Slashdot Mirror
GPL Code Found In OpenBSD Wireless Driver
NormalVisual writes "The mailing lists were buzzing recently when Michael Buesch, one of the maintainers for the GPL'd bc43xx Broadcom wireless chip driver project, called the OpenBSD folks to task for apparently including code without permission from his project in the OpenBSD bcw project, which aims to provide functionality with Broadcom wireless chips under that OS. It seems that the problem has been resolved for now with the BSD driver author totally giving up on the project and Theo De Raadt taking the position that Buesch's posts on the subject were 'inhuman.'" More commentary from the BSD community is over at undeadly.org.
The whole thing lasted two days, much less than the blog and news coverage. Someone will come along and write this driver for BSD, and the BSD developer will have some well-deserved cooling-off time.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireles s.general/1558
"Wow, that's a hell of a long cc list for a request for a fair
resolution. the last 3 lines are mellow, but the body before that was
not very nice."
As if misappropriating source code is "nice"...
"We always try to make our stuff as clean as possible too."
Obviously, not "always".
The copying - if it was extensive as claimed - was hardly inadvertent. So Buesch has a complete right to be pissed about his code being stolen.
And the BSD folks are whining about him being pissed.
Meh.
One should never expect him to see the other side of an issue.
And by the way, first post :-) . OK, I'm a subscriber, I guess that's cheating.
Here is the Technocrat.net discussion of the same issue.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
His team were caught red-handed, and had the gall to blame the people who got ripped. He doesn't even seem to get copyright, saying there was no infringement because the driver wasn't yet ready for general use is beyond moronic.
Oh come off it, GPL guys.
Broadcom taking advantage of the bcm43xx code? I don't think so.
bcm43xx team Reverse Engineered the spec. Broadcom, on the other hand designed the damn thing. So, they have paid software engineers, and those guys can probably talk to the hardware engineers, etc.
How any code from a reverse engineered spec that blatantly just guesses at a lot of things is better than something written with the docs is far beyond me.
Michael Busch's whole argument that they GPL'ed the damn thing because they didn't want Broadcom to take advantage of their work is BS. They have different motives here. Even if they licensed their bcm43xx work as BSD, Broadcom would not even look at it for inclusion. So I don't know what the bcm43xx developers have their panties up in a wad about. They just wanted to make a fuss.
I thought that open source was about sharing code.
Global warming is a cube.
Fast on the heels of Ballmer's tantrums and chair throwing, the BSD community was today wracked again by the borderline personality disorders and rageaholics that permeate the open source movement. Theo De Raadt, founder of the Open BSD Brigade, in an apparent fit of anger, threw his fist through a wall as he was cussing out an acolyte of Chairman Richard Stallman, leader of the competing marxist organization, the Free Stalin Foundation.
Hans Reiser, an open source maven who murdered his wife in cold blood, commented from prison that open source programmers had no abnormal personality problems, and were all "very smart people, very intelligent." Eric Raymon, fresh from a trip to the Paul Revere Institute Convention and Bondage Festival in Las Vegas, echoed these comments: "What the world doesn't understand, is that we are geniuses. There is nothing wrong with using strong language to intimidate idiotarians and freedom hating anti-gun liberazis".
Steve Jobs, emerging from a meditation chamber in his northern california home, opined that "he would fire half his open source staff" that night, as they had failed to properly implement a bitwise portrait of the mona lisa on the back of the motherboard for the new Apple Yojimbo motherboard family, slated to debut this fall.
The BeOS developers, currently washing dishes at a Sacramento Olive Garden, had the following comments: "Yeah, we are kinda bummed that we lost all that money. But frankly, I'm kind of glad to be done with those freaks. Apple, Microsoft, Lunix, what a bunch of creeps and sociopaths."
Echoed his boss "Johnny called in sick so I need you to work late tonight, is that OK?"
--
(parts of this story were contributed by James Gandalfini)
Deanna (I think it was Deanna anyway, based on the contributed by) overreacted to the email. The only thing unreasonable about the email that I saw was the wide distribution. The initial email from Michael Buesch, IMHO, should have gone to the comitter and the OpenBSD core team...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
As usual, the zealots jump to conclusions without reading everything.
The driver is deleted. Issue resolved. The point that Theo and gang are upset about is that Michael decided to take this whole thing public first, without even trying to contact Marcus first privately and asking "hey, what's up with this code in here? Can we resolve this?". Instead, Micheal threw Marcus to the zealot wolves.
That was wrong, and yes, inhuman. Theo complained about the handling of the issue, not the issue itself which was immediately resolved.
Theo even admitted that keeping the code in cvs was a mistake, and that it was a serious issue. The mistake being that Marcus left some GPL'd stub code in there that he fully meant to re-write. That was corrected by deleting the code. Case closed.
Please, get the facts straight. Just because Theo can be difficult to work with at times, doesn't give all you zealots a right to assume that this is always the case and that he is an unfair, asshole. In general he stands up more for open source rights than most of you other GPL zealots. And the OpenBSD project is more true to its goals and values than any linux distribution, by far. It's OK for linux distributions and gpl programmers to sign NDAs with companies like intel, broadcomm, to write a driver. But boy, when one of their own makes a mistake, lets drag him through the mud!
Childish. There are bigger battles to be fought, and this is a waste of energy.
Starting with a source code A and morphing it into B over time pretty much makes B a derivative work of A. Buesch has a right to be pissed - your defense is that the BSD folks were deriving their driver from GPL code.
Wriggle out of that, asshat.
And if the code wasn't released, how'd Buesch get it?
You called me a moron? Calling you brainless would be an insult to an anencephalic baboon.
...is how you can scroll down past the cascade of de Raadt nonsense and find an actual reasonable response from the bcw maintainer himself!
Unfortunately, with so much noise coming from de Raadt, the only thing most people are going to see are his ridiculous responses.
I'm sure someone else has drawn this line before, but he reminds me of the OpenBSD mascot. Like a blowfish, he fills up with (hot) air when threatened and is very defensive.
If you read through the email conversation, you'll see a VERY diplomatic initial message from Michael, a straw-man attack from Theo ("Do you feel that Marcus should give up his efforts?"), a VERY reasonable response ("No, he should _not_ give up. The opposite is true. He should start to contact us to get relicensing permission from us to speed up bcw development and stay legal") and then profanity and rage from Theo.
The slashdot post, the weblog entry, and Theo's comments are all ad hominem, and baseless ad hominem at that- the core issue here is that GPL code was taken in violation of its license. The owner of the code contacted and admittedly large number of people, publicly, about it. It is hardly out of line given Theo's well-known grandstanding full of rhetoric (hardware drivers for OpenBSD come to mind.)
Michael pointed out the violation and asked the developer/OpenBSD people to contact him to work out relicensing the code. Instead, Theo attacked him relentlessly and repeatedly. After the first 6 posts between Theo and Michael, I felt sick and stopped reading.
Please help metamoderate.
I think the crux here is grabbing GPL code untouched and using it *unannounced*in a BSD licence that allows anybody to distribute (i.e. just use it in binary releases).
I have read all the threads on the OBSD lists.
Without question, the Linux developer did not need to cc the whole word when first making his inquiry -- he should have contacted them in private. I would also suspect that the BSD developer was just using the Linux code as a drop-in replacement for the time being until he rewrote it with a BSD license. I do not believe the BSD developer was trying to steal anything or take credit for something he did not develop. He made a mistake, for sure, but I do not believe there was any ill will on his part.
However, the biggest story in all of this is just how freaking childish Theo is. I cannot for the life of me figure this guy out. He kills his own cause and make OBSD look like a playground for schoolyard bullies. Imagine how much better he and OBSD would have looked if they had responded to the initial mailing list post with something like: "Hey, we would have appreciated it if you had contacted us privately. In any event, we are quite confident there was no intent to take GPL code in violation of the license. However, we will discuss this, decide the appropriate remedy, and respond to you privately. Thank you for bringing this to our attention."
Matter solved, no drama. But Theo has to open his big fat mouth. Theo: it's called taking the high road, even if you didn't start it. Try it sometime.
Besides, Theo himself cross-posts to other lists all the time to incite flame wars. Just look at last month's FreeBSD-advocacy list -- he cross posted during a thread about the use of his dear Puffy on an anti-blob poster. Pot, meet kettle.
The crux of Theo's complaint seems to be that they "went public" by emailing too many people. When some of the people in on the email pointed out that they were the ones that actually did the hard work of reverse-engineering, Theo said:
Wow. Just, wow. I often agree with Theo even when he's being a knob because he's usually got a point. But in this case, he's been embarrassed, and he is using whatever he can think of as an incredibly flimsy excuse to attack the people whom the OpenBSD developer plagiarised. What a childish, unproductive attitude. Pulling the code and giving up on the driver instead of taking them up on their offer to relicense the code is cutting off your nose to spite your face, and worse for your users. Just take your ball and go home, Theo.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
undeadly == OpenBSD community
- Hubert
OpenBSD ?= free
GPL ?= free
So who the hell cares and why is this a problem?
