Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. Hi. My understanding is: 1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code. Two sets, actually, that interssect for the most portion of them. 2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or GPL. So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice, right? If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. Anyway, it's a moot point since the SFLC found a much more polite way of converting to the GNU GPL without needing to remove it. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. Hi. My understanding is: 1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code. 2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or GPL. So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice, right? -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. Anyway, it's a moot point since the SFLC found a much more polite way of converting to the GNU GPL without needing to remove it. speaking of moot and polite, i would appreciate it if you could refrain from posting any further about this topic, as your posts are (1) moot and (2) not very polite to the eyes and brains of other list readers. you have had more than ample opportunity to voice your opinions on the topic, now give it a rest.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... You do realize that when it comes to legal documents, such as licenses, that general-purpose dictionaries are inadequate, right? If you want to look up legal terms, you need a law dictionary. I think that if one is ignorant enough of law that one needs to consult a legal dictionary for more than one or two terms in order to understand a document, then perhaps it would be best to either do a lot of studying to become more knowledgeable, or find someone with more legal training to interpret the document. As a layperson with little in-depth knowledge of legal code, that's how i see things anyway. Dan RamaleyDial Center 118, Drake University Network Programmer/Analyst 2407 Carpenter Ave +1 515 271-4540Des Moines IA 50311 USA
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:37:00AM -0500, Daniel A. Ramaley wrote: On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... You do realize that when it comes to legal documents, such as licenses, that general-purpose dictionaries are inadequate, right? If you want to look up legal terms, you need a law dictionary. I think that if one is ignorant enough of law that one needs to consult a legal dictionary for more than one or two terms in order to understand a document, then perhaps it would be best to either do a lot of studying to become more knowledgeable, or find someone with more legal training to interpret the document. As a layperson with little in-depth knowledge of legal code, that's how i see things anyway. I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any reputable dictionary (legal or not), then I'm on a parallel reality for sure. Other than that, you're just being pretentious. Rui -- Or not. Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
2007/9/5, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:53:53AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: 2007/9/3, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. Hi. My understanding is: 1) BSD/ISC and GPL Licenses are just a set of condition that you need to satisfy should you like to re-distribute its code. Two sets, actually, that interssect for the most portion of them. 2) Dual License means you need to satisfy conditions of either BSD/ISC, or GPL. So basically, all it tells you is that you are granted to re-distribute the source code under certain conditions, that however does not grant you any permission to alter its copyright notice, right? If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under certain conditions), but not re-license, right? BTW, if satisfying requires in GPL would imply satisfaction of BSDL anyway, no? Rui -- Wibble. Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake on Tue, 4 Sep 2007 18:38:09 +0100: On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:37:00AM -0500, Daniel A. Ramaley wrote: On Saturday 01 September 2007 17:49, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... You do realize that when it comes to legal documents, such as licenses, that general-purpose dictionaries are inadequate, right? If you want to look up legal terms, you need a law dictionary. I think that if one is ignorant enough of law that one needs to consult a legal dictionary for more than one or two terms in order to understand a document, then perhaps it would be best to either do a lot of studying to become more knowledgeable, or find someone with more legal training to interpret the document. As a layperson with little in-depth knowledge of legal code, that's how i see things anyway. I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any reputable dictionary (legal or not), Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Hence the meaning of ALTERNATIVE: NOT all at the same time. Maybe you need a Heisenberg experience to understand? then I'm on a parallel reality for sure. Obviously, yes. Other than that, you're just being pretentious. Please, let this thread die. Timo
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote: I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any reputable dictionary (legal or not), Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Hence the meaning of ALTERNATIVE: NOT all at the same time. Maybe you need a Heisenberg experience to understand? Are you lying intentionally? NOT all at the same time is far from the definition of the word in that page (which I had already linked to). 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. All implying only one, and not both. then I'm on a parallel reality for sure. Obviously, yes. Glad to. Other than that, you're just being pretentious. Please, let this thread die. Glad you're helping it. Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack Linux! Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake on Tue, 4 Sep 2007 20:52:59 +0100: On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 09:41:04PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote: I think that if *alternative* means both at the same time in any reputable dictionary (legal or not), Show those. Besides this, it is WRONG. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Hence the meaning of ALTERNATIVE: NOT all at the same time. Maybe you need a Heisenberg experience to understand? Are you lying intentionally? Given that you live in a parallel world where everything is *^-1, I'm saying the truth. Fine, good that you realize that. NOT all at the same time is far from the definition of the word in that page (which I had already linked to). Huh? 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. You are standing at the edge of Niagara Falls (as a matter of fact, your parallel reality might not know something like this, so have a look here [0]). You have the CHOICE of jumping OR stepping back. You do NOT have the possibility to do BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. (Given your not at least an Angel or something similar.) 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. Aha. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. One. Of N. Very clear, isn't it? All implying only one, and not both. Yes, and why do you state the opposite? then I'm on a parallel reality for sure. Obviously, yes. Glad to. Yes, you'd be an all-time winner of the Darwin Awards [1] in this universe. Other than that, you're just being pretentious. Please, let this thread die. Glad you're helping it. Even your universe surely knows people use polemics when running out of facts. Rui Timo [0] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_Awards
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:08:46PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote: Are you lying intentionally? Given that you live in a parallel world where everything is *^-1, I'm saying the truth. Fine, good that you realize that. I don't think you two are adding much to the common knowledge at this point. Perhaps it's best moved to private email. -- Darrin Chandler| Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi Sunnz, On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under certain conditions), but not re-license, right? No, the GNU GPL grants you the rights to 0. run it for any purpose 1. study modify it 2. reditribution of pristine copies 3. redistribution of derivatives All this just like the BSD. However, unlike the BSD, it does so in a reciprocal level: if you redistribute in the conditions of 2. or 3. you must license it under these (the GNU GPL's) terms. BTW, if satisfying requires in GPL would imply satisfaction of BSDL anyway, no? It's closer to include than imply, if you want to use these terms, since satisfying the BSDL means allowing proprietary derivatives, which the GPL aims to forbid. Rui -- Kallisti! Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:40:30 -0500 Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wrong wrong wrong. You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is. You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience. I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now doesn't make it so. Try it and see what happens. Let me try once more to explain how this works. Here is the license of a piece of code I wrote: * Copyright (c) 2007 Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the * above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. This means if you want to use my code in any way shape or form you MUST maintain the copyright license. It says on ALL copies therefore this includes other code, binary files, source, GPL goo etc. The whole point is that one can't go around interpreting law. That's a judge's job. I am not interpreting any licenses for anybody, I am stating facts as they exist today in the frame of the law. Don't like that? I suggest suing someone to see if you can get a judge to agree with your interpretation; from there you can claim jurisprudence. On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: 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. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. Wrong. Copyright includes ALL rights; the license is what surrenders some of these rights. Copyright is INCLUSIVE. In other words if if write my totally 1337 program that has NO license it automatically is completely covered by copyright. One can NOT copy it, can NOT modify it can NOT distribute it. It is the most restrictive license. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. Not likely; it is breaking the law. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. If you are not preserving the copyrights and the license in the file you are breaking the law. I did run strings on some Windows XP command line tools just out of curiosity and while I was able to find the copyright line I couldn't find any license. I don't want to reanimate this thread, I want it to die as quickly as possible but I was just wondering why they don't need to provide the license conditions. Jona -- I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you are free. Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord Confusion
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
I did run strings on some Windows XP command line tools just out of curiosity and while I was able to find the copyright line I couldn't find any license. The license on that code says: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. What you ran strings on is not source code. It was the binary. Then license on the original code continues: * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Well, if you take your Microsoft documentation, and dig really deep, you will find the whole notice copied into it there. Go ahead, you'll find it. Can't take that long. Furthermore, older copies of the license used to say: * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software *must display the following acknowledgement: *This product includes software developed by the University of *California, Berkeley and its contributors. And.. once again, older copies of Windows DID follow that rule, too, just like Sun and everyone else. The only vendor who ever failed to do this was ATT / USL, who included modified BSD manuals in their Unixware commercial distributions, and that mistake resulted in USL losing the USL v BSDI University of California lawsuit. (I have simplified the situation, s/losing/settling at a serious loss/). That particular term was rescinded on July 22, 1999 by UCB, and since that time vendors are no longer required to follow term 3. Some still do, though, since their licensing-in-advertising people haven't heard the news. After UCB recinded that term, Todd Miller and I went and found all the code in the tree where that license term had been copied, and used by a new author -- and we contacted those author and asked them to recind their term too. I think, in the end, they all did. As far as I know the 3-term BSD license is totally dead, except in NetBSD, where their group still pushes developers to place new code under a full 4-term license. Sometimes we reluctantly include such code, hoping that one day this situation can be improved. I don't want to reanimate this thread, I want it to die as quickly as possible but I was just wondering why they don't need to provide the license conditions. Microsoft, like everyone else, follows the license to a 'T'. Sorry, I probably gave you more information than you wanted.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 06:16:35PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: As far as I know the 3-term BSD license is totally dead, except in NetBSD, where their group still pushes developers to place new code under a full 4-term license. Sometimes we reluctantly include such code, hoping that one day this situation can be improved. The 4 term licence in NetBSD is mostly dead too. It is not pushed as desirable at all, it is up to the individual developer to use the licence they feel appropriate and that seems, more often than not, to be the 3 term licence. Not that it matters much but I think the advertising clause is a waste of time and does make life far more difficult for the people who do want to comply with the licence conditions - they have to trawl through all the code and pull out all the individuals that want their names mentioned. It made a little more sense when the sources were under the BSD umbrella but now it's just silly having to list a cast of thousands in any advertising. -- Brett Lymn
