co-operation. Together we advance our detective work and knowledge of
the Macintosh platforms to the good of all Macintosh users dumped
Alan Cox circa 1999.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2007-August/027419.html
well I'd be quite happy to see X go GPL but I'm aware
thats
- If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the
license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law.
Really.
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was
On Sep 1 2007 18:36, Theo de Raadt wrote:
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
For companies it's ok, but for linux people it is not?
(1) You do not know how much of the modifications
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
There was permission to do
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing
terms (BSD).
Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and
code Reyk contributed to leaving
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST)
Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
Igor Sobrado wrote:
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
and documentation *without* an authorization from all the
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
Your understanding isn't quite
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for example does this for version selection.
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
developer to remove the GPL
IANAL, but:
Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a
single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just be
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
There is
Igor Sobrado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently.
No. E.g.:
If I don't agree to the GPL (or if I had violated it and therefore have lost
it's privileges), I MUST NOT redistribute it under the GPL because I
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes.
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for example does this for version selection.
So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my
isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are
common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to
Sam's verbiage.
I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
C.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 31-Aug-2007 21:40
Subject: That whole Linux stealing our code thing
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
to the
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
If OpenBSD wants a world where code must be returned
OpenBSD does not want this.
OpenBSD wants a world where people do things because they are the
right thing to do.
OpenBSD lets you decide; it doesn't dictate.
someone poo-poos your
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
licensing.
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:51:49PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:03:36PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.
Luis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe netdev in
the
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
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400,
On 01/09/07, Luis R. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.
Err...
I don't
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
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used
planned
to make GPL-only
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:36:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
against changes
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
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used BSD
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
intact. Many
On 9/1/07, Constantine A. Murenin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Dixon wrote:
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission
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,
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:42:54PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
We asked SFLC to work with us to make sure that everyone's copyrights
were respected in the right places, and that the licenses various developers
wanted for their copyrights were implemented correctly. The patch I sent
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:58:26PM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
made the code
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you wanted
to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't you patch
it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault if this fix
made the code not work with the original?
We took the code and fixed a gaping
On Sep 1, 2007, at 9:58 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
Suppose you saw some other variant of *nix that had some code you
wanted to use, but there was a gaping security hole in it. Wouldn't
you patch it before you incorporated it? and would it be your fault
if this fix made the code not work with
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 08:36:24PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from
dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files.
This was a mistake in this patch (that was never merged into the tree)
neither Jiri nor Alan noticed.
On 01/09/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 03:55:37 +0200, Adrian Bunk said:
Jiri's patch would have wrongly not only removed the BSD statement from
dual licenced files but also from not dual licenced files.
This was a mistake in this patch (that was
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 01:09:18 EDT, Constantine A. Murenin said:
The idea here is that no patching was needed in the first place --
most of the files are/were BSD-licensed, because they were forked from
OpenBSD.
Oh, silly me. For some reason, I had it in my head that Jiri's original
patch
54 matches
Mail list logo