I made the following comments at the OpenBSD Journal, but I think they are valid and should be heard amongst the Linux zealotry.
None of these facts are relevant to the discussion. The sole issue is that Michael Buesch made a public spectacle out of Marcus' mistake. It should have been addressed privately between developers, and then broadcast publicly if discussions were unsuccessful. Regardless of whether you believe Marcus' actions were a mistake or a theft, you must give someone with his track record the benefit of the doubt. By embarrassing him publicly, Michael destroyed Marcus' motivation to work in bcw(4) and benefit the non-GPL user communities.
Even Jeff Garzik, one of the bcm43xx developers, admitted that Michael's actions were wrong. It's unfortunate that Michael Beusch is more concerned about defending his actions than correcting the injustice.
Copying code without permission is the worst possible offense in open source land. His righteous indignation is absolutely justified. The appropriate response is "Our deepest and most sincere apologies. The code has been removed. Thank you for deciding not to seek any further retribution."
Arguing over not being nice about calling out this offense is cowardly and sociopathic. e.g. playing politics.
I don't think I've ever seen the GPL mentioned on undeadly without being followed by the word zealots. Some moron even posted about how his respect for RMS after this debacle, as if he had anything to do with it.
I guess it's just sour grapes. After all, their little pet OS is pretty much an 70s technological backwater with an userbase about as big as that of AmigaOS.
I've been using ndiswrapper with my BCM4306 802.11b/g device since before bcm43xx was useable on linux. Getting the bcm43xx driver to work involves firmware cutting and some other low level tricks I'd rather not do. I've never used a BSD and would never touch Theo's distro with a 99ft pole but I recommend using ndiswrapper for users who would like to use BSD and have a BCM wireless device.
I guess the whole point of this (without RTFA or even the posts, in fact just the /. comments) is that developers are still only human?
FLR
But he did not copy the code. Rather it was just similiar. Hmmm this kind of reminds me of a certain anti linux company in Utah doing bogus lawsuits agaisnt IBM
http://saveie6.com/
Because that's what the driver developer intended - take the GPL driver, and modify it over time to hide it's origins. That might not be what the stated intent was, but that's the actual effect. That's copyright infringement because the final driver would be a derivative work of the original GPL code.
Of course, IANAL, so take that for what it's worth.
But there's a reason why there are such things as "cleanroom" implementations. This certainly wasn't going to be one of those.
But given Theo's response, I now wonder how much of that goes on in the BSD world. Seems as if Buesch cut pretty close to the bone there. "Methinks he doth protest too much" and all that implies seems to apply to Theo...
GPL does not allow someone to pick up the code and turn it into a closed source product.
BSD does. BSD code can be included into a GPL project, but the reverse is not true.
So the GPL product works hard to create a Broadcomm driver. The code gets included into a BSD driver. Broadcomm picks up the BSD driver and includes it into their closed source product. Broadcomm or some other company benefits from the GPL code and does not honor the orignal license.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
Say what?
Where is that determined?
Wah... What the hell? The author of some code contacts the OpenBSD to communicate that copyright was infringed upon. The OpenBSD guys explode in a series of "zealot" name calling. I guess I can see some sense in privately contacting the OpenBSD dev. But on the other hand, it's in the OpenBSD development tree. Probably it's a good idea to tell people that it shouldn't be there.
Reading the initial email, I can't find any hint of malice. Just expressing the facts and offering to provide a license for the code. If this mailing list blows up because of something so unbelievably trivial, it doesn't seem like a fun place to hang out in. It's just weird.
But something else bothers me about the response too. It seems like the people there are *upset* that the original person informed them of the copyright infringement. I mean, nobody denied it. Everyone seems to agree there was an infringement. It just seems that some of the OpenBSD people think that the Linux people are assholes for choosing to license their code under the GPL... And apparently it's even worse to ask people not to infringe on that license.
That's just bizarre... It kind of makes you wonder who the zealots are... Personally, I'm kind of neutral on the subject. I like the GPL in some instances, I like other licenses in other instances. But, I just can't quite wrap my head around BSD guys (of all people) taking such a strange stance...
Everyone else thinks he's an asshole. I'M KIDDING! lol.
Did you actually read the correspondence and look at the code?
Retard.
If my motive is to help free software, rather than give away my code, I can do so more effectively by putting the code under the GPL than BSD or Public Domain. This doesn't need rancour; just the observation that some of the free software that is out there is only there because of conditions of licence.
On top of that, there is an efficiency issue; encouraging speciation between free and proprietry software aids the market in selecting the more efficient mode of production, without being influenced by cross-subsidy (free software that is then used to help proprietry software).
Wikileaks, no DNS
Put it this way, if someone took Theo's code and relicensed it under their own license that they happen to prefer, which was against what Theo believes in, do you really think Theo of all people would be the kind of person who'd keep quiet about it?
I managed to catch front-row seats to the whole battle myself. Buesch (the Linux bcm43xx developer) posted a formal but not in any way harsh question to the BSD developer on the public bcm43xx list and to the BSD list. In any language, when communicating in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people, using more formal dialects is almost always the rule. Some people find the higher dialects offensive, but almost everyone appreciates the attempts to not sound like one of the local street punks hanging out around the corner at the strip mall trolling for some action.
Apparently the OpenBSD people were put off by this, which is unfortunate. And apparently they were so focused on making it yet another OpenBSD vs The World incident that they completely lost sight of the goal of both projects, which is to create Free and Open drivers for other people to use, despite the hardware specifications not being available. It's an unfortunate situation, of course.
Hopefully after everyone has a chance to reflect on the situation, the OpenBSD developers will realize that even though many other situations are actually OpenBSD vs The World, this is not one of them, and the Linux bcm-43xx team was not only willing to work with them on relicensing code, they also published the results of an incredible reverse engineering effort for anyone, including the OpenBSD team, to use in order to achieve this goal.
I only use quality, reliable, stable and durable hardware (Which by definition does not include wireless hardware or Broadcom products). So why should I care? Why does anyone care?
Even if it's not nice to say, it's absolutely true. Reading the whole thread through, I have no doubt as to the good faith of the original BCM driver developers in their original e-mail, and then Theo just tears into them on some sort of crusade, and refuses to respond politely even when others attempt to be polite with him.
I know I'll be dropping OpenBSD from my the list of OSes I'm willing to maintain, because I don't want to deal with an organization that has a person like this as its head.
-- sudo.ca
It was more than just similar, in fact the BSD developer agreed that it was infringing. Nor did Theo dispute that point (though he raised a different, irrelevant one).
Why did you read this? There is no text.
I'll admit it, I've done that very thing (copy some code in order to bootstrap a project). But I put all sorts of comments around tainted code, and I make damned sure that every single line of tainted code is rewritten before that code, or a product based on it, is released into the wild.
Theo and Marcus both come across as graceless and petulant children. At least Marcus decided to be childish quietly. Theo's ongoing rants about "the inhumanity" of it all just get hysterical after a few posts. Yes, the original email probably should have been more private. But the response from Theo is completely and utterly over the top.
Regards,
Ross
So, an open discussion of issues with publicly-accessible open-source development is a bad thing?
Sorry, I think I missed that memo. I'll be sure to use the new cover sheet next time.
Not only in this, but in thread in general Michael Buesch shows remarkable restraint. He is the one with a legitimate grievance and he is being insulted ad infinitum.
This is not a matter of GPL vs. BSD. It is a simple matter of breach of copyright. Everything else is bullshit.
But this type of thing might be. This sort of tactic could be used by commercial interests to get around the GPL. All they'd need to do is set up a BSD project, borrow some GPL code hoping no one will notice and then pull the BSD code into their commercial endeavor. Nearly plausible deniability after that.
1 - The code was committed (and I believe without malice)
2 - The GPL folks broadcast an email
3 - The OBSD folks get pissed
4 - Flame wars galore
5 - Dogs and cats living together!
6 - The whole community now looks at the whole thing and shakes their heads in wonderment
This is *not* the way open source is supposed to work.
Careful there. GPL leaners (ie. developers who prefer the GPL) do that kind of thing all the time. Sometimes they completely rewrite the source material, sometimes they don't. Additionally they take code that they call "compatibly licensed" and appropriate it into their own projects. Then distribute the whole thing with a file called "LICENSE" that says "This is under the GPL." Without ever mentioning that parts of the code are definitely not GPL.
That being said, Theo is a putz. And a wanker. This is the guy who shoots an email to some company and then if the sales team or support division don't mobilize and carry his request and advocate for him with the legal or corporate division, starts with the smear campaigns against the company. If they suggest that he pay a license fee to them he starts with the smear campaigns.