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:16:35 -0600 Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did run strings on some Windows XP command line tools just out of curiosity and while I was able to find the copyright line I couldn't find any license. The license on that code says: * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. What you ran strings on is not source code. It was the binary. Then license on the original code continues: * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright *notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the *documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Well, if you take your Microsoft documentation, and dig really deep, you will find the whole notice copied into it there. Go ahead, you'll find it. Can't take that long. Thanks a lot for the clarification! I don't want to reanimate this thread, I want it to die as quickly as possible but I was just wondering why they don't need to provide the license conditions. Microsoft, like everyone else, follows the license to a 'T'. Sorry, I probably gave you more information than you wanted. You can't get too much information IMO. While I knew the rough lines of the story it's interesting to read some details. Thanks for that! Jona -- I am chaos. I am the substance from which your artists and scientists build rhythms. I am the spirit with which your children and clowns laugh in happy anarchy. I am chaos. I am alive, and tell you that you are free. Eris, Goddess Of Chaos, Discord Confusion
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
As far as I know the 3-term BSD license is totally dead, except in NetBSD, where their group still pushes developers to place new code under a full 4-term license. Sometimes we reluctantly include such code, hoping that one day this situation can be improved. The 4 term licence in NetBSD is mostly dead too. It is not pushed as desirable at all, it is up to the individual developer to use the licence they feel appropriate and that seems, more often than not, to be the 3 term licence. I beg to differ. Do a grep of their entire tree. You'll be surprised.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
blah blah blah You are worse than a mother in law. Shut up already. Your drivel stopped being amusing 178000 emails ago. On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 10:18:33PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Hi Sunnz, On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 04:32:20AM +1000, Sunnz wrote: If the person chooses to use the GNU GPL they have to respect the GNU GPL's conditions, not the BSD ones. GNU GPL, however, only grants the right to re-distribute (under certain conditions), but not re-license, right? No, the GNU GPL grants you the rights to 0. run it for any purpose 1. study modify it 2. reditribution of pristine copies 3. redistribution of derivatives All this just like the BSD. However, unlike the BSD, it does so in a reciprocal level: if you redistribute in the conditions of 2. or 3. you must license it under these (the GNU GPL's) terms. BTW, if satisfying requires in GPL would imply satisfaction of BSDL anyway, no? It's closer to include than imply, if you want to use these terms, since satisfying the BSDL means allowing proprietary derivatives, which the GPL aims to forbid. Rui -- Kallisti! Today is Boomtime, the 28th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 12:35:18AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last paragraph above (starting with Alternatively) as explicit permission to replace all of the previous material (starting with Redistribution and use) with the GPLv2. Is this inference correct? The basis of your argument is thinking the copyright notice is anything more than (c) years, Fu Bar is mandatory and unchangeable. It is incorrect. The copyright notice is *only* (c) years, Fu Bar All rest is informational. Then a choice of licenses is offered to the receiver. If he only uses the software, neither affects him, but if he distributes, he either does it under the terms of the GPL v2 or under the terms of the BSD, or just as dual licensed. Actually, strictly speaking, the word *alternatively* might be interpreted in a more radical way as meaning you can't distribute in a dual licensed form, but I don't subscribe that. If he does distribute under the GNU GPL v2 and doesn't remove the licensed under the BSD, he's not being honest. IANAL, so I'm not going to speculate on the correct legal interpretation of this text; I will grant that, if it were ordinary speech, I can see how someone who tried hard enough could believe that interpretation. Actually, you do really have to try hard to justify *your* interpretation, since the meaning of *alternatively* and what a copyright notice is, is a little beyond reality. the license text in this case is, at the very least, behaving unethically. I actually think it's unethical to give a gift virtually without strings attached and then crying like a baby because people don't give back anything. Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack Linux! Today is Sweetmorn, the 27th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi, On Sat, 01.09.2007 at 00:42:25 -0600, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until otherwise stated by the developper. That is utterly false. with all due respect, but this is utterly true, this being the raison d'etre for dual- (or otherwise multi-) licensing *any* software in the first place. While I see what kind of a problem you are talking about, and it surely is an undesirable problem to be sure, the sole reason why BSD can't import back GPL'ed changes is that GPL'ed changes impose more conditions than does the BSD license. Or wrapped in a different way: Were you GPL'ing your code, you had _absolutely_no_ (legal) problems importing back those changes. The GPL ensures availability of source code (which is good!), but those are exactly the strings you opted to not attach to your software with the argument that this kind of force is non-free. Now, this implies that you consider the ability for a licensor to not give back code a freedom which the Linux community has taken the liberty to make use of, so why do you complain? Honestly, this imho is an ugly side-effect of what you were preaching all the years, but I cannot imagine that it is by evil intention. I hope Eben finds a way to resolve the problem in a way that doesn't draw the line between BSD on one and Linux on the other side. Imho, no-one needs a dog-fight between these two groups, and I also hope that no-one wants it, either, but I'm not so sure about that actually being the case. Weren't you complaining loudly about the absense of contributions from large companies every year when you started a new rally for donations (we donate, according to our feeble possibilities), and now you're claiming that the Linux folks are doing even more evil than those companies who not give back in any form, according to your statements, do? Because they release source code, but you opt to stay too far away to get it? They imho need to do it this way since it is essential for the legal integrity of their system (as much as you chose to not use such stuff for the very same reason). Are you just this very moment saying that you want to enforce a viral effect of the BSD license on Linux via covert action (you could, in theory, have published, thus lessened/avoided this problem *much* earlier)? Because this is what you arrive at, should enough lawyers feel that you are right and the Linux-folks feel unable to remove the BSD-derived code from their stuff. I have a very hard time swallowing that, and even in the name of freedom! I also have trouble with you playing the copyright law is the same, everywhere argument because this is really not true, and it's even a moving target (though generally moving in the wrong direction). And last, but not least, I'd like to paraphrase the old adage, that you seem to have forgotten: United we stand, divided we fall. There's a variation that goes like this: Two people quarreling makes the third (bystander) happy. Best, --Toni++
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi! I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks. So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion. I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD people, and obviously from some trolls. I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and repeat a few words: - I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL or any kind of a dual-license. - The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and even the warranty term. - Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the controversial code. - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things? I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved in the linux tree. But PLEASE DON'T SPAM ME with any other mails about this, even if you want to help/support me, I will talk to the relevant people in private. Thanks! reyk On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him] I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact. For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed. Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level, a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers). And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the larger open source communities who are writing applications. Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel that a lot of Linux relicencing meme-talkin' trolls basically have attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to say something public about this. In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the authors. Alan asks So whats the problem ?. Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been taught, how one must handle such licenses: - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. Really. - If you add large pieces of originality to the code which are valid for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different and seperate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file above the existing license. (Warning: things become less clear as
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I guess he means writing own additions/modifications (thus creating a combined or derivative work), and releasing those *own* additions/modifications under the GPL. In the end, you can use the combined/derivative work only to the extent that's permitted by *both* licenses. The term embrace and extend comes to mind. //art
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/2/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dude stop yapping you are making an ass of yourself. We know your favorite audience is you. Show us your bar and people might listen to you again. As stated before, your opinion is not relevant. Your interpretation is not relevant. In fact everything you have said is not relevant. No kidding. I finally got my head around this whole issue after reading Jeroen's and Hannah's well-written messages. It seems that RMSS is willfully ignoring the differences between copyright and license in the real world as opposed to the fantasy world of his mind. Greg -- Ticketmaster and Ticketweb suck, but everyone knows that: http://ticketmastersucks.org Dethink to survive - Mclusky
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:46:30PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. I am not being unreasonable. You are not a judge, so stop acting like you are one. You don't know the full story. I do not know the full story either. But you are being a real prick on the lists here acting as if you have everything all figured out, you, the judge. I'm not the one calling people names. I wanted to understand the facts but nobody here wants to acknowledge that 3 of those files have *alternative* licensing. I agree fully with you all in the other 5 files which are not dual licensed. The full story I needed to know is clear on those 8 files involved in the diff on lkml you shows us, what I wanted to know is your understanding. I see now you seem to pretend that GPLv2 can't be chosen for those 3 files. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* I am glad you are so sure, so confident. Are you placing money on the outcome? Many many other people are NOT SO SURE AT ALL. Sure, let's make a gentleman's bet. If on those three files that are dual licensed, I'm wrong, I'll donate 50 EUR to OpenBSD. I also encourage those who agree with me to do so as well. If you're wrong, you'll say sorry, publicly, ok? Again, I'm talking only about the 3 files that are dual licensed, since on the other 5 I agree with you, fully. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: [..] I wanted to understand the facts but nobody here wants to acknowledge that 3 of those files have *alternative* licensing. Yes, indeed you can choose between the two licenses, but you CANNOT *REMOVE* either of them. Only the Copyright holder who put that license on it can remove them. This is also what both the GPL and BSD/ISC licenses state very clearly. Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) or alternatively you can choose the BSD and either give your patches back or not. Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to anybody else you are giving this too. And especially if you would be giving the file down to the author only under GPL your are limiting their freedom, which is not the intent of the original copyright holder and also something you fortunately can't be doing. If you don't like the licensing, then don't use the code at all, don't even look at it. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* no. the copyright notice tells you that you can use GPL2 for distribution, not that you can choose it. -sm
