LWN: Comments on "Relicensing: what's legal and what's right"

GPL modules for a differently licensed OS'

kreutzm — 2007-09-22T13:57:29+00:00

Just a minor note: The cases in Germany involving the Linux kernel were brought forward (and won) by Harald Welte (netfilter) not Linus Torvalds.

IANAL, and it seems there is a lot of facts disputed here.

einhverfr — 2007-09-17T20:49:40+00:00

Hmmm.... This represents a difficult case. I suppose I should have no opinion as to whether the "relicensing" is actually legal or not. THere appear to be a great many disputed facts in the case (such as authorship-- is it Sam's code or Reyk's code, etc).

I do, however, agree with Theo on his interpretation of the BSD license, and that one cannot just assert copyright restrictions on the code with no authority to do so based on your own copyrights.

I also agree with Eben about some of the unreasonable behavior on the part of Theo's. Even when you go public, you should always act respectfully.

GPL modules for a differently licensed OS'

nim-nim — 2007-09-16T19:54:15+00:00

Ideas in the protected work being idea expressions.

Anyway.

You are not allowed to "rephrase" a copyrighted works idea expressions.

Copyright law allows looking at something to produce something else. Copyright law allows not looking at something to produce the same thing.

But copyright law forbids translation of something in the same something in another language/medium/format whatever. It does not take a judge a lot to decide something else is effectively something else. But mere rephrasing won't do.

Just ask J K Rowling what she thinks about your legal theory. I believe she sent a few rephrasers to jail.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

forthy — 2007-09-16T08:23:12+00:00

I think the BSD community - or at least Theo de Raadt - finally sees the value of a copyleft license. His interpretation that the BSDL already is a copyleft license however is severely flawed. It isn't. If OpenBSD was under MPL, it would be true, and commercial vendors still could include this code into proprietary projects - but then they would also be forced to contribute changes back (you can put MPL code into "larger works" under different licenses, but you still need to retain the MPL on the files originally under MPL, even if you have modified them - so a MPL project incorporated into a GPL project will be "dual-licensed" forever. There are many open questions about this - one is whether the GPL actually permits to be merged with MPL code without special permission by the authors - but that's the idea at least).

The moral implication however is clear: If we accept that it's ethical to share code (as both the FSF and the BSD proponent claim), then we find that it's also more ethical to make licenses compatible, because incompatible licenses prevent people to share code between projects. I fully agree with that part of Theo's diatribe.

GPL modules for a differently licensed OS'

sepreece — 2007-09-15T14:47:43+00:00

"The hard truth is derivative is anything that makes use of ideas/code in the protected work."

Well, no. Copyright doesn't protect ideas, it only protects the expression of ideas. You can rephrase those ideas in other language without violating the copyright. However, the Devil is in the details and the analysis is not simple. There are scads of court decisions on specific cases, many of which seem to conflict.

Also, copyright does not control "functional aspects". There is a fair amount of precedent indicating that copyright doesn't apply when a program is simply using or interfacing with another program - that even direct copying of code may be OK when it is necessary to allow interoperation.

scott

GPL should preserve BSD copyright notices for GPL's sake.

SPM — 2007-09-15T13:47:50+00:00

That is absolute nonsense.

GPL works on copyright GPL work is not public domain uncopyrighted work. You cannot take someone elses copyrighted material and stick a notice on it to say it is your own copyrighted material - if you do, you may find yourself being prosecuted for copyright infringement. That applies to BSD code used in GPLed files as well if you don't follow the BSD license to the letter.

As for manageability of minor changes (eg. a bug fix), you can do what you like with code you use internally but don't distribute. If you are changing part of a line line or a few lines, then if you wish to distribute the code with the original authors code rather than a separate patch, the correct way to deal with this is to submit it to the author/maintainer of the project to incorporate into the original code, so it would go in as a code snippet under the copyright of the author/maintainer - if a number of people can change lines or parts of lines willy nilly within the same file as you suggest, then the project quickly becomes unmaintainable.

