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names *of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived *from this software without specific prior written permission. * * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free * Software Foundation. * * NO WARRANTY * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS * ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY * AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL * THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, * OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER * IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF * THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. */ The author himself offered two _alternatives_ for distributing his code. Igor. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL for example does this for version selection. So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? If the dual licence permits you to select from two alternatives as appears to be the case in * 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. Then there is no problem in doing exactly what it says and distributing it under the terms of the GPL v2 and the GPL v2 alone (or indeed the BSD licence alone). Anyone who took the project code and produced a binary only proprietary product from it would for example select the BSD licence alone and convey almost no rights at all to their customer. I would assume a file as a boundary of a work in the case that file is under different licensing terms to the rest of the software package. On a Assuming is bad, you should consult caselaw. lot of software packages different modules are covered under different licensing terms. We can choose what license terms we will honor; however, we do not have the ability to remove the licensing terms we do not like. If the author has conveyed that right to you, then you may usually do so. Alan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
IANAL, but: Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be equal to GPL. Now, dual BSD/GPL equals BSD. OTOH I'd probable leave the original licence text, something like: The actual licence conditions: GPL or BSD or whatever. Portions of this file were licenced under: [the original licence text, not valid as a licence for current file] WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. -- 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Krzysztof Halasa wrote: WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. Yes. This deserves to be reinforced: There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these licensing terms concurrently. No. E.g.: If I don't agree to the GPL (or if I had violated it and therefore have lost it's privileges), I MUST NOT redistribute it under the GPL because I have no license to do that, but the BSD license would still allow me to redistribute. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: Krzysztof Halasa wrote: WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL = in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten - it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal requirement, though. Yes. This deserves to be reinforced: There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and Linux. Of course. Sharing knowledge and efforts can only improve both the GPL and BSD licensed code. It is important in all cases, but becomes critical when support from manufacturers is limited or even non existent. In these cases, shared efforts are required to write successful code. Cheers, Igor. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote: Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL for example does this for version selection. So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it? Exactly. That's what dual-licensing is. [quote] This is no different from the fact that we have some drivers that are GPLv2/BSD licensed. Within the kernel, they are GPLv2. But on their own, you can choose to use them under the BSD license, make your changes to them, and release them commercially. And correct - I cannot (and neither can anybody else) then accept those *non*GPLv2 changes back. [end quote] That's from Linus and quite recently. FWIW, it's damn hard to codify ... and changes to this code should not change the situation. It's certainly a very good policy and in this case it's the only sane policy. [quote] Actually, normally I *do* have such a trust. It's why I have no problem with drivers that are dual-GPL/BSD, and in fact, I've told people that I don't want them to turn them into GPL-only, because that is simply not polite. [end quote] Same posting from Linus. And that's much more relevant to shooting the patch in question down (and IMO it ought to be shot down) than references to legality. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to Sam's verbiage. I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included the ability to modify the header (and thus the text of the licensing as I had written) or not. On balance I'd say I believe that the arguments for, on redistribution, picking one or the other license makes sense and honored my general intent. This allows people who modify the code (and presumably improve it) a chef's choice based on where they're serving the meal. IANAL, but I believe that none of this keeps me from continuing to put a dual license on stuff I leave up for distribution, or changing that to restricting the code to Martian Triathalon winners or what have 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: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
- If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). This is absolute nonsense. By default, you can remove a license if you want to. This is why both the GPL and the BSD licenses have clauses requiring you to leave them in. A file that is under a dual license may be used under either the GPL license or the BSD license. Neither license requires you to retain the *other* license in the file. So there is absolutely no reason you cannot remove one license or the other. To argue otherwise is to argue that you need to comply with *both* licenses in a dual-licensed file to get the rights granted by either, and that's nonsense. You cannot, of course, modify a license and expect your modified license to apply to protectable elements you didn't author. And anyone who receives modified versions of the file still has all the rights the original authors grant them. Let's perform a thought experiment for a moment. Suppose the BSD license explicitly said you could remove the licensing clause if you wanted to. Would you still argue that you couldn't remove it even though it says you can? Well, the GPL says you can modify anything you want to, except *THAT* license. This means you can remove any other license notifications you want. Note that your license editing or removing has no effect on the rights people actually get except to your code. 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: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Alan Cox wrote: The ath5k C file in question (not the headers) seems to give recipients permission to further convey the work under a choice of two licences. Correct. It doesn't say they must redistribute under both. Correct. They need the right to redistribute the work, and they may obtain that right from either license. So I appear to have a right to convey the work under the GPL to a third party, who from me receives no right to use it except under the GPL. Here's where your train goes off the rails. They do not receive any right to use it from you. They receive a license to use it under the GPL from the original author. Please read 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. The GPL does not give you *any* right to extend anyone a license to code you did not author. (Nor can it as such an extension would have to be done in writing in most countries.) When you distribute a GPL'd work, the right to use every creative element in that work is licensed to the recipients directly from their respective authors. Under no circumstances does the GPL ever give you the ability to license someone else's work to a third party. * 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. The choice appears to be delegated to the recipient very clearly and very specifically by the licencing on the file. It does not say that I must convey the work under both licences. It quite specifically says I may convey the work under whichever of the two I prefer (and probably both if I wish). Clearly if that had not been the intent it would not have included the clause giving the choice. Either license can grant you the right to distribute it, but how you get the rights to distribute has *NO* effect on the recipient. They receive a lawful copy and any rights the original author grants them under a license from that original author. You have no power to grant or modify rights to the original work. This is a common misunderstanding. Note that you may remove the text of either license from a dual-licensed file and redistribute under the other license because neither license requires you to retain the other license and both licenses give you the right otherwise to modify as you wish. But the removal of a license from a file has no effect on the grant of license. Your recipients still get a dual license to those protectable elements in the file that were placed under a dual license. You cannot stop the automatic grant. 