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi, On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? Both! That's not what the copyright notice of the files * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h said. It said it was licensed under the BSD ters. *Alternatively* on the GNU GPLv2. Its alternatively not at the same time NO. You are using the word out of context, put it back in there and it is simple: * 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. To translate that: ALTERNATIVELY you may DISTRIBUTE the software using GPL or BSD. That's _ALL_ it does say. distribute is not the same as change, modify, delete, whatever. /Putting it down to the legal point of view it implies even a XOR eg. one or the other choice, it's kind of missing the may also part but we are not splitting words here and it's reasonable to interpret it as OR. This part is not that clear but also not that important since the result of applying either OR or XOR is practically the same. The wordly inpretation is actually if you choose GPL you may use BSD any more, which is implied in the GPL so, but it is not stated like that, so whatever, not relevant in the context, but this sentece could be a lot clearer with may also instead of may, could be also my english, I am not a native speaker .../ This allows you to distribute the Software complying with the license there or, if you wish you so complying to GPL2. The word may also makes it clear that the author prefers his license and not GPL2 but since he is easy on that he allows you to make you own choice there. The only thing which leaves room for interpretation there is the distribution part. But from the court point of view you will likely not get much leaway there and I would not place any bets on it. So if you wan't to be on the safe side, copy it, upload it, print it, distribute it any way you like but don't modify the license or the lawyers I work for/with will have you for a midnight snack from the fridge. (Not even for breaktfast, case is not big enough) NOW: When you modify the work, when you add you own code to it, the situation changes. You can basically do 3 sensible things: 1. Distribute a diff under any license any way you like. This is not always safe though, depends on what's exactly in the diff but reasonable. - You are not changing anything on the original, you are just giving other people instructions for changes they can do at their own discretion and responsibility. 2. Just add them and you name on top leaving the licencse and copyright the way they are. 3. Wrap the whole thing into a big block, with your licencse and copyright on top and the other's license and copyright inside. - They have to be inside, you can not remove them. - You have to adhere to their terms in doing so. With the original license you can do this. With GPL you might not even be allowed to do that. Yes, the Programm is still BSD Licensed. It's not GPL licensed. It only refers to the GPL for the distribution Which does include the GPL into the picture but does not mean that all terms of the GPL apply. The first license eg. BSD has precedence. Please stop rudely calling me a liar, ok? You have neither the right nor truth on your side to do that. Well, propragating false views is not exactly lying but it does not show cleverness either. But since we are in a discussion here it is okay, learning is part of it. From my point of view, I would not do anything else then specified with the original license with this software since the reference to the GPL does not give any advantages only more restrictions. It could be that some part of the GPL gives me some additional right in distribution which the other license might not give you. I will however not investigate this since it would involve a lengthy conversation with some real lawyer about the subject and I am quite happy with either BSD or public domain. If you give, don't expect things back just give and don't complain. It's hard these days, people are not showing respect for what they receive, but that's not a reason to go GPL that's a reason to stop giving. ;( -sm
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hello! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 12:54:38AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: [...] BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - Which is exactly one characteristic of BSD vs. GPL, that BSD doesn't require you to distribute source should you chose to distribute binaries (as permitted by the BSD license). [...] BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license. BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? IMO it's by copyright law itself. Relicensing/sublicensing is by default a reserved right, so it has to be explicitly granted in a license if licensees should be allowed to relicense/sublicense. That explicit grant is *not* present in the BSD/ISC licenses I've looked at in this moment. The BSD/ISC licenses grant the rights (that are reserved by copyright law) to use, (re)distribute and modify the work itself, and *those* rights are bound by only few conditions (fewer than the GPL imposes). Of course, you may make a derived/combined work where your own contribution is of a different license. But the original part of the work remains BSD/ISC licensed. The combined work is only usable when a licensee can fulfill the conditions of *both* licenses in order to be granted the rights granted by *both* licenses. How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. As said, IMO and as far as I understand, it's not a matter of the licenses themselves, but of copyright law itself. It's a matter that the licenses (both BSD/ISC *and* GPL) have no clauses permitting re/sublicensing. [...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hello! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:25:49PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [...] Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law, a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is pulled in the MOMENT a Copyright (c) YYMM author decleration is made. In some legislations, especially in Europe, copyright law applies *automatically*, even without an explicit copyright statement/assertion. Just by creating something that's copyrightable. [...] There is only one 'Total Freedom', and it is a Public Domain declaration, which these licenses are not. These are full Copyright Act licenses, carrying the full of power of the Copyright, and only THEN the addition author's release surrenders some rights he has. And that Total Freedom isn't available everywhere. In some legislations (e.g. in Europe), you *can't* give up the copyright you *automatically* acquire by creating a copyrightable work. It can only expire (after N years, or even only N years after the death of the author). And only works with expired copyright are public domain there. [...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hello! On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:13:07PM +0530, Siju George wrote: On 9/2/07, Todd T. Fries [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words without modification? As I explained to a friend of mine minutes ago .. adding GPL to BSD is sad to the BSD people (we can't use the GPL code then) Dear Todd, What Do you mean by adding GPL to BSD? Is that what you mean by dual licencing? I guess he means writing own additions/modifications (thus creating a combined or derivative work), and releasing those *own* additions/modifications under the GPL. In the end, you can use the combined/derivative work only to the extent that's permitted by *both* licenses. [...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Siegbert Marschall wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* no. the copyright notice tells you that you can use GPL2 for distribution, not that you can choose it. Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear enough. The copyright notice tells you that *alternatively* (this means if you don't want to use the BSD) under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. Alternative implies choice, you choose which alternative you want. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) ^^^ That is false, only if software is distributed. or alternatively you can choose the BSD and either give your patches back or not. Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as long as you don't distribute software. Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to anybody else you are giving this too. Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or GPL And especially if you would be giving the file down to the author only under GPL your are limiting their freedom, which is not the intent of the original copyright holder and also something you fortunately can't be doing. Tough luck. If you don't like the licensing, then don't use the code at all, don't even look at it. Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other users. If your problem is that people don't give back, go knock on certain vendors who profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back. Oh wait... they don't have to, have they? :) Rui -- Or is it? Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hello! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively But you also received the right to chose either or. So if you have to pass that on, too. [...] Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:05:09PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:19:01PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Hi, In order to make my mind about this subject... You're complaining solely of the changes in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h But not in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Right? To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he shouldn't. In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. IMO no. For dual-licensing using or, you may exert the rights granted by either of the licenses. This is not the case. http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157 The word is alternatively, not logical or. Regards, Rui -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license. So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base code and GPL-only modifications) have?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in another message: Maybe my choice of words wasn't clear enough. The copyright notice tells you that *alternatively* (this means if you don't want to use the BSD) under the terms of the GNU GPL v2. Alternative implies choice, you choose which alternative you want. As I wrote, you are absolutely correct. You are allowed to choose which license you use. BUT, the big BUT: You can't remove either of them and you will have to extend the same privileges to anyone you give the code on to. Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) ^^^ That is false, only if software is distributed. There is nothing false in that sentence. Indeed the 'when distributed' part might be good to add, but that happens, the second you start using the software outside your own organization/person/... thus most of the time and almost always. Unless you actually don't want the code to be used anywhere of course ;) But that is your problem. or alternatively you can choose the BSD and either give your patches back or not. Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as long as you don't distribute software. Which thus means you can only per the license use the software yourself. Which is fine as nobody will use it then except you yourself and nobody will even know about the fact that you did patch it. The moment though that you do give it to somebody else you are forced to. Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to anybody else you are giving this too. Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or GPL Yes, you have the choice, but you still can't remove either of them. Everyone who gets a copy of the work also gets the same rights. For that matter, the GPL license in there is pretty much useless as the BSD one allows full rights already. But that was exactly the point why these things are dual-licensed, to make all the GPL folks happy, while they simply don't understand that the code is dual-licensed and that the one with the least restrictions will be used by the people who want to use it. And especially if you would be giving the file down to the author only under GPL your are limiting their freedom, which is not the intent of the original copyright holder and also something you fortunately can't be doing. Tough luck. For you indeed, as your remove-the-bsd-license scheme doesn't work. If you don't like the licensing, then don't use the code at all, don't even look at it. Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other users. I simply slam BSD on everything that I want to make available so that people can use it however they want. GPL licensing has no advantages at all over BSD, it only has a disadvantage: that people can't use your code if they want to. If your problem is that people don't give back I have no problem with people not contributing back, as I receive enough patches for my code, because people know they get credited properly for their work. I do have a problem with some people who think that they can change licenses which are not theirs to change. go knock on certain vendors who profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back. Oh wait... they don't have to, have they? :) As for commercial vendors, they have given enough kudos's over the years already for stuff that I have come up with, and why? well because they could in the first place actually use the code without having to worry that if their work one day would be distributed outside their offices that they would have to get rid of all that GPL stuff they build their products on soo much. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Salut, On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:42:14PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other users. If your problem is that people don't give back, go knock on certain vendors who profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back. Oh wait... they don't have to, have they? :) They wouldn't, even if we asked them to. They would do it once and switch to some incompatible Cisco SSH which only works with PuTTY. The goal we have reached with everyone using OpenSSH is that they are actually interoperable with the rest of the SSH world. You cannot convince vendors to be more open by forcing them in the way the GPL people do; this will only drive them into the hands of the other commercial providers. Nothing has boosted the spread of VxWorks like the GPL violations project. Tonnerre [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