You should also note that to be able to claim copyright on something, the work has to be substantial. For example, you can't copyright names, numbers, enumerations, phrases etc, and you are allowed to literally quote short sections from other copyrighted works without infringing copyright. Hence in most cases you can use individual lines of code, header files, variable names and enumerations from someone else's work without infringing the other person's copyright, and by the same measure, you can't claim copyright on a code snippet which is not substantial. Hence the case you are talking about should never arise because code snippets should be passed back as fixes to the original code and go in under the original copyright.

Each author submitting his/her work as a complete file is of course no problem, and where possible (which is in almost all cases), it is best the way to go. If you wish to embed a substantial chunk of code under a different license embedded in another author's BSD code you wrote, then just put a comment around your code with your copyright notice and leave the other authors' copyright notices for the code you didn't write yourself. If you can't be bothered to indicate that the BSD license notice doesn't cover your code block, then just license the whole file under BSD.

This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right

celtic_hackr — 2007-09-14T04:02:26+00:00

I agree that the dual licensed code can relicensed either way. The original author has already said this.

I don't see what the issue is of people complaining about not giving back.
The code is GPL. Ergo you have the source, rewrite the measly 5% or 10% or 1% that is newly added GPL and incorporate it into the original dual BSD/GPL code and then release in BSD if you want. Come on folks are we all that unimaginative?

Where's the harm, so someone might have to do a little reading and writing.
You've got the gosh darn code! This is a copyright matter not a patent matter people, you can rewrite!

Granted, I think the Linux guys should have just left the copyright alone. They're all, both sides, acting like spoiled children. Heck my toddler has better manners. But then, I raise her that way.

GPL should preserve BSD copyright notices for GPL's sake.

nix — 2007-09-13T21:18:57+00:00

The former is worthwhile.

The latter is completely impractical in a project with any number of
authors. What do you do: put a comment beside every single line giving the
initials of the people who worked on it? (Putting a comment at the top of
the file isn't good enough: it doesn't say *which bits* of the file were
changed). Both of these will make the program uglier and ruin automated
merges.

I suppose you could force each author to never modify a file that anyone
else had touched, but that would result in code that had essentially
arbitrary divisions into source files: i.e., an unreadable, unmaintainable
mess. (Because most languages imbue `file scope' with semantics of some
kind, it may actually be impossible.)

In practice this data can only sanely be stored in a version control
system (which is, of course, exactly what happens already). This means you
can't look at a printout and be sure who wrote what, but that's a tiny
price to pay given the enormous costs of working the way you propose.

GPL modules for a differently licensed OS'

nim-nim — 2007-09-13T19:20:38+00:00

You have to understand the GPL is based on the "derivative" part of copyright international laws, and these laws are not software-specific, and indeed their roots are older than computers.

Software people do not understand legal concepts and keep trying to reduce derivation to its technical implementations. (because they feel confident that once they've nailed derivation to a particular technical effect they'll be able to find another they can safely use).

The hard truth is derivative is anything that makes use of ideas/code in the protected work. So it does not matter how this use is effected. Using creative indirections does not make derivation moot. If you figure a technical way to use some protected work, the sum of protected work + your stuff is a derived work.

That is unless you can prove your stuff was designed for something else, and this something else was not heavily inspired by the protected work. Of course if that were the case you'd not be trying to squiggle past "derivation" definitions.

GPL should preserve BSD copyright notices for GPL's sake.

SPM — 2007-09-13T19:15:23+00:00

Regardless of Theo's or the BSD folk's rants, it is important for GPL's sake that all copyright notices are preserved and different authors' code kept separate so that the source and ownership of all the code can be traced. If you think this is not important, look back at the SCO litigation.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

kzm — 2007-09-13T10:11:04+00:00

> Ok, consider I publish code with GPL license and somebody sends me a patch
> to fix/enhance something. Will I be allowed to re-use that patch in a
> closed environment in my company?

Actually, yes. Copyright (and the licensing of same) does not regulate use, only distribution and public performance, so GPL vs BSD is irrelevant.

On the other hand, if your code was GPL, it would be legal for you to include the patch in your distribution (as it is a derivative work, and thus also GPL-licensed), if your code is BSD, you'd need an explicit permission from the author.