Finally, I'm not entirely sure what he's complaining about here. Somebody got their feelings hurt? Somebody is embarrassed? Maybe somebody shouldn't have stripped licenses from code they didn't write and check it into a publicly accessible, recommended, and advertised CVS repository?
If copying w/o permission is such a bad offense when it comes to open source, why are so many people who post on this site OK with it when it comes to music files? Isn't there a parallel argument to be made that if no property is lost when someone swaps a file, then nothing is lost if Broadcom incorporates community-developed code into its drivers?
Actually, I don't expect anyone here would see it that way.
Going public was the only way to make sure any tainted code would be caught. And even then it's not certain.
Why are you even trying to defend the practice of surreptitiously using GPL code to derive a product destined to be released under a non-GPL license? That's deliberate copyright violation. Buesch has every right to be royally and publicly pissed.
And the BSD folks are damn lucky his first response wasn't to go to a lawyer.
So, no, it doesn't appear Buesch has any ax to grind at all. All he did was shout "Thief!" as someone was running away with stolen goods.
And now people are pissed that one of their friends was caught as the thief so they're playing victim to the best of their abilities.
Somebody! Quick! Call the cops! Somebody stole my code and I can't use it anymore.
Well, I'm glad he didn't use the usual corporate approach then, which would be to send a C&D using the DMCA to force BSDs hosting partner to take them down, accompanied with an offer to settle for a few grand under threats of a $150,000 lawsuit. That would probably send Theo into cardiac arrest.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Insulting windows users just ain't any fun to us seasoned opensource users is it. It is like trying your wits against a duckling, one that has been run over and chewed on by the rats. Far better to cross daggers with a person of your own calibre, even if in the case of you BSD lovers it is an undead calibre.
But very well, I shall engage you on the battlefield, as long as you promise to stay down wind of me.
BSD is the thief and the thief does NOT get to complain about how the victim responds. If you break into my house I am not obliged to send you a polite letter first to ask you to please return my stuff, I send for the police, I do that publicaly and if they wake up everyone in your street and haul you out in front of your neightbours in your Steve Jobs underwear while they go about reclaiming my possesions then all the better.
The BSD people involved really should have known better then to do this. Contrary to what some people think both BSD and GPL people strongly believe in copyrights (what differs from closed source supporters is just how much control the author has over the user and/or further authors). You may not like either the GPL or BSD BUT for either to work they must respect the other.
Buesch might have done this in private BUT it is his decision and his decision and alone how to handle this. The offenders do not get to dictate how the victim voices his complaint. Theo should shut the fuck up, apologize for his and his team actions and be damned glad no formal complaint is being launched in the courts.
Just how much code is there in BSD anyway that is not there legally? Were there is smoke, there is fire.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The bcm43xx driver doesn't even work!
I really hope the GPL gets tried in court because of this and subsequently fails. Miserably.
Hm...I wonder what license Dijkstra released his algorithm under...
Consider that with software, when you share...the original is still there for everyone to use. The GPL is equally as greedy as closed-source because it forces restrictions on the user. It's just trying to drive closed-source out of business by locking everyone into open-source. Either your program is free, or you can't use GPL code.
It is a beautiful thing that humans are willing to give up their time and energy to make something that they let the world use for free. Corporations, unfortunately, are driven by the dollar.
If you are truly interested in the forward progress of computer science and the benefits to humanity, then you would choose for your creations a license which allows derivative works of any type, commercial or free. Your creation, then, can be used by anyone, forever, whether this anyone intends to write a free program, or is a code monkey developing for some corporation.
:(){
Disputes over licenses...shooting ourselves in the foot...just like the "grown-ups". Meh! Pitiful!
What?
My thoughts exactly. When I read that they intended to replace the code over time, my first thought was that the code would still be a derived work, and thus still be subject to the GPL, even if none of the original code remained.
The OpenBSD people WERE offered alternate licensing. The Linux folk were (rightly) miffed that their code was pinched without permission.
That is a HUGE difference. I am perfectly willing to give you ride somewhere. I am not going to give you my car.
It says it all that Microsoft LIKES bsd style opensource. Hell it is a public secret that windows for a long time contained BSD code in its network stack. MS doesn't have a problem at all with BSD style opensource since it can take all it wants and give nothing back. The GPL doesn't allow that. The GPL is about sharing.
I share with you, so you have to share with me. If I give you a ride it is sorta understood that you will give me a ride someday, or at least to someone else someday.
Both BSD and GPL have their nobelity. In think with BSD it is supposed to be, we want the world to use quality software and have it available and if that means others can take our work and never ever give anything of their own so be it. BSD is willing to do all the work.
Very noble, but most people don't work that way.
In this case, the broadcom GPL drivers have extra capabilities, if BSD had written them then broadcom would have been able to use that in their own drivers, without offcourse at anytime opening up any of their own stuff. BSD would have done their work for free. BSD don't mind, they see it as their cause, to improve software this way. Perhaps windows users the world over are thankfull to BSD for MS Windows wonderfull network code. Perhaps. If windows users ever knew about it.
The GPL works very different. What happens in GPL, stays in GPL. If you want to use GPL software you gotta GPL what you add to it. So broadcom can use the GPL drivers and their extra capabilities BUT only if they gpl the stuff they add themselves.
I will give you ride BUT only if you give me a ride tomorrow.
GPL is for older people, ones who know that in this world there are people who will NEVER buy their round, who never offer rides, who are always on holiday when it is someone elses turn to move.
Oh and opensource means nothing. Just because the source is open does NOT mean you can share it. After all a book is opensource but just you try to share the latest harry potter.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Similar? Here's a comment from the BSD driver:
/* XXX bcm43xx_voluntary_preempt() ? */
So, since when has OpenBSD had something called voluntary_preempt just like Linux? If you were just reimplementing similar code, why copy a line that would never be useful?
It seems clear the devolper copied the code, and was reimplementing it in parts, which is questionable even after all the parts have been replaced. That is because it could be argued that the code is a derived work. As a mental exercise, imaging doing this with code lifted from a commercial vendor; How would they respond? Probably the first you'd hear of it would be a lawsuit.
In a perfect world you would have a valid point. This is the real world where established corporations feel no moral qualms about stealing and sealing away free software, which might possibly affect their profit margin, using any number of tactical legal avenues. While BSD may be more free GPL is a more practical implementation of free for the real world.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
This left me to think that when Theo commits social gaffes, it is not his fault and he can't help himself. We all have our lacks, issues, and strengths.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this. The way Mr. de Raadt treats other human beings is simply abusive, and there is no external factor than can explain his behavior in any fashion that would justify coddling it. Unless you are seriously willing to argue that the man is not, in a legal sense, mentally competent, then it is most certainly a problem that lies at his feet, and we should take no pity on him for it. To do otherwise is to suggest that he isn't, frankly, sane.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Is there any history behind this? Could the decision to take the initial notice public have been based on past examples, possibly occurring between the team you worked on and the oBSD team, of similar situations?
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Theo telling somebody else to watch what they say and to whom they say it? Maybe when he learns to take his own advice he'll be less of a joke.
Game... blouses.
GPL: I buy everyone a round because the license of the bar says that everyone else will also buy a round when it is their turn.
BSD: I buy everyone a round because hell, I am just a nice guy and I want everyone to have a beer even if that means I will end up paying for all the beer being drunk.
Closed source company: Hell, I like you BSD, keep them coming.Eh, my round? I left my wallet at home, say BSD, how about a napeleon brandy mate?
BSD: Sure, we are all mates.
GPL: You are an idiot BSD. But hey, make mine a double.
Get it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Is written specifically and deliberately to block inclusion in GPL works, why should the GPL community make any concessions for the BSD community?
Apparently there's stuff in the Linux drivers that is not in the proprietary ones, though I do not know what that is, or what functionality it provides - so yes, it's a very valid concern.
OH
That was so smooth. Good show.
Starting with a source code A and morphing it into B over time pretty much makes B a derivative work of A.....Wriggle out of that, asshat.
That would make Linux nothing more than a copy of Minix. Or when GNU/Linux was using parts of the FreeBSD network stack nothing more than a copy?
I agree with you.
And as to my subject. GAH! What a moronic non-argument.
Instead of saying "I don't like you method but yeah, you're right." he sits there and tries to verbally strip the humanity from Michael.
Why?
Because it's MUCH easier to hate someone and steal what is theirs when they're not human. They don't, then, have the same rights or privileges as as "us real humans".
Yet again, a major figure in the free software movement making a complete and utter jackass spectacle of himself in public.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
This is a problem of the FOSS community turning on itself. If there was a GPL violation, the proper thing to do is own up to it and seek a re-license, which is what the owner of the GPL'd code wanted.