thus Rui Miguel Silva Seabra spake: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) ^^^ That is false, only if software is distributed. What is of course not your intention... :D or alternatively you can choose the BSD and either give your patches back or not. Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as long as you don't distribute software. Dito. Totally pointless, this discussion. Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to anybody else you are giving this too. Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or GPL Yes, BUT (s)he thought that the guy choosing has morals and a brain; obviously (s)he didn't think of the GNU/Linux lunatics. And especially if you would be giving the file down to the author only under GPL your are limiting their freedom, which is not the intent of the original copyright holder and also something you fortunately can't be doing. Tough luck. If you don't like the licensing, then don't use the code at all, don't even look at it. Likewise, if you don't like the GPL, don't let it be a choice for other users. If your problem is that people don't give back, You did not understand; it's not about DOING, it's about BEING ALLOWED TO USE WHAT IS GIVEN BACK. Reread this in the original post until you understand it (and beware of deadlocks). go knock on certain vendors who profit from OpenSSH without contributin anything back. Oh wait... they don't have to, have they? :) No, they don't have to, and that has been clear from the start of the project; the issue discussed that you're trying to raise is a MORAL thing. YOU are introducing the one-way street here, nobody else. Rui Timo
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sep 2, 2007, at 7:42 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) ^^^ That is false, only if software is distributed. Stop forking the argument. Numerous folks have explained that you are free to choose either license, but you have to keep the existing copyright and license notices intact. Why is this so hard for you to acknowledge? --- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Hannah Schroeter wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 02:25:49PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [...] Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law, a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is pulled in the MOMENT a Copyright (c) YYMM author decleration is made. In some legislations, especially in Europe, copyright law applies *automatically*, even without an explicit copyright statement/assertion. Just by creating something that's copyrightable. IIRC this is true for any country which has adopted the Berne Convention, which is currently almost every country which has any copyright law in place. It includes the U.S. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hello! On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license. So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base code and GPL-only modifications) have? I'd think in essence, the intersection of the license of the original work (the dual-license) and the license of the substantial modifications/additions (GPL). However one must retain the original dual-license, anyhow, in my eyes. For example stating that that dual-license applies only to part of the (derived) work (i.e. that part that's from the original work). Kind regards, Hannah.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:12:18PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote in the other one: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 10:32:05AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: Because of the choice between licenses you can either choose to adhere to the GPL (thus forcing you to open up your changes) ^^^ That is false, only if software is distributed. There is nothing false in that sentence. Indeed the 'when distributed' part might be good to add, but that happens, the second you start using ^ Has to, if you want it to be a true statement. Either give your patches back or not is also available on the GNU GPL as long as you don't distribute software. Which thus means you can only per the license use the software yourself. Which is fine as nobody will use it then except you yourself and nobody will even know about the fact that you did patch it. The moment though that you do give it to somebody else you are forced to. And it is a good thing, which has fostered sharing code. Still, you can't remove either of the licenses, you have to pass on the rights you have gotten from the original copyright holder down to anybody else you are giving this too. Well, no. The original copyright holder gave you a choice: either BSD or GPL Yes, you have the choice, but you still can't remove either of them. Everyone who gets a copy of the work also gets the same rights. You are confusing the effects of the GNU GPL with other things. Only the GNU GPL parts have to be distributed under its terms. Parts licensed under the BSD *only* don't make anyone do so. The copyright notice is not the license, it's merely informational, and no longer required since 1989 by the Berne Convention. http://www.washburn.edu/copyright/glossary/ For that matter, the GPL license in there is pretty much useless as the BSD one allows full rights already. Well, some developers think that the power to remove freedom to others is too much a grant, and opted for the GNU GPL v2 license. But that was exactly the point why these things are dual-licensed, to make all the GPL folks happy, while they simply don't understand that the code is dual-licensed and that the one with the least restrictions will be used by the people who want to use it. Well, the one with the least restrictions can be chosen by those who want to use it. You can do one of three things: don't choose and just pass along choose the first one choose the second one Which is what the copyright notice said. I simply slam BSD on everything that I want to make available so that people can use it however they want. GPL licensing has no advantages at all over BSD, it only has a disadvantage: that people can't use your code if they want to. People can use my code if they want to. If they want to distribute it around... there's a string attached: you can't make it proprietary off my back. I have no problem with people not contributing back, as I receive enough patches for my code, because people know they get credited properly for their work. I do have a problem with some people who think that they can change licenses which are not theirs to change. As I said, that was only done on the 5 files that were not dual licensed, and in those files, I agree fully with you. Rui -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: Hello! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively But you also received the right to chose either or. So if you have to pass that on, too. Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words... * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 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. -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license. So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base code and GPL-only modifications) have? It depends. In the case of BSD XOR GNU GPL v2 (which is what happens in 3 of the files changed) the contributor can: * dual license his changes * contribute them under the BSD * contribute them under the GNU GPL v2 Regards, Rui -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Blah blah blah On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 04:42:42PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:25:13PM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote: You may, of course, license your own contributions (that are significant enough to be copyrightable themselves) under only one license. So what license will the derived work (consisted of dual-licensed base code and GPL-only modifications) have? It depends. In the case of BSD XOR GNU GPL v2 (which is what happens in 3 of the files changed) the contributor can: * dual license his changes * contribute them under the BSD * contribute them under the GNU GPL v2 Regards, Rui -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Dude stop yapping you are making an ass of yourself. We know your favorite audience is you. Show us your bar and people might listen to you again. As stated before, your opinion is not relevant. Your interpretation is not relevant. In fact everything you have said is not relevant. On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 04:38:36PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:07:59PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: Hello! On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:59:17PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively But you also received the right to chose either or. So if you have to pass that on, too. Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words... * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 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. -- Pzat! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ (1) Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively But you also received the right to chose either or. So if you have to pass that on, too. Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words... Do you really have so much problems with logical reasoning? I get the feeling that you are just trolling, nothing more. Again, slowly written, so that you can follow ((slowly) read it over and over again until you understand): * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] * All rights reserved. * [bsd license] * * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the ^ (all line) * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free ^ (all line) * Software Foundation. This part grants you the right to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL. That means you receive the right to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL. This means you receive the right. This means this right is one right of all the rights you received. Hey, didn't (1) talk about the rights you received? Now I wonder if the right you just received is a right you received. So, either: a) you didn't receive this right, so you are not allowed to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL, or b) you did receive this right and thus have to pass on this right. If not, you're not complying with the GPL. Which is okay, because c) you can still distribute the software under the terms of the BSD license, which nevertheless states that you have to retain the copyright notice and the license terms. It's really easy, almost binary: Either you receive the right, then you receive the right. Or you don't receive the right and you can not make use of the right. But I guess you won't agree here, because this is logic, but you want written proof. cheers simon -- IF YOU READ THIS, YOU ARE STUPID. ^ (written, thus true)
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 06:15:27PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the ^ (all line) * GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2 as published by the Free ^ (all line) * Software Foundation. This part grants you the right to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL. That means you receive the right to distribute the software under the terms of the GPL. This means you receive the right. This means this right is one right of all the rights you received. Hey, didn't (1) talk about the rights you received? Now I wonder if the right you just received is a right you received. But that's only if you chose the GNU GPL v2 licensing mode of the two available to you. And the rights and duties you must pass along are those of the GNU GPL v2 and not others. What some are saying is that the copyright notice mandates the usage of both licenses, and that is as absurd as they come. Rui -- Or not. Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/2/07, Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IIRC this is true for any country which has adopted the Berne Convention, which is currently almost every country which has any copyright law in place. It includes the U.S. Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't be bothered to check facts on their own, here's the relevant text (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html): Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright... The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, ... Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages... Copyright is a personal property right,... Any or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement. Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract... In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection... I had thought that the only remedy against infringement is legal action by the injured party. Law enforcement doesn't get involved, normally, since it's a civil matter. However, it turns out that isn't quite true. Check this out (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html): (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. - Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. That's criminal infringement, folks. A federal crime. From which we can conclude, among other things: 1) appearance of the copyright _notice_ on BSD or any other code is irrelevant. The creator owns the copyright from the get-go. Removing a copyright notice has no legal effect, although it's easy to imagine a practical effect, to wit, a good lawyer could use it to show malice and win a larger settlement. Although it's possible that licensing terms affect this; this is where we should all shut up and ask Real Lawyers. 2) nonexclusive transfer of rights is normally a matter of contract law; however, my understanding is whether software licensing falls under contract law is a murky area in the law right now. 3) the original author of the code in question might well be able to seek criminal charges against the people who removed the license. This Rui is obviously a troll; can we please stop taking the bait and bring this thread to a close?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