A small patch may be too trivial to be covered by copyright.

> I denounce people saying that the BSD people should shut up when
> they feel ripped off.

The difference between a legal right and a moral right is that the legal right can be enforced, the moral right can only be excercised through agreement. Ever wonder why so few beggars yell at you about their moral rights to some of your money? Amazing that so many bright developers apparently fail to realize that.

-k

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

giraffedata — 2007-09-07T23:30:50+00:00

"The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material."
So if you start with a dual licensed file, and add additional material, the dual license only necessarily extends to the pre-existing material. The additional material is copyright by the author - who may license those additions in any way he pleases, provided that distribution of the whole is consistent with the license that governs each of the copyrighted portions.

You've read that backwards. The whole point of derivative work copyright is that the first author has rights over the entire derivative work done by the second author. (A classic derivative work is a translation. The translation contains no words from the original work, but you still need the original author's permission to copy the translation).

This section says 1) you don't need the second author's permission to copy the first author's pieces; and 2) the permission you need from the first author to copy the derivative work isn't any greater than what you need to copy his original work. In particular, his clock runs out N years after the original was published, not N years after the derivative was published.

This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right

giraffedata — 2007-09-07T23:12:14+00:00

Anyway how a person who doesn't own the copyright could change a license of the file? (removing a license is like changing a license: you change how the source are redistributed)

Don't confuse a copyright license with the text describing the license. Nobody can "remove" someone else's license -- it's simply not possible -- but one can remove the text describing the license from the file.

(Similarly, one can add text to a Microsoft product saying, "you may copy this as you please," but it doesn't mean a recipient of it has a license to copy it).

Removing the text does not change or eliminate the license; it just keeps people from being aware of it. The author of open source code wants all recipients to know they have his permission to copy it, hence he sets as a condition of copying the code that the copier copy it with the license text intact.

(I think in the BSD case, the author also wants to make sure every recipient of the code knows that the author disclaims liability for any mistakes he made in the code).

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

amikins — 2007-09-07T17:29:11+00:00

The entire BSD tree is already compatible with the GPL. Licensing isn't the issue in BSD -> Linux code migration. Earlier on, the point was to try to craft something new and make it work well. Later on, Linux was sufficiently diverged from BSD that the amount of code that could be made common was limited. This divergence only increases with time.

This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right

proski — 2007-09-07T05:48:37+00:00

My post was only about calling Linux developers "lame" and "selfish", which was, in my opinion, totally uncalled for. Such characterizations of Linux developers can only be based in their own actions, whereas your post shifts the focus towards BSD developers.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

amikins — 2007-09-06T16:22:12+00:00

If you look at the cited text from Theo, he's specifically discussing dual-licensing. There was quite an extensive argument about it between him and Alan Cox.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

amikins — 2007-09-06T14:34:33+00:00

I'm a little baffled at how there can be a question if something is morally right when someone explicitly granted permission to do it. This isn't just a legality point.

If the author of a work wants people to be able to do something with it, and makes it clear that's their intent, where is the fault in taking them up on the offer?

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

nofutureuk — 2007-09-06T14:19:07+00:00

As I said, my concern isn't so much about what was legal in this case, but more about what would be morally right (and feasible in the long run). So yes, I have *not* acknowledged anything about legality, because I am not a lawyer and I will try to avoid joining a legality discussion for the same reason.

It should also be noted that when I say "people" or "parties", I do not mean the exact people or parties involved in this case, but I was talking in general terms. Or did I start accusing the author of that patch or the author of the driver? If so, I must apologize.

It seems to be really hard to discuss culture these days, with people always bunkering behind laws. strange.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

amikins — 2007-09-06T13:56:29+00:00

>I didn't say asking wasn't an option. But we are discussing a scenario where exactly the step of *asking* was left out. Asking applies to both parties.

What Dag has been trying to point out, and so far it doesn't look like you've acknowledged, is that the author of the dual-licensed code chose the particular wording of his dual-licensed code to give permission for the code to become GPL-only.

Asking wasn't needed, because the author had already said it was okay. This was again confirmed later by the author on LKML.

