Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
[Posted September 4, 2007 by corbet]
From: |
| Sam Leffler <sam-zZXckVAlHaQAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org> |
To: |
| Adrian Bunk <bunk-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A-AT-public.gmane.org> |
Subject: |
| Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing |
Date: |
| Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:03:36 -0700 |
Cc: |
| linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA-AT-public.gmane.org, linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA-AT-public.gmane.org,
netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA-AT-public.gmane.org |
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff-o2qLIJkoznsdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.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.
>
> 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...
>
Sigh, why actually check the facts when you can make them up. The code
in question is my code. It has my copyright (modulo bits shared with
onoe-san who was consulted on the switch from dual-bsd/gpl to bsd only
in freebsd). Of course what was amusing was how after I changed the
license on the current code in freebsd certain folks retroactively
applied the license changes to code that was 3 years old.
But is there a point to all this nonsense? I dual-licensed the code so
folks could adopt and use it however they saw fit. As I've said before
I don't care what people do with the work I give away so long as they
don't claim it's their own.
>
>> That said, I don't see what exact wording you consider inaccurate.
>>
>
> Both the FreeBSD and Linux people draw the logical conclusion that this
> "Alternatively" means everyone can always choose to remove one of the
> two choices alternatively offered.
>
> According to Theo, that is "breaking the law"...
>
>
I've yet to see "FreeBSD people" speak up so again you're just spouting
jibberish. I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual
license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of
my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only.
Sam