lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
    On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
    > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
    > > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org> wrote:
    > > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
    > > > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org> 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 original dispute.
    > > > >
    > > > > It's no longer dual licenced in the FreeBSD tree because the FreeBSD
    > > > > people removed the GPL choice of the dual licenced code 3 months ago.
    > > >
    > > > FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL, which OpenHAL is based on.
    > > >
    > > > FreeBSD has a driver written by Sam, and a binary-only HAL, also written by Sam.
    > > >
    > > > > So all of Theo's accusations of people breaking the law by making this
    > > > > dual licenced code GPL-only apply as well to the FreeBSD people...
    > > >
    > > > How? FreeBSD doesn't have Reyk's ath(4) HAL from OpenBSD, so there are
    > > > no possible licensing accusations and violations.
    > >
    > > OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
    > > of files changed by Jiri's patch:
    > > 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
    > > 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used planned
    > > to make GPL-only
    > > 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
    > >
    > > For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
    > > without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code unter 3.
    > >
    > > So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
    > > to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
    > > with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
    > >
    > > It's funny how Theo missed the part of Jiri's patch that actually is a
    > > copyright violation and instead complains about the part that is OK...
    >
    > I'm not sure how you conclude that Theo missed the relevant parts --
    > there were many messages posted to misc@openbsd.org mailing list and
    > to The OpenBSD Journal in the last few days, and to me it appears as
    > all of the problems were discussed ad nauseam.
    >...

    Then it's your fault that you forwarded the wrong email - in the email
    you forwarded the only action for which Theo accused the Linux
    developers of breaking the law was for choosing one licence when using
    dual licenced code.

    > After the obvious copyright violations were addressed, I think the
    > problem started being an ethical one.
    >
    > 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.

    Is it a legal problem or is it "only" an ethical problem?

    If choosing one licence when using dual licenced code is not a legal
    problem then Theo repeatedly talking about it would "break the law" in
    the email you forwarded was very unethical and the worst he could do
    for his cause.

    > C.
    >...

    cu
    Adrian

    --

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

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2007-09-02 02:13    [W:4.397 / U:0.544 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site