This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right

jschrod — 2007-09-06T09:50:05+00:00

But the original author stated his intent that it is choose and pick. (And the FreeBSD folks did so, too.) And in law, intent counts a lot.

That said, I also think that Linux changes to the drivers should be licensed BSD+GPL, in respect for the original authors' work. It's not a legal thing, it's a moral obligation, IMHO.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

lysse — 2007-09-06T08:43:58+00:00

What happened is very simply explained if one assumes that Theo initially thought that the code in question was not dual-licensed, but only BSD-licensed. As usual it got lost in the noise, but his earliest statements said as much. And his argument - that the terms of the BSD licence absolutely forbid removing the text, and anyone so doing would lose any of their BSDL-granted rights - would be perfectly correct for code which was originally only available under a BSD licence.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

ekj — 2007-09-06T07:45:32+00:00

In general yes.

But in this particular case, BSD+GPL, it has to be "take your pick", because the only alternative would be GPL-only. I'll explain.

If you aren't allowed to "take your pick", but are required to honour each and every term in *both* licenses, then it follows that not just every BSD-term must be followed, but also every GPL-term.

Everything that is allowed with a GPL-licenced program is however *also* allowed with a BSD-licenced one. But not vice-versa.

In other words, if you *pretend* that a BSD-licenced program is really GPL, you're still adhering to each and every term of the BSD-licence.

If on the other hand you pretend that a GPL-licenced program is really BSD, you're breaking quite a few terms of the GPL, namely those that require that you give changes back under the same terms when you redistribute.

This is one of the rare occasions where I think Theo is right

ekj — 2007-09-06T07:38:43+00:00

Sure. But there is one legitimate point coming from the BSD-camp.

Linux benefited by being allowed to copy their code.

If we then later find bugs in the same code, or make improvements to it, it would be nice of us to share those improvements and bugfixes with the BSD-people. Which means allowing those improvements to be distributed under the BSD-licence.

Currently, the code from BSD is BSD/GPL, but any improvements we add along the way, will be GPL. Which means the BSD-people aren't free to grab the improvements back.

The BSD-licence explicitly allows these kinds of things though, the major difference between GPL and BSD is precisely the fact that with GPL you need to publish your improved version under the same licence (if you distribute it anyway) while with BSD-code that is not a legal requirement.

The fact that it's not a legal requirement does however not mean it ain't the rigth thing to do.

It would be nice if anyone making bugfixes and/or improvements to this driver would explicitly licence those bugfixes/improvements under BSD+GPL, so that the BSD-people *would* be free to grab the improvements back.

I second other commenters though: If developers don't like the idea that others may take their code and then refuse to contribute improvements back, they'd be well-adviced to choose a licence that doesn't permit precisely that.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

mitchskin — 2007-09-06T05:27:00+00:00

It is a rare day in which Theo declares brotherhood with the Linux community.

lol, nicely done.

GPL modules for a differently licensed OS'

madscientist — 2007-09-06T01:27:24+00:00

No, of course the GPL doesn't say anything about RAM, virtual or otherwise. I'm just trying to make concrete the various statements about applicability of the GPL that I've seen FSF folks make over time. As you so eloquently show, this is essentially impossible when it comes to technology--which is very likely why they have learned to never do it! Now I've learned that lesson as well :-). I think we'll just have to go with Justice Potter Stewart's definition: "I know it when I see it". Personally I think it's fairly clear what the FSF intends to be covered, and they obviously feel that the GPL enforces that intent. Since we have no judicial decisions, that's the best we can do.

Although you are certainly correct that the expressed opinions of RMS and Linus will have little effect on what a judge may eventually decide, their opinions are actually of critical importance, in this way: it's impossible for a judge to decide anything about the GPL until a case arrives in her courtroom, and it's impossible for a case to arrive until and unless someone with standing brings it. In the case of RMS the situation is extraordinarily clear: the FSF holds sole copyright to ALL GNU programs, and so it's essentially completely up to RMS to bring that case. So what he thinks about what people are doing with GNU software is the single most important factor. Linus doesn't hold sole copyright to the kernel; however it seems highly unlikely to me that a case involving Linux could go anywhere without his agreement, practically speaking.