/Putting it down to the legal point of view it implies even a XOR eg. one or the other choice, it's kind of missing the may also part but Inexistant word in this case, so that reasoning doesn't apply. that, so whatever, not relevant in the context, but this sentece could be a lot clearer with may also instead of may, could be also my english, I am not a native speaker .../ No, it's quite clear, just not what you wished it was. Well, that's why I put the whole part int / .. / , to express that it is more something like a comment then a finished proof of something, guess these two little // haven't been clear enough, was only thinking there in words since this little part got me curious. In any case I am really wondering what you read into that part, since I did not express a wish there anywhere and as stated it does make little difference whether it's may or may also. It gives very similar results and will likely not make any difference in front of court. Whatever, you did not get the main point, the whole thing is about distri- bution and distribution only and still distribution. That's not the same as changing licenses and copyright notices. Being allowed to copy pages and hand them out according to some rules does not permit you to change the rules. Guess what ? I studied some of the stuff in University. It's 10 years ago and I didn't follow up since then but little has changed. I do know a thing or two about trademarks, patents and copyright. I don't know everything there is to know about it, but I did my homework. You sir are just wrong. You understand the meaning of the word alternatively quite correctly. But this word is not alone in free space, it's connected to other words to form a sentence and create meaning. You need to understand the sentence _and_ his relationship with the environment it's in. This you obviously don't and don't wish. I any case I refuse to continue discussing things with you on a kindergarden level. Stomping on the floor and saying it's XOR doesn't help. The XOR Hammer has already been taken by others, you're late. -sm
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Gregg Reynolds wrote: Yes. For the dimwits pontificating on this useless thread who can't be bothered to check facts on their own, here's the relevant text (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html): And therein lies the problem. Unless a developer went through a university program that requires courses in contract and copyright law or worked in a company whose corporate counsel actively educated engineers in that law or the developer took the initiative to learn on his own, he almost certainly doesn't know what he's talking about. Dorm room debates and shrill, puerile diatribes carry no legal weight. So try a self examination. Have you been through at least one of the three sources above and did it stick? If not, you might want to broaden your education a bit before ranting away and becoming a poster boy for why geeks *should* be beaten up on playgrounds. (One inexpensive source is Nolo Press and their legal self-help books.) This will be especially critical for OSS development given the pool from which developers self-select. Students who live in bubbles of unreality where they aren't held to account for their actions. Individuals unfamiliar with the language and laws of the country whose copyright law is in force. Those with political agendas who'll eventually damage their own cause with careless or intentional disregard for the issues. While SCO vs Novell looks like the last act of the desperate, the surface argument is still valid. Someone from the above list is eventually going to do something particularly stupid and we're sorry isn't going to be accepted as compensation. The tools for rapidly identifying theft and misattribution are now available so obscurity isn't going to save you. So, gosh, I hope those promises of indem- nification from companies with a few million in annual revenue hold up. Finally, for fun, here's a hypothetical to try out your newly acquired knowledge. Hypothesis: The fundamental function of the preprocessor (in C, C++, etc.) is to create derived works. Two major functions are to attach a work, in whole, to another work and to replace parts of one work with parts from another. The derived work is then further processed and eventually becomes the program which is distributed to customers. Fact: A number of Linux distributions (ref: RH 7.x) came (and perhaps still do) with header files with GPL2 licences. These header files are used in the compilation of some software which may then be sold to customers. Question: Does the GPL2 attach to any such software sold to customers? -- Monty Brandenberg, Software Consultant MCB, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.O. Box 426188 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cambridge, MA 02142-0021 617.864.6907
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Haha, show me proof. Where does it say so? Come on, don't hide behind assumptions. Where it the text below does it say so? Don't give me any interpretation blablabla, just put some ^^^ underneath the words... * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 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. The basis of your argument appears to be that you interpret the last paragraph above (starting with Alternatively) as explicit permission to replace all of the previous material (starting with Redistribution and use) with the GPLv2. Is this inference correct? IANAL, so I'm not going to speculate on the correct legal interpretation of this text; I will grant that, if it were ordinary speech, I can see how someone who tried hard enough could believe that interpretation. However, in the case that started this discussion, the original author's intent has, IIRC, been clearly and authoritatively stated to exclude that interpretation -- so anyone who is aware of this yet still changes the license text in this case is, at the very least, behaving unethically. Dave -- Dave Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote: 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 thed. existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until otherwise stated by the developper. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc ]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Saturday 01 September 2007 05:40:52 Theo de Raadt wrote: 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 thed. existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until otherwise stated by the developper. That is utterly false. All of the licenses we use in the open source world (1) Do not permit removal of the license by a non-author (2) Do not permit modification of the license by a non-author. If a license does not permit you to do the above, then you can't do it, and that is EXACTLY how some people (including you) are attempting to incorrectly interpret dual licenses. Perhaps English is your second language, because my posting was very clear. Please read what I said again. You cannot modify a developer's license, and then distribute the file. That is the problem at hand. When an author declares (or, even, does not declare) Copyright, the get certain rights. Then they surrender some rights to their audience -- with or without conditions. If a right is not surrendered, you don't have it. If the license does not say you may distribute the file without the license, you can't. If the license does not say you may modify the license, you can't.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Theo de Raadt wrote: 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. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license. BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally, but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the BSD License allows them to.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: [..] The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. And the license request you to preserve the license, thus if you do not preserve the license you are not complying with it. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, Sorry, but it really can't be stated clearer than: 8--- 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. ---8 Which is what the ISC license contains, again, you need to preserve it to comply to the license. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. That code (most likely) still contains the license. A lot of times you will find it reproduced even in documentation, or in an acknowledgment. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal It is a license to use, but as long as you credit the original author. [..] BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Which part of: 8-- * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. --8 is unclear that that part needs to be kept intact? That part is more or less exactly the same as the ISC license btw. Also, if what you say above would be true, then a lot of people will be having a lot of fun with a lot of copyrighted works. Oh look a copyright, lets strip the license, the copyright is still there, so now smack our own license on it as that is what you state above. Suddenly all GPL software would become commercially available ;) BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? Maybe because Code != License? How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? Because the commercial developers don't claim it as their own. Try doing a grep for BSD on those binaries and you will find out that most likely the license is still intact. If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. The license does prohibit that. Weird that you missed out that part, it is not like the GPL license which is several pages long of legal nonsense. Some people like to code and provide that code to others so that those people can use it, without running the risk of getting sued when somebody peeps up using their code. They use BSD/ISC licenses. Some other people like to code something and let everybody use it and then let people pay for what they've done in returns for support costs these people use GPL viral licenses. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. You're entitled to say stupid things. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. Can't you read ? The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, Nope, read the license. It says you cannot touch the license, in plain words. No amount of weaseling will get you out of that. And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. [...] rest of rant deleted. But don't mind me. I wouldn't want *facts* to get in the way of your nice ideological diatribe.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Wrong wrong wrong. You interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation of the law is. You can't go around changing legal interpretation at your convenience. I interpret that downloading mp3s is like totally legal now doesn't make it so. Try it and see what happens. Let me try once more to explain how this works. Here is the license of a piece of code I wrote: * Copyright (c) 2007 Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the * above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. This means if you want to use my code in any way shape or form you MUST maintain the copyright license. It says on ALL copies therefore this includes other code, binary files, source, GPL goo etc. The whole point is that one can't go around interpreting law. That's a judge's job. I am not interpreting any licenses for anybody, I am stating facts as they exist today in the frame of the law. Don't like that? I suggest suing someone to see if you can get a judge to agree with your interpretation; from there you can claim jurisprudence. On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:52:45AM -0400, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Theo de Raadt wrote: 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. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. Wrong. Copyright includes ALL rights; the license is what surrenders some of these rights. Copyright is INCLUSIVE. In other words if if write my totally 1337 program that has NO license it automatically is completely covered by copyright. One can NOT copy it, can NOT modify it can NOT distribute it. It is the most restrictive license. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. Not likely; it is breaking the law. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. If you are not preserving the copyrights and the license in the file you are breaking the law. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal We can't help people living in alternate realities and making their own interpretations. It is wrong. Let me quote my license once more: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ I am the only one capable of giving up that right. The GPL crowd can't go around relicensing my code without violating this. I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. You mean the law? BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Let me try to point it out: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license. BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? Yes, read this part: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. It is crafted that way: * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. ^ If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally, but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the BSD License
