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.
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.
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.
I thought that open source was about sharing code.
Global warming is a cube.
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.
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.
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!
I think this might have been handled better, but mostly on the BSD side. If they'd "borrowed" code from a corporation, their first notification might have been a lawsuit, not a widely distributed posting.
It's no surprise that stuff like this gets blown up out of proportion. Quite a few people who work in software, myself included, aren't the most diplomatic types. Still, maturity is ignoring other peoples bad behavior and trying to work out your differences amicably. I think Marcus showed a great deal of restraint. I would have been incredibly angry if I'd been in his situation and I'm not sure I'd have been nearly so forgiving.
While it maybe a tempest in a teapot, it's a lesson for all of us. We all look like doofuses (how do you spell the plural of doofus?) when we air our grievances in public.
Take a breath, relax, go have a beer. Then find a way to work together.
My 1.9888888 cents worth.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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...
Just how likely is it that there is anything in the Linux driver that would be useful to Broadcom? Broadcom already has fully functional proprietary drivers for their chips.
I seriously cannot believe this. Why should the discussion focus on shooting the messenger? A developer was caught infringing on copyrights pants down. The infringement is hard to do without intent. Would you deal with such a "rogue" developer privately, or send a mail to project mailinglists (perhaps a core or dev list) which likely would be public anyway? Maybe OpenBSD would mail people privately, but can you not understand that others decide otherwise? If your developer makes these kinds of mistakes, the issue WILL be public and you WILL have to make a statement sooner or later.
:)
Transparency on copyright issues is just as important as transparency on security. It serves as an example to all open source projects to be watchful about these issues. This is not only about OpenBSD. OpenBSD is a mature open source project and they have nothing to be insecure (huhuh) about. Sometimes OpenBSD may have exploits, sometimes it may have copyright issues. We live, we learn. Code-wise this is a small issue and it's a fixable issue, as the bc43xx developers said in their statement.
I find the approach of the bc43xx developers perfectly defendable. The first mail was clear, diplomatic, complete, and explicitly offers to work out a deal. That's more than you usually get when you infringe on someone's rights! Unfortunately, the only result of it was another episode of "the Theo Show". Even though the issue was broadcasted, the OpenBSD project still had a great immediate opportunity to contain the issue. Instead, the bc43xx developers doesn't receive much but irrational unconstructive replies, intentional misinterpretation, blaming people for OpenBSD's own developer's decisions, etcetera.
If going public with an issue is inhuman, how is turning the debate into a flamefest human? It was shameful to read. The Theo Show IS the public spectacle. Perhaps it is part of how he defines his personality. In fact, this rogue attitude seems to work for OpenBSD - OpenBSD regularly gets a lot of mainstream exposure from these kind of fights. Maybe it's what saving OpenBSD from becoming irrelevant. Well, good for them. They probably make a great OS (I use FreeBSD exclusively). It's just too bad that they haven't got a Broadcom driver.
( ^_^)/
The unfortunately consequence of your action may well be the next time you or another GPL developer make a mistake involving BSD/ISC licensed code, you will be publicly burned at the stake first with no good-faith attempt for you to correct privately what may well be an honest mistake. You know de Raadt's got a vengeful streak - he's still holding OpenSSH over everyone's heads, um des Gottes willen. I think the majority of the people agree with you, Michael, that Glocker should not have committed the GPL code to their CVS; the real sticking point is that you didn't offer the man an attempt to remedy the situation privately and in good faith.
Right, that's the correct way to handle it.
The BSD guy, once copying the Linux code into the repository, essentially made it impossible for BSD to have any similar functionality in that driver compared to the Linux implementation. That's probably the biggest "mistake" that was made. The copyright infringement can be dealt with. Now however, the BSD driver will be plagued with being tainted and will never be able to implement a similar driver (without the approval of the original copyright holder of course).
Linux and BSD communities are generally friendly to each other. So, it should really be a non-issue in the end.
Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
So if I strip out all the copyright notices from a Vista ISO and commit it to a public CVS repository, it doesn't count as copyright infringement or plagiarism? And I won't have to worry about a nasty lawsuit from Microsoft?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
In the purest sense, reverse engineering isn't 'clean room' either. The intent of the GPL wasn't to be protectionist--- but to encourage addition to the entirety of the open-source work it represents. I have no doubt that large portions of the open source GPL driver resembles, if not directly copies, the proprietary driver in many areas. This is simply the nature of device drivers, they are very much restricted by the guidelines of the underlying device they control. I think we're getting into very muddy waters when we start to back the same kind of ridiculous copyright views as major software vendors who are continually trying to squash any kind of open-source code. They seem to feel, every individual piece of code, down to a symbol name, a for loop, or a particular data structure, becomes their property for all time, in every iteration of any software program. This is 'not' the views of the majority of open-source programmers.
For the majority of the history of human invention, intellectual property has for the most part represented a description of a product in its entirety. By the very nature of mechanics, and machines, and electronics, these items were very much self-descriptive, and very much open to reverse engineering. Upon these ideas, new ideas could be built, improvements made, and different types of machines produced using the prior intellectual property as example. With software, things have changed. To make an analogy of software, to hardware--- it's illegal to open up your television, and to learn how it works. It's illegal to use that broad design, to make something new, and as a whole, different. The entirety of the product is hidden, protected by law from being viewed. The descriptions of the intellectual property describe only what the item is, and lack individual descriptions of the layout and design for the benefit of other inventors. Yet, the property owners claim ownership of every algorithm, the structure of their software, its layout, its design.
I think the openBSD developers share the same views at the majority of GPL developers about intellectual property. I think they likely aren't as obsessed over clean-room design as major vendors, due to the clear belief that the only end to this kind of restrictive view is the eventual end, and impracticality, of open-source in general. I think, it is a useful tool, that when dealing with software vendors who attack open-source, to use their representation of copyright, to show how they are innately in violation of a great deal of open-source code. This is only to show the overwhelming impracticality of their copyright model. It is true, that through absolutely free open-source, portions of GPLed code can leak into the private sector. But then again--- this is only algorithm, it is only design, it isn't the driver in its entirety. I think adopting this stance, in relation to other open-source code, we're stepping into actually supporting philosophical role we do not want to be in.
If it wasn't being distributed, how was it discovered? Yes, I know, how mean of me to ask.
"Didn't do it, and it wasn't wrong, and anyway, it wasn't serious!"
It was good enough to inpsire the developer, to take Saint Theo's interpretation.
"Just let us rip you off in peace! GPL sucks anyway!"
Mind the Gap
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.
> 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 disagree. Anybody who saw that code in CVS needed to know about the copyright issue.
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.
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? :-)
Placing code in a source code repository that is accessable for download by any other legal entity is distribution the moment the first download, or even source-code-browse, occurrs. The fact that it is CVS does not make it the slightest bit different from being a regular public web server.
Also, it is not necessary for the code to be "released" for it to be distribution. Remember Corel, who thought they didn't have to comply with the GPL as long as it was a beta test?
The Linux developer had the right to make a public notice that the posted license and copyright statement were not his copyright statement and the correct license. Otherwise, someone, anyone, could have made unlicensed derivative works of his code without knowing any better. A public notice protects unwitting victims like that, as well as the copyright owner.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
That wasn't going "over the top", that was an out and out psychotic event. I mean, I know it's not news that Theo has a few social limitations, but -- wow. If someone ever wants to demonstrate what Theo is all about, just point them over to that thread. It's never been so clear that Theo is mentally unbalanced.
And I'm not saying this to be "mean", only that I hope someone in his life eventually convinces him to get him help.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
commiting to cvs is not and has never been distribution
That's the same argument that Theo makes when confronted with the copyright infringement accusation, and it's just not true. FTP, HTTP, CVS - as far as copyright law is concerned, they're all the same. The fact that people who really should know better bring up that kind of excuse shows that GPL infringement allegations should be made in a public forum. Only by going public right from the start can you avoid unverifiable "he said this, he said that" exchanges about a non-public prelude. The initial message was reasoned, and reiterated that, while there is a problem, in no way do the developers of the GPL code want to antagonize the BSD developer.