I do agree we should get back to coding, though. Much more satisfying!

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

proski — 2007-09-06T01:00:31+00:00

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's just not worth the trouble to replace any deep Linux internals with the BSD code, even if the BSD code is better. Even in the case of drivers it's only the code dealing with the hardware that is going to be shared.

Actually, I think that the drivers are more likely to be dual licensed because it's unlikely that they will be closed sourced. What company would need to close source of the Atheros driver? On the other hand, more generic code will likely stay under GPL only because the risk of closing it would be higher if it were dual-licensed.

GPL modules for a differently licensed OS'

and — 2007-09-06T00:09:43+00:00

ok, this seems to be a kind of a PHD problem for a law stundent with a
strong computer science background *g*. I'm perfectly aware of the spirit
of the GPL (which I would think is opposed to doing such a thing), though
I'm not sure what the word says. Even if the GPL says something about
the "virtual" ram image, what is that in the first place? Does shared
memory between kernel mode code and user space code constitute an image?
How about architectures which don't sport an MMU like the ones ulinux is
targeting at? (This would have the interesting implication that it would
depend on the processor of whether it is possible to distribute a GPL user
space program with non-GPL kernels and vince-versa, but it would be OK to
ship the GPL user space code for a MMU-enabled platform and compile it
yourself for the MMU-less.) So I think it's basically impossible to
define "derived from" in any meaningful technical sense, except "if code A
can run without requiring code B then A is not a derivative". Also all
definitions are mood if someone writes some kind of minimal GPL kernel
capable of loading the unmodified GPLed modules and shipping it
as "unrelated" software on the same medium...

Also I've got some doubts whether the expressed opinions of Linus and RMS
about the GPL have any relevance legally, especially for code they don't
hold the copyright for. In any case, issues like that make me glad being a
computer scientist and not a lawyer; let's go back coding ;)

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

bojan — 2007-09-05T22:14:19+00:00

Yeah, nice try, but not quite :-)

The goal of the GPL (any version) is to preserve software freedoms, as defined here:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

I'm not going to go into "which is better" here, but it is clear to anyone that by licensing under a permissive licence, some of the freedoms can vanish in due course of (binary-only) redistribution. In other words, they are not guaranteed to be preserved using such a licence. Hence the GPL.

GPL modules for a differently licensed OS'

madscientist — 2007-09-05T19:55:16+00:00

Yes, I see your point. I think the answer is that as long as you only ship the OS, then you're fine because the entirety of the OS doesn't contain any (is not derived from) GPL'd code. However, you would not be able to distribute both together because the combined work would contain GPL'd code. Then the question becomes, what if you get the GPL'd driver from somewhere else, not from the OS vendor? Then they OS vendor is not distributing GPL'd code, and the GPL ONLY deals with distribution, not use: you can use GPL'd code any way you want personally without any requirements. The answer here depends on the license the OS was under: if the license was not compatible with the GPL then the answer probably is that whomever distributed the driver to you was doing something illegal, because the driver is a derived work of the OS (even if they weren't shipped together) and there's no way to distribute code that satisfies both licenses. If the OS was under a GPL-compatible license such as the BSD license, then I don't see any problem with that. BUT, I don't think it can be provided as a standard part of the base OS, without the entire thing coming under the GPL. However, like you, IANAL.

As for your other points: first, I was careful to say the _virtual_ runtime image; I don't think the FSF is speaking of physical memory here. If they were then, ultimately, all software shares physical memory. And in this way, I don't think the kernel's license will impact the licensing of the program the kernel runs, because the kernel is not in the virtual image; it just has access to it. So I don't think the fact that the kernel manages the program's memory is a problem.

Of course, almost every possible program WILL interact with the kernel, through kernel system calls. It could be argued that because of this, every user space program is derived from the kernel. However, regardless of whether you think this is reasonable or not, Linus has made it moot as he has explicitly stated that he doesn't believe that using the user space system call interface brings software under the GPL.