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Theo de Raadt wrote: 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. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. You sure? That's a very slippery slope. Are you advising me to re-publich gcc tomorrow under a BSD license? Or with the GPL removed from it? It sure looks like the GPL says you can't remove the license, as well. Heck, it goes further -- the GPL says you must release software with the same rights you received it under. Go look. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, Look, you are oversimplifying things by a lot. The ISC license says a hell of a lot more than that. If we could simplify it to less than 3 lines, as you did above we would. But it is clear your 2 lines above don't explain what the ISC license requires and grants. You have mis-described the license. And, you have a backwards understanding of the law. Copyright law first gives me rights, then I even surrender some rights to the public. First I have rights, then I surrender rights. The ISC statement does not contain a statement which surrenders my right, as the author, to be the only one who modifies the license. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. Wrong. The commercial products, when distributed as source code, do still contain the licenses. Just go look at how Apple did it. Or Sun. Heck, or how many BSD licences still show up on files throughout the FSF's code distributions. Or find me one counter example of a vendor publishing BSD licensed source code with a license removed, and then getting away with it. ATT/USL did actually do this wrong when they published manual pages without showing the University of California copyright notice, and that did not end up well for them. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal It isn't that simple. When you oversimplify things, they are almost always wrong. What next... the license does not say you can murder babies, so you can? I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Wow, you don't get it. Here, let me give you a very simple lessons: (1) You author an original work. You distribute it without a Copyright notice. VOILA. Even without declaring copyright... You AUTOMATICALLY have copyright on it, with the full rights as the author. You have all the rights of copyright, and noone else does. Noone else can do anything with it. Really! Go read up on this, if you don't believe me. If you don't believe this, you better start by learning why it is so. (2) You author an original work. You distribute it with one line at the top: Copyright (c) 2006 name of author VOILA. You have copyright on it, since you declared it. You have all the rights of copyright, and noone else does. Noone else can do anything with it. It's the same as case (1) above. (3) You author an original work. You distribute it with with the following text at the top: Copyright (c) 2006 name of author You may use this software. Someone may use this software. However, just like in cases (1) and (2) above, you did not permit distribution. Copyright law automatically retains that right for you, until you decide otherwise to give it up. You don't even need to MENTION the rights you retain. You retain those rights until the moment you give them up. (5) You author an original work. You distribute it with the following text: Copyright (c) 2006 name of author Permission to use, copy, and distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. In this case, read very carefully. I removed the word modify from an ISC license. Guess what? COPYRIGHT LAW gave the author the right to control modification, and they did not surrender it in their notice. Therefore, someone who receives this
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, That is entirely false. If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file. The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence). If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a legal document after the document is already signed and approved. There are simpler reasons to not remove licenses statements, as will become clear in a moment: Here's a pop question: Which of these two licences grants more rights? a. Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt. b. Copyright 2006 Theo de Raadt You may use or distribute this file without modifications. The answer is b. The first licence grants NO RIGHTS AT ALL, and retains them all for the author! David, I truly recommend you go study at least a few minutes of copyright law, heck, even at wikipedia if you are short on time.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
If I understood clearly, following modifications of dual-licensed code should also be dual-licensed, wouldn't they? should, or must? must. Another argument has popped up elsewhere (by some poster, on kerneltrap.org), pointing out that the GPL itself may also require dual-licensed software to remain dual-licensed. The implication is that a recipient read both licenses, and then CHOSE the GPL, the GPL would then them to pass on the choice they had to whoever they distributed it to. Yes, you get to see me quote a paragraph from the GPL. Just this once. Never again. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. More can be found at kerneltrap.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Hi, In order to make my mind about this subject... You're complaining solely of the changes in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_regdom.h But not in files: * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Right? To my eyes what he did about the first files is wrong but without malice. I think he took a small sample for the whole, which he shouldn't. In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. But it is incorrect in my point of view to have done so on the former 5 files. I hope it's those 5 files everyone is crying foul about... Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. One of the really fascinating aspects of this whole thing, at least to someone with a classic liberal arts education, is how poorly technical people often perform when faced with natural language text. Not all of them, obviously, but it's amazing how often it happens, even with people whose high intelligence is indisputable. You see the full panoply of logical fallacy at work. They try to do things they would never try with technical specs. For example, you may choose a license for distribution. There seems to be an overpowering urge among some to read this as you may may choose a license for removal. This is an obvious non sequitur. The reasoning seems to be something like premise a: you may choose BSD or GPL premise b: you may distribute under your chosen license conclusion: therefore you may distribute without the other license Fallacy of Equivocation: use of a term with two or more meanings, as in, using distribute to mean alter, or taking choose A to mean remove B. Fallacy of Illicit Process: a term in the conclusion has a wider extension than in the predicate (i.e. going from some lawyers are cheats to all lawyers are X); this non sequitur doesn't quite fit the definition, but it does involve similar chicanery, going from choose A to choose A and remove B. I'm sure this bit of faulty reasoning commits a few other fallacies as well. In any case, it's amazing how many technical people are willing to take OR as a synonym for EXCLUSIVE OR. The only way this will get clarity in the end is in the courts. In this case, the people pulling these shenanigans - possibly including the FSF - richly deserve the RIAA treatment. Maybe the foundation should create a fund for defending the license.(And I'm not even religious about this stuff - it just really irks may that these people pontificating about freedom are willing to behave so selfishly and disingenuously. And illegally.) -gregg
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
First, I wish to appologize. While I am actually fairly familiar with the GPL, I am not intimate with either the various forms of BSD License or the ISC. Somehow jumping back and forth between them all on wikipedia before my original post I missed the clause that appears to be in each of them require preserving the License/Permissions as well as the copyright. I made an honest effort to look, and somehow read right through exactly what I was looking for. I went back over the ISC a second time before posting, but I read what I was expecting to see, not exactly what was writing. That fairly well obliterates the main point I was attempting to make. But many of the other issues are still valid. The argument that you start with copyright and then add or subtract based on the license is correct. But you can not expect copyright law to return, rights you cede in your license. Yes, a License is a legal document, and MOST legal documents are immutable, but generalization is not the same as law. The ISC and BSD Licenses are immutable, because although they cede alot, they do preserve that. They are not immutable, because all legal documents are inherently immutable.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 01/09/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, That is entirely false. Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish - except remove the copyright. If the file has a copyright on it, unless it is otherwise noticed, you cannot simply do whatever you wish with the file. You can do whatever either copyright law or the license allows you to do. The moment you remove the licence is the moment you make the code nonfree (e.g. non-compatible with any free or open-source licence). That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that requires preserving the license. In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove the copyright, The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style licenses has been over pretty much this point. FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT convert GPL'd code to proprietary code. BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be Totally Free - specifically because you can convert the code to proprietary code. If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do not need any license at all. Just a simple copyright notice will do. Pretty much by definition when you have a software license it is because you are trying to remove yourself from some constraint of copyright law - whether you are trying to further bind the user, or you are trying to release them. If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a legal document after the document is already signed and approved. Unless the license allows you to do that. That is a cost to granting others Total Freedom If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to atleast some extend you have modifed your rights with respect to copyright. Both the GPL and ISC cede vast amounts of copyright protections. You have to be extremely careful arguing copyright law with any licensed work, because ontly those parts of copyright law that the licensed has not ceded, or can not be waived remain. The legal document argument is week. The closest legal document analogy I can think of would be granting someone else the right to act as your agent - as in a power of attorney. And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control your affairs..
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Siju George wrote: Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ which strings /usr/bin/strings See strings(1) :-) -- Antti Harri
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
'strings' is a common Unix utility used to find actual words or series of letters grouped together in a file. You can run strings in binary executable files to see any text embedded in the executable. This can sometimes be used to find versions of some executables as well as for other reasons (forensics ?).
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? strings(1) - print the strings of printable characters in files Pull down many of the Windows command line utilities to your Unix host (particularly those that share similar names with the Unix commands) and run strings against them. Pay attention to the strings referencing the University, CSRG, etc. Also: http://www.undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20030927090008 DS
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Siju George wrote: On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? man strings :-) /Alexander
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 9/1/07 12:29 PM, Siju George wrote: On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that they preserved the copyrights as required. Could somebody please explain about Running Strings? man 1 strings The strings utility finds the printable strings in a object, or other binary, file. example: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 505$ strings /bin/ls | grep -i copyright @(#) Copyright (c) 1989, 1993, 1994 dn iD8DBQFG2cfNyPxGVjntI4IRAtiTAKDUtUkdvgknGf1xBhzV3h8wfWuEkACgsHDc unCO9OHA5cuqLdo3cujTY6M= =IB6u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 12:59:39AM +0530, Siju George wrote:
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
The usual explanation is man strings. But for example:
*--*
artemis:~
{20} % strings /dev/fs/C/WINDOWS/system32/nslookup.exe | tail -n 30
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved.