I am still reading the whole Gmain thread, and am quite shocked by Theo's comments. I agree with another fellow who said that FOSS wireless driver development teams should work closely together to ensure the proprietary world doesn't overwhelm the effort. But, I digress . . .
The core issue is whether the BCW developer copied GPL'd code, which the holder of the GPL copyright asserts. Plenty of clean examples were given, and the ability to investigate the entire tree for both sets of code makes it a quick search issue. Much better than the SCO/M$ v. IBM suit. Theo's response to the allegation is immature at least:
1. Ad hominem attacks: calling Mike inhuman and attacking him for making the issue public.
2. Irrelevant: saying that the bcw code does not work so there's no copyright issue. Copyright speaks to content, not functionality.
3. It was an accident: Claiming the bcw "accidentally" copied GPL'd code. How can you accidentally copy entire blocks of code?
4. That the code copy was temporary scaffolding: which counters #3, above. You can't claim the code copy was an accident or unintentional then say the copy was intentional for a short period of time. Theo says the code was copied to get other parts of the bcw driver to work, then would be re-written. The problem here is twofold. First, the code was copied and checked into the repository under BSD licensing, which is a violation in-and-of-itself. Second, putting the code there pending re-write means the re-write would be a derivative of the original GPL'd code---which is still a copyright violation.
Above all, the entire line of discussion is not relevant. There's a claim of copyright violation. If the code is there, then it is a violation, whether or not it was "accidental." This extends beyond issues of header calls which are so ordinary as to not be copyrightable. (At least, under U.S. law, if there are only a few ways to convey an idea, then it cannot be copyrighted.) Whether the accusation was public is not relevant; was there a violation? The responsible action would be to investigate when the GPL'd author made the accusation.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Below are two edits to the piece here.
The first. Let's pretend this was GPL code taken by Microsoft, not OpenBSD, for inclusion in Windows. To me, that looks like Mr Buesch is being decent.
Now let's switch to the opposite - Mr Buesch as a Windows developer, finding Microsoft code in OpenBSD Again, a response like that if it were from Microsoft to the OpenBSD team would be considered highly decent.
I think Michael Buesch did well
==
Careful there. GPL leaners (ie. developers who prefer the GPL) do that kind of thing all the time. Sometimes they completely rewrite the source material, sometimes they don't.
Additionally they take code that they call "compatibly licensed" and appropriate it into their own projects. Then distribute the whole thing with a file called "LICENSE" that says "This is under the GPL."
==
But that is not the same kind of thing at all.
I do not understand why you would choose a license that is characterized by allowing everyone to use your code as they want, and then somehow think it is wrong if someone use the code in a GPL project. It you do not want people to change the license of your code, you should use a copyleft licence.
Show me one previous comment on slashdot where someone advocates redistributing a commercial music track under a more liberal license and passing it off as their own work.
I think Theo's, um, verbal repertoire must have come as a bit of a surprise to you. As far as I can see your post was sternly worded, but not abusively so (and I think it always to be a bit classier if you meet abuse with a measured, unemotional response instead of replying in kind :-).
Now, why did you call this one publicly? Was it a simple mistake in the heat of the moment, to make sure whoever was coding would read it and maybe help with a solution, why?
There's no hidden agenda here, I'm simply curious. If I was in a place where I could grab the two of you by the collar and drag you into a pub where I could fill you both up with beer and get you to talk it out I'd do it, but that's sadly not the case..
Insert
I hate to fan the flames here, but am I the only person on the planet who's noticed that the infringing code is still in the public CVS repository? Sure, it's deleted from the most recent revision, but still fully accessible by checking out older revisions. See here for just one example; the path was trivial to figure out from Marcus' email to the list notifying us of his decision:
/ ic/Attic/bcw.c
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev
It's entirely possible to completely strip files out of a CVS repository, but that's not what has happened here. So I tend to question the sincerity of some of those involved.
Some people need to get a grip.
I disagree with you. I do think that a private conversation would have been better first. To use your analogy, it would be like tapping someone on the shoulder just before they decide to walk out with something under their pocket and say "I think you forgot to pay for something". If they would continue walking out, shouting 'Thief' would be appropriate, but the word 'thief' is an assumption as long as the shop has not been left.
Having said that, for Theo to start that barrage of abuse instead of calmly saying "it would have been more polite if you'd contacted me privately first but we'll sort it out" shows a personality that is pretty deficient in restraint. That is, however, not atypical in especially technical spheres, but normally you have someone with a bit more self control between those teams and mass broadcast facilities.
Now you have tempers frayed over something that otherwise a good chat over a beer would have fixed..
Insert
Listening from far away, it seems that asking about this on the mailing list is fair. Maybe some people wished it was done person to person, but that judgement cannot except in some insane person's head (like Mr. De Radt) equate to being inhuman, which we usually reserve for someone who does much worse things.
In fact Buesch was quite level-headed about it even when De Radt threw all kinds of crap at him and then other people on the mailing list jumped on board too. Considering that BSD is the key channel for the GPL work to find its way into manufacturer's machinery, I'd say the authors (who by the way deserve that title quite a lot more than the guy who went off in a huff) could stand to have been a little angrier in tone and still be within their rights.
It looks in fact like it was Theo de Radt's fault alone for blowing it up into a huge problem and he is solely responsible for the BSD guy to quit his attempt to import the GPL code.
Theo should have said the very first time, "OMG I'm sorry we'll pull the code, and I'll contact the developer and get right on it with you. Thanks for being understanding."
This is clear proof to the world not that anyone is inhuman. It does suggest that De Radt is unfit for whatever leadership position he has, and should resign, or at least get someone else to be in charge of similar issues in the future.
Perhaps someone could write some guidelines to BSD people concerning what is appropriate in terms of "paraphrasing" other code or making use of someone else's reverse engineering. It seems other people could fall into a similar problem and they better hope De Radt is not online that day.
From the BSD License:
That screams "requires attribution" to me. The line you are referring to, which was removed in 1999, is as follows:
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
"Doofus" is 5th declension masculine. Like virus. Singular: doofus; plural: doofus.
(This has been an attempted Latin joke. If this had been an actual joke, it would have been followed by laughter and muted applause. This concludes this attempted Latin joke.)
sigfault (core dumped)
95% of the conflicts between human beings - supposedly civilised ones - would not exist if not for the overly inflated ego of the participants. There is no issue here. Either the usage of the code was wrong or right according to strict licensing definitions. Since it appears everybody agreed to the fact it was wrong, the next step is clear. Why the fuss, and the emotions, and the name calling? Mistakes happen.. just fix them and move on.
Additionally they take code that they call "compatibly licensed" and appropriate it into their own projects. Then distribute the whole thing with a file called "LICENSE" that says "This is under the GPL." Without ever mentioning that parts of the code are definitely not GPL.
Asserting copyright ownership when you don't have it is criminal fraud. I doubt highly this happens on a regular basis.
They obviously knew Theo. If he's going to throw a hissy, you may as well get it in print early so he can't even *pretend* he's remotely rational.
For example, his claim that "we are the people who wrote OpenSSH" is false from its start. OpenSSH had its foundations in the original SSH implementation, released under a very open source license but taken private at roughly version 1.2.22. Now, that wasn't stolen. But Theo and his peers taking credit for someone else's foundation work is hardly new. Most of the current OpenSSH maintainers are very careful to take credit only for *their* work, and credit the ssh.com authors with their original work.
Theo isn't so careful. Moreover, the OpenBSD insistence on pursuing useless but technically exciting features (such as their "chroot" functionality, which isn't actually a chroot cage for anything that uses SSH) have actually hindered its deployment. And their default insistence on not being able to detect passphrase-less keys continues to make SSH use a surprisingly dangerous tool: since the local keys are kept almost by default unprotected, any idiot who can read your backup tapes or access your home directory by other means can and will steal your private SSH keys and use them for anything they want.
The vulnerabilities have been known about for years. Pursing that unstable and unreliable chroot that only operates for millisends when starting up OpenSSH was considered far more important than these practical issues.
It's time for Theo to resign from his leadership position and let someone with more of a clue give him orders on his technically proficient code.
I knew someone would point out some irrelevant difference. I didn't say they were exactly the same thing, I suggested it might be intellectually dishonest to take one position as a member of an open source community and the other position as a consumer of commercial music. When illegal appropriation occurs, is there an economically significant loss of property to the copyright holder or not?
This is a good example of how ideology becomes aligned with one's self interest over time to the point where one has a hard time making principled judgements. Here, I'm showing your positions on these two issues side by side.
Yah; in RTFA, I did read the entire content of Theo's first two posts in response to the thread, and immediately realized he was being needlessly reactionary ( equiv == "asshole". )
Good prgrammer maybe - but he discredits himself with outbursts like this.
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Lies. There is no restriction on the user of GPL. Only developers and distributors of GPL code have any restrictions. You have no obligations whatsoever under the GPL by merely using a program.