In fact, it is even possible to create kernel modules, that run in kernel space, with licenses that are not compatible with the GPL. There is a certain set of module API interfaces which are explicitly marked as being able to be used this way. Here we get REALLY murky because not even all Linux kernel devs, as far as I've seen, really agree on exactly what this means and how it works.

Then what's the point of dual licensing?

mrshiny — 2007-09-05T19:02:25+00:00

If it's unethical to release changes to a dual-licensed file using only one license, what's the point of HAVING a dual-license in the first place? Seems to me the original author is saying "Take your pick", not creating some super-license that contains all the terms of the individual licenses. And IANAL but as far as I'm concerned if a file is available under two licenses you can use the privileges of one license to strip away the other license. The original code would still be dual-licensed but your modified version would be under whichever license you chose.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

evgeny — 2007-09-05T18:10:43+00:00

> The "major part" would consist of drivers for some hardware

Why? Do you say that if, hypothetically, the entire BSD tree becomes compatible with GPL, there is nothing worth to be used in the Linux kernel except an occasional hardware driver here and there?

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

nofutureuk — 2007-09-05T17:49:45+00:00

You say that it is logically/ethically the correct decision that you contribute changes to someone else's codebase. If I would expect that, I would put that requirement in the license (ie. choose GPL).

I said before that forcing other people into adopting ones ethical view-point in legal terms, is something that can be avoided. There is a difference between ethics and law.

However, you then say that you choose the BSD license so that you can reuse the same stuff you wrote at work. Now, the stuff you write yourself is never the problem, even with GPL you are the copyright owner and you can do what you like.

Right, my example is wrong. Sorry ;-)

So you prefer that other people use the BSD license so one has the liberty to use their code at one's company, modify it, distribute it without the requirement that any changes have to go back.

Ok, consider I publish code with GPL license and somebody sends me a patch to fix/enhance something. Will I be allowed to re-use that patch in a closed environment in my company? I mean, open-sourcing your own code is about solving a problem you have and hoping that others have the same problem and therefore they will hopefully help minimize your own work. It really is about being lazy in the first place (at least to me, that again is not something I would want to push on others).

I don't denounce people using the liberty of re-using code, but I denounce people saying that the BSD people should shut up when they feel ripped off. I also denounce people who replace licenses without agreement (although in this case, it was probably right, but I said "people").
Also, I see there is competition, yes, but that's just fine. Competition always helps improve the overall result.

At work, one is not allowed to relicense the source-code. That is not a liberty unless agreed with all parties.

In general terms, having conflicting expectations is perfectly normal. It really depends on the context. You cannot have absolute expectations in a world full of relativity.

My point is that other people are falling back into lame "legality" discussions, whereas this whole topic factually is much more about the very reasons of existence of open-source software and liberal licensing schemes:

Why does one open-source code (not hide it)?
Why does one allow others to re-use it?
... etc.

Also note that everybody's perception certainly has an influence on what we see happen and what we don't see happen. I mean, I am not reading LKML on any sort of regular basis... so I want to make sure that my concern is not at all about Linux people or all GPL people, but pure and only about those people that try to re-use these kind of moments (the patch above) to push their propaganda for the "right" license. That's something that does not help anyone.

dag- you definitely have some good points. thx for your input

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

dag- — 2007-09-05T17:39:55+00:00

Well, then I think your perception is influenced by the fact that most response is to the way the OpenBSD handles their communication. If you read the threads on LKML, you can clearly see that the developers are concerned about working together with upstream.

The problem in this and previous incident is the communication (read: lack of diplomacy) and the disproportion of action and reaction. How you perceive the communities comes out of that and your personal interest, I guess. I haven't seen anyone blame the BSD, nor have I seen GPL zealots in these discussions. I don't think that has been the core of the argument.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

dag- — 2007-09-05T17:30:26+00:00

I didn't say asking wasn't an option. But we are discussing a scenario where exactly the step of *asking* was left out. Asking applies to both parties.

It specifically and intentionally allowed it, it had a dual-license.