Even if you object to the CC list, you can't ignore that the friendly but firm intentions are spelt out pretty clearly. Everybody is cutting Theo massive amounts of slack for his tirades in response to the issue ("Theo is being Theo"). How about you cut the GPL developers some slack, especially when the BSD side made the mistake that prompted the mail exchange.
Michael: should have emailed OpenBSD folks privately, pointing out the similarity of the code and determining whether the similarity is a coincidence, a bad idea of using GPL code as a placeholder (as seems to be the actual event), or outright theft. If there's inadequate response to the inquiry, only then should Michael have sent email to hundreds and hundreds of people about it.
Theo: should have taken the whole matter off-line as quickly as possible.
everyone: let tempers cool. Wait a few minutes before firing off the next salvo.
The whole thing could have been resolved with a few emails, and everyone would probably have felt OK about any outcome. Instead, the outcome is (from the outsider's perspective) the worst possible, and no one is happy about it.
Be careful about who you call a thief. Defaulting to a conclusion of theft when there could be an innocent explanation ("fair use," anyone?) is a terribly pessimistic way to go through life. Default to a belief that there is a reasonable explanation for the circumstances, and investigate further.
He has been arrested, but he has yet to stand trial. Given that we are "very smart people, very intelligent", we should be able to distinguish between the two. Funny comment though.
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.
Sorry, but when someone's called on you to explain seemingly-illegally-copied code, telling them to "go fuck themselves" is not a bloody option. Try that in the real world sometime, and see how fast an indictment for copyright infringement and the corresponding civil suit comes flying in.
Also, you say he "kill[ed] a truly free implementation of the driver in question," you are totally missing the issue. The entire point of this debate is that the bloody driver wasn't free at all! It was GPL'd code, which gives you the rights to use it within the terms of the GPL. Stripping the legitimate author(s) name(s) from the code and relicensing it under a looser (or, in the case of the GPL, tighter) license is one of the main things the GPL and other licenses are designed to prevent.
I find it regrettable that Michael decided to go so public with this (indeed, as others pointed out, it could probably have been solved privately) but it is absolutely his right, as the "sorry little fuck" who owns the copyright on the code, to protect it as he sees fit. I think the OpenBSD team should be remarkably relieved that Michael diplomatically approached the issue and offered to assist in relicensing the code instead of simply suing Marcus and the other perpetrators of this infringement.
So stop heaping abuse on the guy simply because he chose to protect his legal right to have his original product (the code) used only under the license he selected for it and to not have it used outside those boundaries by anyone else, whether by accident or design. Instead, give him credit for offering to assist in reaching a constructive solution to the issue.
-- Andrew Morritt
The real problem was the lack of proper attribution of the copyright and license.
This would be like the FreeBSD network code in the 2.0.36 Linux Kernel, the Linux Kernel code in the Virgin WebPlayer, the code from the ATA driver taken from FreeBSD and put into Linux or the use of the G4U code in that whatever-it-is GPLed version of G4U?
I think the best protection one can have is to do everything in the open where others can see.
Agreeed.
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
http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=229865&cid =18648703
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
As far as I can tell, it was your obligation to post publicly that the code was GPL licensed before someone else could have been damaged by making an assumption that the code was not GPL licensed.
If that project had a nice, empathic woman who has been a parent of teenagers to handle your notice, the reply would have been an apology, followed by amplification of your notice, and a calm talk about what to do. Instead, you got Theo :-)
It's as if you ran over a land-mine and people then tried to criticize you for running.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
How is that a sticking point? The _only_ sticking point is the copied code. (Why people keep calling this theft is beyond me; infringement != theft)
Furthermore, imagine a scenario where this wasn't taken public ASAP. Anyone that went to the code after the copied code was added but before it was corrected would be liable to think that the code in question was under a completely different license. In this scenario it is in the author's best interest to notify as many people as possible that his code has been hijacked. The more people that know, the better it is for the author, and for the people who would potentially have used the code. Sure, you'll be stepping on a few toes in making the issue public, but it has to be done in order to protect yourself and everyone else from misappropriating code. There is *no* other way to accomplish this as effectively, that I am aware of. Why take the man to task for protecting his assets, kindly and tactfully at that? I'm not sure that we're reading the same thing, because from my end, it looks like Michael was being kinder and more patient than I can reasonably expect from anybody that I've ever met. The only alternative would be to ask the developer to make a *public* statement about the entire thing, which would have the same effect. The only difference would be the name of the person delivering the message, which is _completely_ trivial.