Lies again. Your program can be under anything. It's only her program; the program which was licensed under the GPL which is affected by the gpl and any modified versions of that program you may make.
Implicit lies once more. There is nothing in the GPL preventing corporations from using GPL code. In fact, as a manager in a major network infrstructure supplier I do it every day. That lie reflects back on your statement and makes us realise that a contribution of GPL code is a much better contribution to the "progress of computer science and the benefits to humanity" than a public domain, MIT or BSD licensed piece of software since our "code monkey" will probably get the chance to publish his code to the world if you make sure your code is GPL.
If it's any consolation, my housemate with the Classics degree laughed, but he doesn't have any mod points (or an account).
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
As a matter of fact, I've just inherited a substantial fortune from a relative overseas. If you could front me a few grand to cover the foreign probate fees and wealth import taxes, I'll be in a position to send quite a bit of business your way.
Mind the Gap
As far as I'm concerned, the only acceptable reaction from a developer, open source or otherwise, to an allegation of a GPL violation is "we'll look into it right away and let you know". And the only acceptable reaction to a documented GPL violation is "we're sorry, we are going to remove the offending code immediately, and we're putting mechanisms in place to make sure it doesn't happen again".
I don't think Theo was purposefully trying to divert attention. He admitted to the issue up front. I think it is going a bit too far to assign a deeper motive here. I'd bet Theo felt that his organization was being threatened via a very public accusation. He probably responded without thinking things through clearly, which most of us can be guilty of. As Bruce said, he over-reacted and lost his cool. That's it. You had an inexperienced committer here and a leader who got defensive.
Theo should have just removed the offending code and then responded with an apology. Following a succinct apology, he could have then asked that future notices of this sort be given a chance to be handled via a more private method.
Trouble is that programming is not a solitary occupation anymore; it's done in large groups, and much of it involves face-to-face communication, compromise, and group decision making.
Yes, I have looked at the OpenBSD code, I can agree with you, there was a lot copied. But a lot has been modified to get it to begin to work, 89 revisions or so.
Is this where it ends?
Lets all take a moment and let the smoke clear from the battlefield, and see who the true enemy is, and what the real goal is: Broadcom, and getting a great, working driver for Open Source users.
How about looking for a way to put aside bruised egos, calm down, and try working together? If OpenBSD was working on a driver, some of their advances could help your project.
I think we should:
-put pressure on Dell, HP, IBM and anyone who uses Broadcom chips to publish programming specifications for the same.
-agree to work together rather than endure flamewars
-remember the users, the poor guys who just want a working wireless card, and are smart enough to avoid Windows
-apologise and get on with life, it is too short to stay worked up
I applaud you, Michael, for at least posting here and on undeadly.
It doesn't matter what license the stolen code was under. The issue is that the OpenBSD module author took code without complying with its license.
So, debates about the relative meaning of the BSD and GPL license are simply not relevant.
This BSD vs GPL debate is important.
I am a GPL supporter and I believe that the GPL is the only way freedom and access to our own software can be protected.
While I understand the BSD position, and on paper it seems quite noble. The BSD crowd gives their code away, they take pride in doing so. That's OK if that is what they want to do. The GPL crowd shares their code. The GPL requires and enforces a level of sharing and community that the BSD license does not. IMHO the GPL is better.
The reason why this is important is that old saying: "Freedom is not free." Even the most peaceful communities and civilizations need laws, police, fences, and jails. There are powerful people and companies that would take our work and "embrace and extend" it until it is no longer usable by us, and we would be forced to pay for the privilege of using our code.
Its amazing how someone can misinterpret everything. This Theo has serious problems. I aways thought that these BSD people are insane to risk share they code with M$ and others (as tcp stack used until today). But, now IM SURE they are INSANE. Or maybe, they work for a bunch of companies that want them to THIEF GLPed code and mark it BSD, so these company can then say, we copied a BSD code, not GPL. If they robbed GPL code, its they problem, not our. Damn, lets ban BSD forever.
Here we have yet another example of the truly wonderful kind of attitude spawned and promoted by the scourge that some of us know and loathe as the FSF; ergo, fear-based mean-spiritedness, megalomania, and paranoia.
As the FSF and its' associated drones become ever more corrupt and tyrannical in their behaviour, look for them to begin finding excuses to question the BSDs' right to exist. The BSDs give people who might otherwise have no choice but to put up with the FSF another option, and sooner or later they are going to decide that they doesn't like that enough that they will try and do something concrete about it. Control cannot be maintained if people have anywhere else to go.
The FSF does it.
The "copy left" zealots are now attacking every Open Source license other than theirs.
They've been doing that for years now...taking their cue from the demoniac who leads them. The rationale is that an alternate form of control needs to be established in order to act as a counter to corporate fascism. I'm still trying to understand how merely developing another brand of repressive behaviour is supposed to be a good thing.
In my own mind the main reason why corporate misbehaviour is harmful is because it provides exactly the sort of material that Stallman and his apologists need as justification to engage in their own tyranny. It might not be mutual, but the FSF is in a dependent relationship with Microsoft...because without the fear of what the bogeyman Steve Ballmer might do next, people might start seeing the GPL for what it really is, comparitively speaking. Any appeal that the FSF currently have would evaporate.
Copyright infringement only occurs when someone other than the copyright holder attempts to distribute a copyrighted work without permission of the copyright holder. There's no problem if you 1) hold the copyright or 2) do not distribute the work or 3) distribute the work under the terms of the GPL or 4) make other arrangements with the copyright holder such that you can legally distribute the work.
Working on the code on your own and never distributing it to another person is fine. Checking in GPLd code to a public repository without fulfilling one of #1, #3, or #4 is infringement.
how to invest, a novice's guide
1.) If I programmed it, it's my code. I, and nobody else, decides what happens to it. If I GPL it and you take it and close it again or release it with whatever licence you fancy, your generally considered breaking the law.
2.) If your doing it with all rights and laws in sight, you're a proactive criminal. Plain and simple.
3.) Amongst OSS developers, you talk to one another and resolve the issue of code 'theft' as real professionals do: without whining or bickering. The teams people involved in the, most probably, involuntarly code theft get briefed on licences and keeping an eye open, the original coders dual licence it for that specific purpose or help recode by giving the 'thieves' some air and time to clean up their project. In the end a few jokes BSD numbsculls and Linux whiners go back and forth and all ends well.
4.) If you don't get the above three points and start ranting on top of that, you are, as it's generally called in the OSS community, a prime class idi*t. Spare us your baseless ranting.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Perhaps someone doesn't agree with the goals of the FSF yet still believes in community. Some of their work they have no problem giving away. Other products of their work they may consider quite valuable due to the amount of expertise and time required to develop it and it's uniqueness. There are many pieces of software that would be very valuable to many people, yet no single person could reasonably pay the development cost. As such amortizing the cost across thousand of users makes a lot of sense. The FSF disagrees.
What? That is some strange logic that says "if you don't want people us to change your license, you should use our license."
As to why a BSD instead of a GPL license: Maybe someone is just generous enough that they want people to use their software regardless of whether they are paying the original author back. Or maybe they like free software but aren't interested in crazy, meaningless, pseudo-activist, junior-politician software bureaucracy. Or perhaps the development was developed with public tax monies. As such everyone should have the right to use the code in whatever fashion they desire. It would be crazily unfair to force someone to pay for the development of a competing product.
The moral of the story is "Write your own goddamned code". Note that this applies to *everybody*. BSD, stop using GPL'd code. GPL, stop using BSD'd code. Fuck Theo. Fuck Marcus. Fuck Michael. Fuck Bruce. Everyone should just do their own fucking work.
It's a very dark ride.
I would certainly not call it grand strategy, but come on. He wrote half the messages in the email thread, nearly every one of which ignored the actual copying of code, instead attacking the way the real authors of the code handled the situation. Clearly he wants people to look at how the complaint was made rather than what it is people are complaining about.
The fact that this is childish behavior just confirms it. This is the original "Follow my rules or I'm going to go play by myself." The whole OpenBSD project started when he couldn't get his way with NetBSD.
Really? I read him as being defensive of his contributors. Like a thinking, caring supervisor would. There's no question it could have been handled better. The very public airing of the violation was almost certainly intended to hurt rather than help. Theo made that point.
Every time something like this comes up, I hear a lot of "Theo is an asshole", but then I read the messages involved and I fail to see the assholery. He seems to be smart, articulate and protective of his project--as I'd expect him to be. About 70% of this bruhaha is juvenile "Linux vs. BSD" cockfights.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Cripple fight!!!
Some paper thin skins round here.
the biggest problem - as I understand it, at least (if I understand incorrectly, then I guess the people who advocate them have more work to do to educate the masses), is this..