@(#)nslookup.c 5.39 (Berkeley) 6/24/90
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
@(#)commands.l 5.13 (Berkeley) 7/24/90
-*-**
**
**
@(#)debug.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
@(#)list.c 5.20 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
@(#)subr.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
@(#)skip.c 5.9 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
@(#)getinfo.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
@(#)send.c 5.17 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
!#$%'()*+,-./0123456789:;=[EMAIL PROTECTED]|}~
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz0123456789+/
0123456789abcdef.
QISKNU?
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcp\VParameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcp\Parameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters
\Registry\Machine\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\Transient
\Registry\Machine\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows NT\DNSClient
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@DDD@
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
DDD@
,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
b
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@
artemis:~
{21} %
*--*
This is on Windows XP, using the strings from Microsoft Services for
UNIX.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Siju George [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/1/07, Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Try to run strings on windows command line utilities. You'll see that
they preserved the copyrights as required.
Could somebody please explain about Running Strings?
tvc: {2476} strings `where ftp` | grep -A1 -i copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1985, 1989, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
tvc: {2477}
That's on OpenBSD. On Windows, you can presumably get strings(1) as a
part of the Cygwin package, or try out Windows Services for UNIX.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20030927090008
C.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish - except remove the copyright. ISC has no say in the matter of interpreting the legal document. Authors put them onto files hoping the license lays down the rights they wish to retain, and grants they wish to give to the public. Then courts interpret COPYRIGHT LAW FIRST, then what the author's license grant really says. ISC does not enter into the picture, except as they were the first to craft the legal document in that way. In fact, the ISC-style license that OpenBSD uses is... a tiny bit different. In fact, the ISC license has gone through a variety of mutations over the decades. It is an attempt to be a shorter easier to understand version of the 2-term BSD license (but it is apparent many people still can't understand that copyright notices have an implied and invisible full copyright act before them). That is correct, but I do not see anything in the license that requires preserving the license. Copyright law does. When you are holding a gun to my head, there is no piece of paper in front of my head saying you can't fire the gun. Do I really need to start giving grade school examples?? In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove the copyright, Bullshit. The license retains ANY RIGHTS which are in Copyright law, a body of law that PRECEDES the decleration. That body of law is pulled in the MOMENT a Copyright (c) YYMM author decleration is made. The basic argument contention between the FSF/GPL and BSD style licenses has been over pretty much this point. No, it has not, because you are completely wrong! FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT convert GPL'd code to proprietary code. BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be Totally Free - specifically because you can convert the code to proprietary code. Nothing is that simple -- or all these licenses would be exactly that text you print, but they are quite clearly not, and have many many words there for a reason. AND they carry the full weight of Copyright law in with them as well. If you want to claim all the protections of copyright law, you do not need any license at all. Just a simple copyright notice will do. Pretty much by definition when you have a software license it is because you are trying to remove yourself from some constraint of copyright law - whether you are trying to further bind the user, or you are trying to release them. If you have a copyright notice with a license that grants SOME rights, you retain all the other rights granted in the full copyright acts of your nation (and other nations, details, details..) If instead of removing the licence you put your own licence under a copyright statement of someone else, well, that simply constitutes fraud -- it's no different than quietly changing the first page of a legal document after the document is already signed and approved. Unless the license allows you to do that. That is a cost to granting others Total Freedom There is only one 'Total Freedom', and it is a Public Domain declaration, which these licenses are not. These are full Copyright Act licenses, carrying the full of power of the Copyright, and only THEN the addition author's release surrenders some rights he has. If as the author of something you have a license at all, then to atleast some extend you have modifed your rights with respect to copyright. Both the GPL and ISC cede vast amounts of copyright protections. You have to be extremely careful arguing copyright law with any licensed work, because ontly those parts of copyright law that the licensed has not ceded, or can not be waived remain. The legal document argument is week. The closest legal document analogy I can think of would be granting someone else the right to act as your agent - as in a power of attorney. And in those instances you do cede alot of your right to control your affairs.. Wow. You are so full of balony. Get an education, please.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 00:42 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [responding to Dmitrij Czarkoff:] So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until otherwise stated by the developper. That is utterly false. All of the licenses we use in the open source world (1) Do not permit removal of the license by a non-author (2) Do not permit modification of the license by a non-author. I would say this is probably true of any license anywhere. To be honest, though, the philosophy is actually a lot closer to the free software movement started by Richard Stallman than the open source movement later splintered off by whoever it was (Eric Raymond maybe?). The main difference seperating us (the BSD-derived OS camp) from the GNU(/Linux) camp is the differing social goals we are after. I, of course, consider myself closer to the GNU camp, but have no problem contributing to a BSD-licensed project under that license. Not that my programming skills are yet back up to snuff to do so, but that's a rant for another day and thread... -- Shawn K. Quinn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Constantine A. Murenin wrote: That is entirely false. Why ? The ISC seems to me to say you can do anything you wish - except remove the copyright. ... but I do not see anything in the license that requires preserving the license. In essence the license says you can do almost any short of remove the copyright. Your reading comprehension seems to be suffering. I would *love* to know how you read this statement: 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. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. ...and then come to the conclusion that the only restriction it names on copying, modification, and distribution is that the copyright alone must remain. The statement provided that the above copyright notice *and this permission notice* appear in all copies seems to speak pretty clearly, does it not? A = copyright notice B = permission notice A != A+B DS
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Gents, the driver was developed from Reyk in Germany. Reyk add a license to his code. So the question will be, what is the Europen/German law here. Maybe the OpenBSD project/Reyk should solve the problem in the same way as the gpl-violations.org initiative do it. Let the court decide. Will be happy to donate some money to force a decision at court. Reiner
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 9/1/07, David H. Lynch Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FSF/GPL licenses grant you the freedom to do almost anything EXCEPT convert GPL'd code to proprietary code. BSD/ISC Licenses claim to be Totally Free - specifically because you can convert the code to proprietary code. You could not be more wrong, I think. Seems to me the BSD license is designed precisely to prevent this. Granting of rights != transfer of ownership. You can _use_ BSD-licensed code in a proprietary product; that does not mean you have a proprietary claim on the BSD-licensed code. That's the point of requiring that the copyright/license notice be retained. There is no conversion to proprietary code here. In this respect GPL and BSD are in complete agreement. The difference is in the obligations they impose on the licensee regarding use. BSD imposes one simple negative condition - you /must not/ remove the license. GPL imposes a more complex set of positive conditions - you /must/ make alterations available under the same license. In neither case does ownership enter the picture. Copyright law goes back centuries, contract law goes back to the Romans. There's more than meets the eye there; common sense interpretations uninformed by some degree of awareness of the legal traditions - as in, I don't see anything in there that says I can't do X is almost certain to be wrong. IANAL, though. Talk to one of them if you really have a burning desire to understand all this. Even then, only the courts can settle the matter. -Gregg
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. So if you want, we can friendly chat more about this. If I ever pass around your vicinity I would love to offer you a beverage of your choice at the nearest spot you like :) Best, Rui -- P'tang! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? Isn't that rude?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from his choice on has to be on the same terms he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... 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. I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? On the 5 files that are not dual licensed, we agree. On the other 3 ones... I'm sorry, they felt they needed to make sure nobody would deprive other users of the code they distribute. Isn't that rude? On the 5 files, yes. On the other ones, not really. On the other three ones what seems to me is we offered it under two possible sets of conditions, you chose one we don't like, so we cry foul. This is what seems rude to me, and I was trying to understand if it was a problem with all files or just the 5 ones I noticed that weren't dual licensed (in which case I fully agree with you). Best, Rui -- Umlaut Zebra o?=ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from his choice on has to be on the same terms he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 Yes, I don't think you actually disagree with Theo -- what Theo tries to say is that you simply cannot alter the text of the licence -- but you can, obviously, select the terms of whatever one licence you want to use. If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and NetBSD, IIRC. C.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:40:53PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. Wow. Let's all go practice law with a dictionary. ? But you mentioned dictionaries first... The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 25th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:08:46PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:39:28AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: In the case of the later 3 files, their copyright notice says: at your choice you may distribute under the terms of the BSD license or under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 So if they chose to distribute those 3 files under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, it is correct to change the copyright notice of those three files alone in order to remove a license that the distributor chose not to use anymore. Not exactly. I won't quote from the GPL again, but even the GPL has a paragraph about this. You must pass on the rights you received. ^^^ Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? Both! You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively That is not true at all. You have to adhere to ALL licenses. This is not even remotely a slippery slope. You are making shit up to match your argument. The word alternatively means replace? It might mean select, but does it really mean replace in-line? What dictionary are you using? If something is not clear in a legal document, who are you to decide what it actually means? That's the author and the courts who work that out, sorry. Most dictionaries I had at my hand define alternative as choices. You can get http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alternative Noun alternative (plural alternatives) 1. A situation which allows a choice between two or more possibilities. 2. A choice between two or more possibilities. 3. One of several things which can be chosen. If he chose alternative B, the GNU GPLv2, he's bound by the GNU GPLv2 terms, and not the BSD ones, or even both at the same time. As such, any derivative from his choice on has to be on the same terms he got, namely the GNU GPL v2 blah blah blah. You have to adhere to both licenses. Alternatively means nothing in this sentence. The GPL says that passing on only a selection of rights is not fair. Don't trust my words, though, go read the GPL yourself. I think that while I'm not an expert in law, over ten years of involvement with Free Software, namely about 6 of them on the board of directors of a Free Software association in Portugal have given me quite some experience with it. If the user chose to use the GPL v2 rights, those are the rights he has. The GNU GPL actually says you must license under the same terms as this license, not as the copyright notice (which gives you a choice of license to use). In another place the GPL says you must pass on the rights you have. When things are inconsistant, courts decide. Not you. Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... 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' Exactly; you need to adhere to all licenses. What part isn't clear? The GPL and ISC are compatible here. ^^ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. I'd be happy to give you as much support as I can, since I kind of enjoy OpenBSD more than the most popular GNU/Linux distributions on a couple of particularly important details to my line of professional work. Since I actually love all Free Software, either reciprocal style or non reciprocal and it shocks me the amount of shameless FUD both sides sometime launch. Well, it sure isn't reciprocal right about now from with this GPL use, is it. So we are the reciprocal group now. We give them code, and they don't give it back. How's that for using the license backwards? On the 5 files that are not dual licensed, we agree. On the other 3 ones... I'm sorry, they felt they needed to make sure nobody would deprive other users of the code they distribute.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and NetBSD, IIRC. This has to agreed by all copyright holders. Best Martin
