lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Wasting our Freedom
    On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
    > Hi!
    >
    > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > >On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
    > >>...
    > >> First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
    > >> developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
    >
    > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
    > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
    >
    > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
    > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
    > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
    > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
    > in one of the licenses.


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


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


    Noone said otherwise.


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


    The licence in question was:

    <-- snip -->

    /*-
    * Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
    * All rights reserved.
    *
    * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
    * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
    * are met:
    * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
    * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
    * without modification.
    * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce at minimum a disclaimer
    * similar to the "NO WARRANTY" disclaimer below ("Disclaimer") and any
    * redistribution must be conditioned upon including a substantially
    * similar Disclaimer requirement for further binary redistribution.
    * 3. Neither the names of the above-listed copyright holders nor the names
    * of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
    * from this software without specific prior written permission.
    *
    * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
    * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
    * Software Foundation.
    *
    * NO WARRANTY
    * ...

    <-- snip -->


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


    > >[...]
    >
    > >Regarding ethics - if you use the BSD licence for your code you state in
    > >the licence text that it's OK that I take your code and never give
    > >anything back.
    >
    > But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
    > while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
    > under different terms with few restrictions.
    >
    > However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level.
    > Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
    > OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the
    > reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some
    > modifications back?


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

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


    > >[...]
    >
    > >Some people have the funny position of opposing the GPL which enforces
    > >that you have to give back, but whining that people took their BSD
    > >licenced code and don't give back.
    >
    > A difference is, GPL requires it under every circumstance. BSD does not,
    > indeed. But how should one expect it from *OSS* people that even *they*
    > don't give back? Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as
    > closed-source companies?


    You could also see it from a different perspective:

    If you like that the GPL enforces that everyone has to give back, do you
    also want to see your code BSD licenced without this protection?


    But the truth is a bit less harsh:

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

    But Theo's wrong accusations regarding dual licenced code might not be
    the best way for starting a fruitful collaboration...


    > >[...]
    >
    > Kind regards,
    >
    > Hannah.

    cu
    Adrian

    [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/9/1/102
    [2] The fact that Alan didn't notice that part of Jiri's patch touched
    non-dual-licenced code is the mistake I already mentioned - but
    this mistake is not what Theo is ranting about.

    --

    "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: 2007-09-16 23:17    [W:3.421 / U:0.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site