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: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:09:18 EDT, "Constantine A. Murenin" said: > The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place -- > most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from > OpenBSD. Oh, silly me. For some reason, I had it in my head that Jiri's original patch actually included some real live *code* in addition to the parts that changed the licensing text... ;) pgprleStwYKWh.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said: > > > Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from > > dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. > > > > This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree) > > neither Jiri nor Alan noticed. > > You know, we *could* have solved this a *hell* of a lot easier if people quit > flaming about it, and we did something *productive* instead. > > Like submit a corrected patch. :) Dear Valdis, The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place -- most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from OpenBSD. It is beneficial for the atmosphere of both projects to keep the licence compatible. If Linux tries to GPL future modifications to Reyk's code, then OpenBSD would not be able to take back the changes. But this would not be the case if all modifications to Reyk's code are continued to be BSD-licensed. This is what this whole issue is about. My understanding, is that Nick Kossifidis never had a problem with licensing his changes with a BSD-license, although Jiri Slaby always used GPLv2. With the last patch posted by Luis [0], Jiri actually recalled his original patch and relicensed all of his GPLv2 work under BSD (!); however, at the very same time, Nick changed his mind, and decided to relicense his BSD code under GPLv2 (!). (Surprise! Yes, it appears that both Nick and Jiri decided to switch their licensing positions, and mutually relicense their work under each other's respective licence. :) Is everyone ready going to go back and forth now? Does this whole story still makes any sense to you? :) I hope that both Nick Kossifidis and Jiri Slaby can agree on licensing their HAL code with a BSD licence, so that the code remains licence-compatible with OpenBSD. If there are any unresolved licensing questions, I personally would be more than happy to answer any such questions as much as I can, and yes -- I am not a lawyer. :) Nick, Jiri -- since much of the work on OpenHAL is based on Reyk's HAL, could you please be so kind as to both agree to licence you changes in OpenHAL with the same licence as Reyk does in OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL? This step will be very welcome in the OpenBSD community at large. Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said: > Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from > dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files. > > This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree) > neither Jiri nor Alan noticed. You know, we *could* have solved this a *hell* of a lot easier if people quit flaming about it, and we did something *productive* instead. Like submit a corrected patch. :) pgp9uMUk6CutD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote: > > On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >> OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types >> of files changed by Jiri's patch: >> 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only >> 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned >>to make GPL-only >> 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only >> >> For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code >> without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3. >> >> So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan >> to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is >> with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3. > > The BSD license plainly states: > > "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any > purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above > copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies." > > Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must > remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your license, > but the original copyright and license permission remains intact. Many > other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD code and have no > problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult for the Linux brain > share to absorb? > > As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm appalled > that fellow open-source developers would see fit to cavalierly disregard > the rights of the original copyright holder. You wield the GPL when it > suits you, and trample the courtesies of non-GPL developers just because > you [think you] can. As bad as Jiri's offense was, it pales to the > impudence displayed by Alan Cox, one of the so-called defenders of free > software. >From http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/docs/macpaper.php "Always be the second operating system port to an undocumented platform. The sterling work done by the OpenBSD/Mac team was a huge help to the Linux project. I'm also happy to say that while half of the world may sit on usenet advocacy groups throwing manure the relationship between the Linux and BSD Macintosh teams has always been one of mutual co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped" Alan Cox circa 1999. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html "well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware thats not the intention of the project ;)" Alan Cox circa 2007. What changed? Why are you guys setting out to break all of the work underpinning UNIX and the Internet done in the 80s at Berkeley? The reason the protocols and infrastructure took off in the first place is due to liberal licenses that let everyone be involved, not wrapping things up in more restrictions and lawyers. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sep 1, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote: Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix made the code not work with the original? We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and we fully intend to cover our balls. Since when is this *your* code? Oh that's right, when Jiri decided to steal it by deleting Reyk's copyright and license. Oh wait, that's already been corrected. What was your point again? The problem is yours to fix. If you actually care, use a license that SAYS you care. Right now there's a big /* I don't give a shit */ on top of every BSD file. We took you at your word and assumed you didn't. Now its too late and you suddenly care, don't you? The BSD license, in effect, says that we care about good code. We allow anyone to use it. The only stipulation is that the copyright and license permissions must remain intact. Are you trying to be hateful, or are you really this ignorant? --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: > Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted > to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch > it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix > made the code not work with the original? > > We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared > within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and > we fully intend to cover our balls. Who's "we" and would you mind showing your contributions to the tree? git doesn't seem to find them in 2.5.0-to-current for some reason... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I ask? Is it not self-evident? Legal review is the sane course of action, when legal issues are the bone of contention. That said, Linux people are far more pragmatic than FSF people, and often disagree with the FSF. I would not take an FSF lawyer's word as Gospel. Theo manages to confuse "Linux" and "FSF" quite often, but that's characteristic of his muddled thinking and inexperience. 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: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix made the code not work with the original? We took the code and fixed a gaping security vulnerability that appeared within the opening comment. We DO care who does what with our code, and we fully intend to cover our balls. The problem is yours to fix. If you actually care, use a license that SAYS you care. Right now there's a big /* I don't give a shit */ on top of every BSD file. We took you at your word and assumed you didn't. Now its too late and you suddenly care, don't you? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>> OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
>> of files changed by Jiri's patch:
>> 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
>> 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned
>>to make GPL-only
>> 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
>>
>> For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
>> without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3.
>>
>> So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
>> to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
>> with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
>
> The BSD license plainly states:
>
> "Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
> purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
> copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."
>
> Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
> remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your license,
> but the original copyright and license permission remains intact. Many
> other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD code and have no
> problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult for the Linux brain
> share to absorb?
>
> As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm appalled
> that fellow open-source developers would see fit to cavalierly disregard
> the rights of the original copyright holder. You wield the GPL when it
> suits you, and trample the courtesies of non-GPL developers just because
> you [think you] can. As bad as Jiri's offense was, it pales to the
> impudence displayed by Alan Cox, one of the so-called defenders of free
> software.
>
> Shame on you all.
Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from
dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files.
This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree)
neither Jiri nor Alan noticed.
The only disagreement is about the following:
Theo claimed boldly in the email that started this thread on
linux-kernel it would "break the law" to choose one licence for dual
licenced code like the following:
/* $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $ */
/* $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $*/
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
*notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
*without modification.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
*similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
*redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
*similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
* 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
*of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
*from this software without specific prior written permission.
*
* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.
*
* NO WARRANTY
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
* ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
* LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF NONINFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTIBILITY
* AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL
* THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY,
* OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF
* SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS
* INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER
* IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
* ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF
* THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
*/
> 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: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:42:54PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights > were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers > wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly. The patch I sent > implements SFLC's suggestions in that regard. You know, I'm rapidly losing any respect to both sides of that. Eben Moglen as source of advice in "is it OK to convert to GPL-only"? And you seriously rely on morality of that? Theo's rants aside, if you have to rely on SFLC for licensing decisions... Ouch. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of > them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that > is OK. > > When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door > against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard. > > Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed, > and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds? Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I ask? Why Luis puts the phrase "legal hell" next to entirely free software? [0] Why is he trying to go against the BSD community, which gave him the entire HAL framework for the driver in question? Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=2 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason Dixon wrote: Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your license, but the original copyright and license permission remains intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult for the Linux brain share to absorb? Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing? Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed? And yet a good portion of Theo's response, in particular his accusations of Alan Cox exhorting people to break the law, were directly related to dual licensing. 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: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 9/1/07, Constantine A. Murenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jason Dixon wrote: > > > Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must > > > remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your > > > license, but the original copyright and license permission remains > > > intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD > > > code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult > > > for the Linux brain share to absorb? > > > > Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing? > > Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed? We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly. The patch I sent implements SFLC's suggestions in that regard. Luis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason Dixon wrote: > > Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must > > remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your > > license, but the original copyright and license permission remains > > intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD > > code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult > > for the Linux brain share to absorb? > > Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing? Maybe because Reyk's code was never dual-licensed? C. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
Jason Dixon wrote: Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your license, but the original copyright and license permission remains intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so difficult for the Linux brain share to absorb? Why is it so difficult to understand dual licensing? 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/