With a BSD license, I can include a piece of open source code in my project, compile it, release it in any which way I want, and be done with it. I *can* contribute back if I change any of the code in that open source code, but it is not required of me.
With a GPL license, if I include a piece of open source code in my project, compile it, and release it in any which way I want, I...
- need to make not only the original open source code available
- but also the source code of my entire project
- whether I make changes to the open source code or not
The only other license that is a mix of both, is the LGPL, where I can use the source code in my project as long as it compiles to its own library (say, a DLL on Windows), and I tap into that library. I still have to release the source code to that library, including any changes I make to it, but my entire project doesn't automatically become GPL.
Given that libraries aren't always possible, and that not too many developers choose LGPL (it's mostly either GPL or BSD - dozens of other flavors to suit authors' specific demands notwithstanding), BSD code - for many developers - is 'better'... to that developer, not to the end-user, per se. Though one may always think otherwise: http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3
Really. Cite an example. The FSF is extremely strict about copyright with the possible exception of debian they are the strictest group around.
The way Mr. de Raadt treats other human beings is simply abusive, and there is no external factor than can explain his behavior in any fashion that would justify coddling it.
To me it is utterly laughable, when I consider how juvenile, dictatorial, and abusive they themselves are on a routine basis, that the denizens of Slashdot feel that they have any justification whatsoever in turning around and complaining about Theo's supposed lack of a personality.
I really don't feel that anyone within the Linux community has any business calling anyone *else* socially disabled at all.
Some people on the site are not good at interacting socially.
-> All people on the site are not good at interacting socially.
-> Criticism of anyone's social abilities, no matter how poor, is invalid.
Is that about the size of it? Speaking of laughing, I must admit I am laughing too . . .
It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
for a fat girl.
You don't have many zits for a guy who works behind the chocolate counter.
Nobody likes me! Doc, you gotta help me, you fat slob!
GPL to OBSD: We want to work with you in a spirit of peace, you stinking thieves.
The original post from M. Buesch clearly sent conflicting messages. The body was the picture of reason and accomodation - a little legalistic, but reasonable. The header, with its huge distribution list, sent exactly the opposite message. Any reasonable reader can be excused for wondering what the sender's true intention was.
Mr. de Raadt's immediate response was also quite reasonable. He made a rather mild suggestion that Mr. Buesch might want to try private channels before airing dirty laundry. He was rebuffed; Mr. Buesch persisted in maintaining the fiction that he was just trying to reach a friendly accomodation. That may indeed have been his intention, but we have only the text to go by, and the subtext consistently undermined his overt language. My reading of his message is "I'd be happy to help you out, once I finish humiliating you in public." Not much of an offer, I'd say. Why bother with the fake solicitousness? We can't discount the inference (based purely on the text of his messages) that his intention may well have been to score a point against the OpenBSD crowd from the beginning. It's impossible to tell.
Mr. de Raadt could have tried eating his own dogfood: contacting Mr. Buesch privately to suggest a different approach. Maybe he did. He certainly should have avoided the gratuitous and ridiculous ad hominem attacks.
Mr. Buesch is well within his rights to vigorously defend his intellectual property; the OpenBSD folks screwed up royally on this one (and admitted as much). But I'll say this about Mr. de Raadt: he may have poor judgement, but at least you know where you stand with him.
The whole affair is a case study in the difference between source code and English prose. Both protagonists write the latter as if it were the former: all surface, no subtext; all denotation, no connotation. In short, controllable. But it's harder - much harder - to write English prose that works than to write code that runs. Bad writers of the technical kind often write as is they had total control over the meaning of the language, in the same way they can control the meaning of source code, and are often unwilling or unable to grasp the essential slipperiness of natural language. 'My prose compiles - if you don't "get it", your hardware must be broken.' Which leads to the common spectacle of people who basically agree engaging in heated arguments solely because of their linguistic inflexibility.
1) Theo de Raadt behaved like a troll in this discussion. No really. If you read the thread, he is the one heating the discussion up. I would say that Rueschs original mail was typical german style. That does not make it better, since he wrote it in English; nevertheless de Raadt did his best to provoke him further. I can not understand how this can happen. The first mail was four days ago, and only two days later, the BSD driver maintainer dropped the development of the driver. Sorry guys, if i take this behaviour as a measure for you professionality i am not sure that your excellent programming skills outweight it.
a different discussion style would have been:
a) Ruesch send an e-mail, not an list-post
b) The Maintainer removes the code puts the log message to the list that there are copyright issues with Ruesch - NOT that he removes the code because Ruesch attacked him. (The latter means that he would be fine with this behaviour). This would have also been the appropriate reaction to the first message, even if it was on a list
c) De Raadt comments shortly that he will discuss this issue with both and agrees with the driver being removed from the repository - NOT that Ruesch is the bad guy because his code was stolen. His task would have been to cool the situation, not to drive Ruesch into arguments really making a further dialog impossible.
2) The BSD drivers author states clearly that it was intentional. "To make quick progess" in nice, but honestly, not an excuse. Also if you want to do so, do it in you own sandbox or your private repository. Even that would in a very strict interpretation violate the cleanroom implementation rules. However it would be enough not to raise such problems.
3) Theo de Raadts stream of though "we are all open source developers - thanks for slowing us down" which i see as a connotation to some of his mail is really stupid. It is HIS personal opinion that the BSD lisense is as good as the GPL. He may think whatever he likes. If i own something it is after all my decision how to use it. You may call me egoistic if i use it for personal gain. You may call me stupid if i dont make profit of it. But nobody is a bad guy because he insists that he put something under the GPL.
As far as I understand, a copyright on the code will not prevent anyone from looking at it, and using the ideas in the code to write closed-source drivers. He would need to get a patent to protect from that possibility.
Dear Theo:
I've never heard of you before, but have broadcom wireless in my HP laptops. You forgot to say in that thread, that we stole the linux code and are sorry and will not use it anymore. Duh. This won't get me to ever look at OpenBSD now that is for sure.
Based on how I felt when I was a programmer for an engineering office, I would say Theo is embarrased and wanted to cover his arse and is mad at the person who spoke the truth. I used to pretend to the managers that my program was perfect, and the users were so happy with it, that they would praise it and I was happy. Then when a bug came up, I would always keep it quiet and patch it right away. I never wanted it to get to the managers.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
Okay, the users of GPL code would be developers. I know, wrong word, my bad.
Corrected, my point stands....the GPL places restrictions on developers by telling them that "if you want to use this code, you have to play by our rules".
Yeah, but if there's code that's GPLed, I can't put it in any programs without making licensing those programs under the GPL. Or, am I wrong?
So, this means, as a code monkey, I can't put GPL code into the programs I write for my employer.
Sure there is. My company won't let me use GPL code because we can't give our product away for free. My paycheck has to come from somewhere...like sales of software.
:(){
You can use GPLd code as much as you want without incurring any obligations. There are no restrictions on use.
You can distribute GPLd code in any manner you like, including selling it.
You can include GPLd code in your own product and sell the results.
What you may not do is distribute (for free or for money) GPLd code under a license apart from the GPL without permission from the copyright holder. That may not work for your company, but the line I quoted is imprecise about your rights and potential obligations.
how to invest, a novice's guide
and completely humourless?
I am not arguing against the BSD licences. That is the choice of copyright holder. And not a bad choice.
I am just saying that since you picked a license that lets your code be used everywhere, in Mac OSX, Windows, etc, then don't complain if it is used in a GPL project.
What a crock of shit! Only BSD developers love to code? Linux is driven by a hatred of Microsoft? Fuck you too.
You look in my posting history, you'll see I use GPL for a lot of my work. That's not because I fear Microsoft, it's because I want to get paid if a company wants to take my code. But I code anyway because I like to, I've got specific needs that aren't met by what I find out there so I start my own projects to get there.
But then I get to code that I don't care about getting paid for, or I want to use both inside and outside of work. That stuff is a gift: I license it public domain. I see no point in licensing code BSD when public domain is already well understood and out there. If you want credit, just make sure you have a web site and stick your project on your resume.
There are a lot of things that the FSF have done that I continue to feel outraged about, but polluting the original motivation behind open source has to be one of the very worst.
That's pretty rich, what are you smoking so we can get some?
The motivation has ALWAYS been about writing code. For some developers, they want to get paid too so they use GPL; others don't care or don't need to get paid, so they use BSD; still others use one of the many other existing OSS licenses for their own reasons.
You want to be pissed at FSF, fine, go write a compiler suite while you're at it. You want to be pissed at the thousands of developers who (shock!) love to write code but don't already agree with you, then too fucking bad for you. You want to argue about some ideological license purity bullshit? Then why the fuck are you using the BSD license instead of just leaving it in public domain?
Don't like my profanity? Tough shit. You say profane ideas, you get a profane response.