Not everybody wants to enforce his own ethical views on others. What I find offensive is that a lot of people seem to attack the BSD people in a situation where BSD-code was relicensed to a more restricted license. That's really odd.

I definitely think you should reread all articles and threads before continuing this discussion. Including the normal discussion on the mailinglist after the patch was send, Theo's abusive emails, the OpenBSD incident and again Theo's abusive emails.

A convincing argument is that Theo has been so loud because the previous OpenBSD incident backfired and he wanted to get even. The subject was badly chosen as it was a patch send to a public mailinglist and not an approved change in the VCS. Disproportional, untasteful and an incentive for wide reaction.

I like openssh and probably use other things that have been contributed by the OpenBSD community, but that doesn't give Theo the right to act the way he does. As you said, communication works both ways and there needs to be goodwill from both sides. Theo just adds fuel to a candle.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

nofutureuk — 2007-09-05T17:13:22+00:00

Have you not read the above article ? Are we talking about the same incident ? What is so hard to understand in the following piece of the dual-license: ...

Yes you are right. But I really want to emphazise on culture rather than the legality of this single patch for this driver.
Also I am unsure (and uninformed) about what other communication went on between the developers in this case. I do not want to investigate the exact happenings with this case, but point people to the fact that not the BSD licensing scheme is to blame, but the way people tend to be overzealous with pretending to know what the "right" license is for others and/or denouncing people expressing their expectations/wishes.
I am simply saddened when I see GPL zealots BLAMING BSD developers for expressing their feelings/expectations about code-sharing.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

dag- — 2007-09-05T16:59:59+00:00

Have you not read the above article ? Are we talking about the same incident ? What is so hard to understand in the following piece of the dual-license:

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.

This is about distributing with a different license, which is what re-licensing really is.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

dag- — 2007-09-05T16:53:24+00:00

... there are many reasons for choosing a license none will match the exact ethical expectations, which is why I often chose BSD or MIT license, because I want to able to re-use my own stuff at work, while still allowing it to be used by GPL people. GPL people are not that liberal, they are simply very often overzealous.

I find your logic and conclusion/opinion very concerning.

You say that it is logically/ethically the correct decision that you contribute changes to someone else's codebase. If I would expect that, I would put that requirement in the license (ie. choose GPL).

However, you then say that you choose the BSD license so that you can reuse the same stuff you wrote at work. Now, the stuff you write yourself is never the problem, even with GPL you are the copyright owner and you can do what you like.

So the problem is using someone else's 'stuff' at work, right ? So you prefer that other people use the BSD license so one has the liberty to use their code at one's company, modify it, distribute it without the requirement that any changes have to go back. Even when that is the most ethical behaviour, there is no requirement to do so and this liberty is why the BSD license is more liberal.

The liberty you see in the BSD license is exactly what you denounce when you *see* someone use that liberty. And the ethical behaviour you expect goes only so far as you can see, companies do it behind doors and you don't mind, in fact you celebrate the same liberty ! Why can't Open Source people not use that same liberty you use at work ?

The only reason I can see for this different behaviour against the Linux community and the proprietary corporations, is that you see the Linux community as real competition for your project, while the corporate interest (and non-contribution) does not directly compete within the larger Open Source development community.

And I am not saying you don't have the right to choose what license you choose for your own code, not at all. I find it concerning that you have conflicting expectations for other Open Source communities and corporations. What is good for the goose is apparently not good enough for the gander.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

proski — 2007-09-05T16:40:59+00:00

The "major part" would consist of drivers for some hardware, mostly obsolete by then. Why would any company need to close a driver for a 802.11g card once 802.11n is a mature standard? And for that matter, why would that company base its business on a reverse engineered driver instead of buying the software and the documentation from the chipset manufacturer?

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

nofutureuk — 2007-09-05T16:03:39+00:00

I am not a lawyer, but I am not sure that re-licensing without explicit permission is allowed. The license is intended to allow code-reuse, not license replacement.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

dag- — 2007-09-05T15:59:04+00:00

Taking out a license, and replacing it with a more restrictive one is the provocation here I think. but hey...

How can it be a provocation when the license specifically and intentionally allowed to do that ?