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:56:44PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 11:29:11PM +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Yes. The *rights you received* are the central point of the question. Which did the user receive? The BSD granted ones? Or the GPLv2 granted ones? Both! That's not what the copyright notice of the files * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h said. It said it was licensed under the BSD ters. *Alternatively* on the GNU GPLv2. Its alternatively not at the same time You received the full rights granted by copyright law as a recipient, PLUS the ones granted by the entire document. But, you did not receive the right to modify the author's license document. ^ Which is one of two, at the mutually exclusive choice of the user. In the case of the three files I see nothing bad done. If some software is dual licensed, you have two sets of rights you can choose. It's not both at the same time. The text is even explicit: alternatively That is not true at all. You have to adhere to ALL licenses. This is not even remotely a slippery slope. You are making shit up to match your argument. It is true in this files, and that's what I'm talking about. * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h * drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_reg.h Please stop rudely calling me a liar, ok? You have neither the right nor truth on your side to do that. blah blah blah. You have to adhere to both licenses. Alternatively means nothing in this sentence. Yes, I suppose ignorance is power too... Section 6 is pretty clear, to me... 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' Exactly; you need to adhere to all licenses. What part isn't clear? That's section 6 of the GPL. These terms are the terms of the GPL if you chose the GPL. Your agreement is not relevant. The law is. Sure, take them to court, it's your money. However I suggest english 101 first. -- P'tang! Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. I am not being unreasonable. You are not a judge, so stop acting like you are one. You don't know the full story. I do not know the full story either. But you are being a real prick on the lists here acting as if you have everything all figured out, you, the judge. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* I am glad you are so sure, so confident. Are you placing money on the outcome? Many many other people are NOT SO SURE AT ALL. So leave it, ok?
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Martin Schrvder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2007/9/2, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If you want your modifications to be licensed differently, then you would have to put a new licence on top of existing licensing text, as far I as understand. This is how it's often done in OpenBSD and NetBSD, IIRC. This has to agreed by all copyright holders. You are mistaken, it has not -- as long as the licences are compatible and the names of the copyright holders appear aligned to their correct licence. However, with this Atheros HAL case this is not the solution -- if the Linux people wrap GPL around BSD code, then we won't be able to get any changes back. C.
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:55:34PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: The license is not an alternative. The alternative is between two licenses. The moment one chooses one them... it's that one henceforth. And... you are a judge? Theo, be as unreasonable as you want. The copyright notice tells the user he can choose between two licenses. If you choose the GNU GPL vs, you can't later on change to BSD or proprietary for that would be a copyright violation. *Copyright notice != license* Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 26th day of Bureaucracy in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: ath5k, license is GPLv2 The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at least private industry does not come to the table with hey, let's cooperate - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly. However, when a linux developer comes to us and say hey lets cooperate usually there is a thought of this is a kindred spirit who understands what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back. My concern is that this situation will change if this is not rectified. I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back. -Bob
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Uh, why do we need to defer to courts and seek legal funds and feed the sharks er lawyers just to comprehend what the two words without modification? As I explained to a friend of mine minutes ago .. adding GPL to BSD is sad to the BSD people (we can't use the GPL code then) adding GPL and removing BSD is not legal Who's side are you on anyway suggesting legal battles? The lawyers, the companies, or free software? On Saturday 01 September 2007 16:45:50 Reiner Jung wrote: Gents, the driver was developed from Reyk in Germany. Reyk add a license to his code. So the question will be, what is the Europen/German law here. Maybe the OpenBSD project/Reyk should solve the problem in the same way as the gpl-violations.org initiative do it. Let the court decide. Will be happy to donate some money to force a decision at court. Reiner -- Todd Fries .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ | \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice) | Free Daemon Consulting \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice) | http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX) | ..in support of free software solutions. \ 250797 (FWD) | \ \\ 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that is OK. When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard. Why does our brother Linux take a file that is 90% BSD licensed, and refuse to let us see the 10% he adds? Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I ask? Why Luis puts the phrase legal hell next to entirely free software? [0] Why is he trying to go against the BSD community, which gave him the entire HAL framework for the driver in question? Best regards, Constantine. [0] http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Re: Fwd: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote: As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence, but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.) You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem, as in the message below. C. On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote: ath5k, license is GPLv2 The files are available only under GPLv2 since now. Is this really a good idea? Most of the reverse-engineering was done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc.. I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at least private industry does not come to the table with hey, let's cooperate - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly. However, when a linux developer comes to us and say hey lets cooperate usually there is a thought of this is a kindred spirit who understands what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back. My concern is that this situation will change if this is not rectified. I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back. Theo explicitely accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to choose one licence for dual licenced code was advising people to break the law. I hope you agree when talking about cooperation [...] based on morals and trust that such accusations should either be proven correct or the moral position of the person who made such accusations becomes quiet weak. -Bob 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
Re: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
Theo de Raadt wrote: 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. With respect to both you and Eban, I would disagree.. The law requires complying with the license not preserving it. The license is a part of the copyrighted work. It grants users rights beyond those of copyright law. The ISC License requires little more than preserving the copyright notice, not the license itself, And even that I would think is redundant as removing a copyright notice would likely violate copyright law. BSD Licensed code has found its way into proprietary products, with no availability of source - and no preservation of license. The claim of the Free Software people has always been that BSD is a License to Steal I am not happy that the work of BSD developers is in essence being co-opted by Linux developers. To me it seems lacking in integrity for the GPL crowd to do to the BSD crowd what they have gone to great pains to prevent anyone doing to them. It certainly violates the golden rule. BUT I am having a hard time convincing myself that taking BSD/ISC Licensed code - and relicensing it while preservng the copyright notice, violates the BSD/ISC License. Whether it is honest or not, it still seems to conform to my understanding of both the spirit and the letter of the license. BSD advocates claim their license is more free because it allows you to do most anything with BSD code. Am I missing the part where that freedom includes removing the license ? How is what Linux developers seem to be doing less legal or ethical that what many commercial developers have already done ? If this is not one of the freedom's of BSD Licensed code, then craft your license to prohibit it. If I am mis-understanding the license I appologize, but my view of this dispute is that Linux developers are unethically and immorally, but quite legally doing to BSD Licensed code pretty much what the BSD License allows them to.
That whole Linux stealing our code thing
[bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him] I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there are even greater potential risks for how the various communities interact. For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two licenses can use the file in either way but if they distribute the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have statements which say that the license may not be removed. It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed. Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level, a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers). And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the larger open source communities who are writing applications. Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel that a lot of Linux relicencing meme-talkin' trolls basically have attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to say something public about this. In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the authors. Alan asks So whats the problem ?. Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been taught, how one must handle such licenses: - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. Really. - If you add large pieces of originality to the code which are valid for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different and seperate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file above the existing license. (Warning: things become less clear as to what the combination of licenses mean, though -- there are ethical traps, too). - If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file: Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off. In either case, I think a valuable lessons has been taught us here in the BSD world -- there are many many GPL loving people who are going to try to find any way to not give back and share (I will mention one name: Luis Rodriguez has been a fanatic pushing us for dual licensed, and I feel he is to blame for this particular problem). Many of those same people have been saying for years that BSD code can be stolen, and that is why people should GPL their code. Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the GPL their best tool to take from us! GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many