This mountain out of a mole hill is just plain stupid. The GPL developer should have pointed out the infraction and allowed the BSD guy to pull the code. It doesn't sound like that was an option.
The issue here is not some public rant or who did what to whom, it's the application of copyleft on a project that doesn't want it. The corporate world is not going to like this because this is exactly what MS and others have been saying would happen with free sw. I'll make the prediction now that Ballmer will use this event to hurt both GPL and BSD.
What a world. A driver developer for some obscure hardware doesn't want another driver developer to use his software because the hardware developers might end up using it. I don't know what to think about that except maybe hubris on the original developers part. I doubt the hardware developers care much because -ding-ding-ding- they don't sell software.
No good can come of all this copyright and software patent bs. There have only been 3 original lines of code ever written. Since then, it's all been stolen.
I hate to reply to my own comment, but to have an opinion moderated as "Flamebait" because it challenges the Free Software Foundation in a respectful way seems extreme.
I agree the GPL is a great tool to prevent fragmentation of major projects like gcc and the Linux kernel; but I think it should not be dogmatically applied to all Open Source software. A recent addition to TFA shows the GPLers may not be the saints they claim to be. I also think the OpenBSD developer was disrespectful and arguably in violation of the GPL.
I think most Open Source types are on the same side. I like Stallman because of his brilliant invention of Emacs on the PDP-10, even though it's before a lot of you "flamers" were out of diapers; otherwise we're stuck Bill Joy's vi, ugh.
You probably swapped User-Agent ;)
Well, the code was aired publicly, so why not the take-down notice? When MS "loses" code to crackers they PUBLICLY state that the code is stolen.
This is done so that someone doesn't include their code under the "false apprehension" that it was free to include.
The GPL code was treated in the same way.
Sounds like Theo could use a good moderator to preview and edit his communications.
Any voluteers to be his PA?
--
Good advice is something a man gives when he is too old to set a bad example.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with you on this. The way Mr. de Raadt treats other human beings is simply abusive, and there is no external factor than can explain his behavior in any fashion that would justify coddling it.
./ers are like everyone else--they will go to great lengths to rationalize the abberant behavior of one of their own. I wonder how many of the de Raadt apologists would extend the same grace to someone like Ann Coulter, especially with her indefensible "faggot" remark about John Edwards.
The reaction to de Raadt's temper tantrum just goes to show that
The fact is that the more one identifies with another person, the more they will engage in mental gymnastics to excuse bad behavior.
First, let me say that I am totally shattered and disappointed. I am doing work in both the Linux and BSD communities, and this is by far one of the most destructive flamewar I have ever witnessed. It will be hard to repair the damage done... This is very sad.
It's only fair to note that while there has been lots of stupid flaming on the OpenBSD side as usual, the linux bcw developers, while trying to appear rather nice and careful on the public mailing lists, where laughing their asses off about the whole thing behind the scenes in their IRC channel. They didn't exactly try hard to keep things peaceful either.
http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/irc-logs/bcm-sphttp://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/irc-logs/bcm-sp
http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/irc-logs/bcm-sp
http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/irc-logs/bcm-sp
Some quotes, the first one actually shows the igniting spark. Others show how people enjoyed watching the flames.I find it disgusting that some people seemed to enjoy watching an already brittle relationship between two deeply related communities fall into pieces. Do they also throw stones at public demonstrations and then go home to watch the riots on telly?
Question: will Theo apologize for the way he has acted during this situation? Although he probably won't, I think he should. It will go a long way to mending fences.
As long as the license is respected, then usage is no problem. The problem comes with the wankers who think that compatible means they can strip the original copyright notice and license, or just copy out subsets of the original code, and redistribute it with only the GPL license.
I am trying to understand your post in terms of the GPL, which is a license. As far as I can tell, if I take GPL code, and then line by line replace it with 'my own' code I am producing a derivative work. Even if I replace all of the original lines, or functions, or units of source, the work I produce would be derivative and subject to the GPL. It may be hard to prove that I used the original source, but it would in fact be a violation of the GPL. Do you disagree?
Theo complains for Michael taking their spat public, and then Theo blows it up into such a flame war that every nerd on ./ (and I mean all of you except me) knows that Marcus Glocker claims credit for code he didn't write, and Theo de Raadt is a completely irrational jerk.
/. and will show up very highly in Google searches on your names for years to come. I'm sure one of you isn't worried about that.
Theo wanted to keep it quiet? Well, sir, I applaud you! I bet you've also been working for peace in the Middle East! You're only real fault was having this appear on the front page on the weekend.
Geeks have long memories. Marcus, Michael and Theo, your roles in all of this will not be long forgotten, especially since this thread on
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
I think the original message calling out the code problem was not the most polite or discreet, but it was not a direct attack. It really was a rather straight-forward message. And Theo really took the wrong approach. He's being way over-defensive. When you work around legal licenses and issues resulting from those licenses you can't afford to be defensive and see a notice of problems at an attack. Theo's response, I think, has really harmed the BSD community. Rather than calling for a little patience and calm in dealing with the situation and asking for some time to sort thinks out he immediately raised his hackles and started growling.
Is the BSD community getting a little too insular? Is that what's going on? Maybe they are insecure about the wide attention Linux gets and the restrictions GPLed code puts on their own work. At the same time, Theo's response was inappropriate. And while Marcus did pull the driver code, he likely didn't over the initial email. The resulting exchange probably had a greater role in pushing him out, and Theo was just as much a part of that as Michael.
I'm not sure I'd ever want to contribute work to a project with a figurehead as negatively reactive as Theo.
It's sad that almost everyone in either camp suffers from tunnel vision and just can't see how much each community is interconnected. GPL code, BSD licensed code and proprietary code need each other to grow and thrive. One can certainly imagine worlds where only one exists, but that's more like a North Korean nightmare.
Clearly, those contributing GPL code to the world are well within their right to insist that their license is respected. The BSD people have a more laissez-tomber attitude; they don't seem to care / worry too much about copyrights, as it is most important to them to produce what they (and not only they) consider great software. They don't care too much about who owns what, and they probably feel, on balance, that this is justified by them contributing more code than they "take" (and even when they "take", it's only to give back).
Now I would agree that their (bsd) response was over the top and seemingly unwarranted. Theo has lost an opportunity to be the pacifist, restrained leader that Linus has almost always managed to be - I use "almost" because not too long ago Linus himself was seen as being one-sided in coming strongly against Gnome. Theo's call, his vocation is to write good software. He may not see PR work as necessary or pleasant, but I would speculate that he'd rather hire that nice motherly woman that Bruce dreams about rather than becoming one himself - if only he had the money, that is.
But there is a long way from here to vilifing Theo for being Theo. I've never met him, but I saw his interview on the former ROBtv. He appeared as "cheerfully communist" as Craig in front of the Wall Street crowd, and he struggled to make the business reporter understand how he makes a living by giving away his work. The very fact of being impassioned about his project diqualifies him from accusations of Asperger or autism. Furthermore, accusing him of "social ineptitude" for ignoring a handshake seems more like ad hominem than constructive criticism. Is it not hypocritical to publicly chastise him for overreacting by actually overreacting to his overreaction? :)
"One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that ones work is terribly important." -BRussell
Paraphrase (with accurate chronology):
Michael (in public):
The OpenBSD BCM driver contains GPL'd code. Here are 12 examples of code copied verbatim from our source tree.
Theo (also in public):
Are you saying you want Marcus to quit? Why did you CC so many people?
Stefano:
This is a major GPL violation. We just want it resolved. We'd love to see a clean OpenBSD BCM driver!
Theo:
Why are you trying to drag Marcus through the mud? Do you want him to quit?
Joseph:
Theo, Michael CC'd us because we're part of the BCM reversing team. Can we help you clean the driver up?
Theo:
So you think Marcus should quit?!
Joseph:
No, we just said the opposite.
Theo:
And I ask again, do you see any reason why this whole rant accusing Marcus of copyright violations should have landed in your mailbox?
Michael:
Theo, we don't want you guys to give up! Just work with us to clean up the licensing status of the code!
Theo:
You're too late. Marcus quit. Are you not human? Are you surprised?
Michael:
Little bit, yeah. This was a major GPL violation, and it doesn't seem like an accident. Why are you arguing about it?
Theo:
Why are you still calling Marcus a thief?
Frankly, I have a hard time seeing how Marcus could be so thin-skinned as to be hurt by a GPL challenge, and yet somehow work on the same team as Theo. Presumably, Marcus never actually talked to Theo. It's all for the best, then. Marcus will be happier someplace else.
they themselves...the denizens of Slashdot
Hmmm. You lump tens of thousands of people together and make a blanket claim that they are all "juvenile, dictatorial, and abusive". And get modded Insightful.
Perhaps the moderators meant Clueless but, not finding it, took Insightful as being in the same realm.
