Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 5, 2007 15:44 UTC (Wed) by nofutureuk (subscriber, #3116)
In reply to: Relicensing: what's legal and what's right by jmtapio
Parent article: Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Yes they can. There are only a handful of wireless developers around. No matter what license the Linux driver has been placed under, it really should not be too difficult to just send occasionally an email to the author of interesting fixes and ask "Hey, could we distribute that fix of yours with the BSD license on OpenBSD?" If there is a real "brotherhood", I would expect most developers to say yes to a request like that. And if there is a good spirit of cooperation, some developers might even offer fixes to both projects with their specific licenses even without asking.

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 I don't understand in this odd flamefest is that BSD developers do not trust that the GPL developers would give back if the BSD license is not explicitly kept with the files (as if the BSD license would make people give back anyways).

There is no odd flamefest, just a lot of overzealous people talking about legality instead of culture. As I said, even legal actions can be morally bad.

What I find offensive is that some BSD people seem to have a double standards when comparing GPL and proprietary derivatives. I hope that it is just an illusion, but that is still the way how many bystanders are seeing this situation. I can understand that BSD people do not want to enforce legally certain expectations, but it would be nice if the "ethical" expectations would not discriminate people based on the license.

Yes, I think the BSD license has sort of a double standard, but that's fine. I don't see any reason why one should not be open to that, unless being overzealous or super-fanatic on one license. Each license out there has a reason for existing.
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.

to post comments

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 5, 2007 17:30 UTC (Wed) by dag- (guest, #30207) [Link]

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

Posted Sep 6, 2007 13:56 UTC (Thu) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link] (2 responses)

>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.

Relicensing: what's legal and what's right

Posted Sep 6, 2007 14:19 UTC (Thu) by nofutureuk (subscriber, #3116) [Link] (1 responses)

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

Posted Sep 6, 2007 14:34 UTC (Thu) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link]

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?