It is A Good Thing(tm) that you don't have the power to enforce your so-called thoughts.
On the flipside, there's how FreeBSD handled it when it was found that someone removed copyright notices from their code and threw it into the Linux kernel:
"Right now, Søren is in discussions with the authors of the Linux ATA drivers (employed by RedHat) to ensure that his copyright notice is returned to these and other files, and to ensure that this situation does not recur. And it is hoped that an amicable solution can be reached."
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Shit like this is the reason why no one will ever take free software seriously.
While OSS developers generate drama like 16 year-old girls, Microsoft sells a shrink-wrapped box that contains software with passable functionality.
In the specific case of drivers, there is no compelling reason, outside of gratuitous zealotry, for the OSS community to use anything other that a PD license. As a metaphor, consider an English language grammar: the grammar provides a service similar to a device driver; it provides the ability to coherently communicate with a given protocol. If I, as a linguist, were to publish a grammar that featured new constructions as they came into vogue, I should do everything within my power to publicly shame those who use the constructions that I documented, were they to run afoul of my license's pedantic terms, under the arguments used in the pissing contests of current day OSS flamewars.
Clearly, this must be rejected as it is clearly not a tenable framework to run a civil common green. A simple reference would suffice to give proper attribution as a professional courtesy. Additionally, it is not the end of the world if it is not included. As someone passing off _A Tale of Two Cities_ as their own work would likely become the laughing-stock of the literary community and be taken as seriously as a cos-play-dressed transvestite walking around outside of the convention amongst the general public, someone claiming original authorship of entire software works that are the works of others will quickly be born out to be frauds with the help of Google Code Search or lxr. --jbs
Theo and friends got shown off as what they are; petty thieves
I think that's too strong. Theo's response was classic displacement and he really needs to get over that... but it sure looks like the original commits of this code were a mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to break the GPL, and that Theo was not aware that GPL code had been committed to the repository until after the fact.
While this might be literally true when the applicable license is the GPL, your words could confuse many readers about the grounds for copyright infringement. It actually happens through the exercise of any of these rights that are restricted only to the copyright holder, to the extent that they aren't granted by the license:
1. the right to reproduce (copy),
2. the right to create derivative works of the original work,
3. the right to sell, lease, or rent copies of the work to the public,
4. the right to perform the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, motion picture, or other audiovisual work), and
5. the right to display the work publicly (if the work is a literary, musical, dramatic, choreographic, pantomime, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, motion picture, or other audiovisual work).[3]
That's from Wikipedia.
Although GPL would grant you the right to reproduce in general, many non-GPL works do not even grant you the right to make copies for personal use without distribution.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Retard. Yes, you are indeed.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
That's a lovely completely subjective summary.
It seems like most of these arguments devolve to "yeah, well, Theo is an asshole, so he deserves whatever he gets." Which is neither productive nor logical.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
There are apparent moral inconsistencies but not where you were looking.
I am against copying without permission of open-source code, but I have no moral problem with copying of closed-source software, for example.
The reason is that my objection is not because of copyright law being infringed on, but because I believe software should morally be free and copyrights should not apply to private individuals.
In an ideal world, from my perspective, copyright law would not apply to private individuals, and open-source code fits that. Closed-source software (or copyrighted-against-private-individuals music, as in your example) in itself is a great moral violation - and distributing it freely (even though it is illegal) is thus no problem - and even mitigates some of the moral problem of the copyright itself.
I hope that clears up the apparent inconsistency with regard to copyright law.
You sir, are a new low in Slashdot, which is quite an achievement.
Congratulations!
You can claim your New Slashdot Low prize at a Slashdot store near you.
I feel like I may be the one defending the great Satan here (Theo). But I will state a few things so no one jumps the gun to fast.
Theo doesn't really need defending. He quite capable of doing that himself. Theo is passionate. A trait most people don't have and others can't deal with. Theo dispute was that the issue was everyone who was cc on the inital email by Michael Buesch. The code dispute was brought up on a driver that didn't work. And the tone of the initial email was at the very least condescending.
Theo defended what he felt was an attack on one of his developers. Something Theo is rightly passionate about. Theo did not dispute the code was there. He does dispute who wrote the code. He did take personally to defending one of his developers. Good for him.
I have seen the posts in this thread by others including Bruce Perens: Oh? So, if I take my record collection and commit it to a public CVS repository, that's going to be OK with RIAA, then? :-)
Actually if I couldn't play any of the music because the code it was written in didn't work. I don't think anyone would really say anything except your files don't work and therefore suck. I think the RIAA would have a tough time winning a prosecution just because you had a bunch of files labeled as music files. That doesn't mean the RIAA wouldn't try and you would probably not be happy about it. Theo didn't seem happy about what was being done to one of his developers.
Again the initial tone and the number of people cc in Michael's letter was the problem.
Many of you have said that Theo was upset about being caught with GPL code in his CVS. Well isn't this how other developers get to make commits and corrections to code?(I may be wrong here don't be afraid to correct me I can take it) So a driver that doesn't work and is under development has some GPL code in it. Wouldn't one of the commits be to mention there is some GPL code in the drive that may need to be dealt with? (Instead of sending a harshly worded letter and cc the world on it?)
I am not a developer but I have to admit if I were I would want be one for OpenBSD because I know that I am going to work with people who strive to do the best and have someone who has their backs.
Not really. Maybe Theo is the person you say he is. I don't know him personally. I can only comment on his emails on the bcw issue.
All I can say is _this_ situation was handled horribly by him. Even if he was right in the first place (i.e. the infringement was a mistake and linux folks were wrong to be so strong worded and public about it), the correct course of action would have been:
step 1: sorry guys, it was a mistake
step 2: this is what we can do to stop the infringement (_NOT_ deleting the driver altogether, but working with linux crowd to relicence or alternatively rewrite the infringing code in a clean room fasion)
step 3: btw, we think you were overly aggressive in your approach and would love to know that in the future, if such sitations arise again (and we certainly do our best to prevent these situations), we would be contacted privately to get the situation resolved and _then_ go public about the problem and solutions (so that the world knows not to use revision x, which is still infringing, obviously)
Theo could have done this, but instead chose to start a huge flamewar that got the BSD developer to delete the driver altogether, because of the very strong words that came from the linux crowd after Theo had an unusual reaction (i.e. blame the victim for going to the cops instead of asking nicely for his wallet back).
If you read Marcus' first post you will see that he actually admitted to following the linux driver code too closely in his development and actually started with the 123 I described above. Theo seems to have ruined that by generating way too much heat. Of course the linux guys were pissed off for being called names when they were in fact the victims.
"The OpenBSD project produces a FREE, multi-platform 4.4BSD-based UNIX-like operating system. Our efforts emphasize portability, standardization, correctness, proactive security and integrated cryptography, developed by humans"
Subject says it all.
In my house, mood is not a factor. Anyone breaking in will simply be shot on sight until dead.
However, don't count on anything like this ever making the TV news; it happens all the time, but never seems to be reported on the news. The media doesn't want people to get the idea that they can legally defend themselves from criminals.
People like to bitch and moan about their problems with their friends. That's not trolling.
... I actually think the discussions on that IRC channel is pretty civilized and not short of good intentions.
Considering that some people get pretty pissed when their copyright is violated (just think of academia, where people earn a living from their published papers)
This is NOT a sad day for Linux and the open source world.
The world needs to know that we care about copyrights, and that we will defend them.
Companies need to know that the GPL is a solid license, not only intended for garage hobbyists (as some might want the world to believe).
The GPL is an easy way to license your copyrighted works. So the GPL has nothing to do with wether your code can be considered a derivative work of something else. But IF your code is a derivative of code you are using under the GPL, then you need to follow the terms of the license, or lose the right to distribute the software.
You deserved the down-moderation you got since I saw this comment. Slashdot denizens are not a homogeneous group. It is intellectually lazy to classify them all together in the manner you did. I would presume that the people you were castigating for throwing stones aren't the ones living in glass houses unless you can site specific examples to the contrary.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
"It's terrible," De Raadt says. "Everyone is using it, and they don't realize how bad it is. And the Linux people will just stick with it and add to it rather than stepping back and saying, 'This is garbage and we should fix it.'"
0 05/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2
So it's junk until you need it Mr. De Raadt? And complaining about code theft is inhumane? What a loser.
only to the injured party?
I've used and admired OpenBSD for *years*, and, by extension, its developers. But it really is clear that DeRaadt was wrong here.
The first response is analogous to "You OVERREACTED and committed a (minor) faux pas YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE !!! NEVER OVERREACT YOU INHUMAN "
Kinda odd to excuse that. Weirdly inconsistent.
Often when the OpenBSD project gets pissed off, they rip something out and then replace it with something much better. Expect a much better driver soon.
So the state of WiFi in OpenBSD is just going to continue to get much better than the rest of the field.