Maybe you could argue that it might have saved the developer some face if he was the one delivering the message publicly. You know what would have saved him even more face? Not relicensing code that wasn't his in the first place.
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.
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.
Dropping a politely-worded note proposing co-operative effort to a bunch of concerned parties? Yeah, you would need a new meaning for the word "Nazi" before you could use it to describe that.
What wacky world do Theo's enablers come from that they think it's an aggrieved party's duty to keep an offender's misdeeds secret?
Mind the Gap
No, he's not. Innocent until proven guilty. Not "guilty if it looks like he did it."
O.J. is innocent, too. Personally, I think he did it, but he's still innocent. The jury that hears the evidence is who makes the decision, not you or me or anyone else armed with newspaper stories and "i-heard-from-a-guy"s.
What's really funny about all this is that Slashdot is all about advocating piracy under the guise of some anti-RIAA movement (when it's really just fucking over artists), but heaven forbid someone use GPL code. I mean, EULA aren't legally binding, but a GPL text header is? The double standards seem rather self-serving.
"Sufferin' succotash."
That's true - he wasn't charged with terrorism so due process still applies for now.
But Mr.Theo (Did I mention that you are using SSH) Raad did not respond in a calm way.
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.
I find it regrettable that Michael decided to go so public with this (indeed, as others pointed out, it could probably have been solved privately) - you are wrong. It was absolutely necessary to make sure that everyone knew about this for at least two (2) good reasons. First reason is to make sure that nobody downloaded the code from the cvs and used it for further coding assuming it was licensed under BSD. Second reason is to provide a valuable lesson that nothing goes unnoticed and that mistakes of this kind (stripping other people's copyrights and licenses from code, and I personally cannot imagine how this could be ruled a mistake,) would not be repeated by others.
You can't handle the truth.
I read the whole thread, too. I saw Theo defending his developer. I read your post threatening to take your ball and go home as more of the same juvenile antics. It's a goddamn OS, you nutjobs. And a lot of you people whale on evangelicals for believing in the Bible. I guess I understand--it's not like the Bible is nearly as important as a Linux distribution.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
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.
Seriously, he's known for such reactions.
I guess this is enough to disregard the fact that it was GNU/Linux - *not BSD* - that was the first truely free Unix like OS.
;-)
;)
Apparently Bill Joy started putting BSD together in early 1977. The FSF didn't exist until October 1985. From what I've read, the UNIX sources were distributed completely without restriction even earlier than 1977, since due to the antitrust case against them, AT&T weren't allowed to begin selling an operating system. The only charge that was being put on the source was the price of the mag tape, and I also don't know of any license restrictions either. Given the degree of university collaboration that existed early on, I can only assume that there weren't any. AT&T only became restrictive with the source themselves when they were released from the ban on selling it.
AFAIK, the main reason why UNIX wasn't used much outside of universities very early on was because of it originally being written for the PDP-8 and 11, which were very different architectures to the 80386. The first port that I know of to the 80386 that took place that I know of was the one done by the Jolitzes, which ended up becoming (more or less, anywayz) what we now know as FreeBSD.
It sounds like you've got the version of history that Stallman wants people to have; i.e., the one that makes him look like the sole father of the entire practice of releasing source code in general. From what I've been able to figure out anywayz, the truth is a bit different. UNIX was developed very collaboratively from its' inception, and as you yourself probably know, without source, that can't really happen.
Probably enough to disregard the fact that the "evil" FSF was already making available a shitload of software when Bill Gates was still dabbling in GWBASIC
The ANSI standard for Minimal BASIC is dated 1978, the same year Microsoft was founded. According to Wikipedia, the FSF was founded in October 1985...Looks like you're off by a couple of years. According to that, BASIC existed *before* the FSF. Also...I don't know what your own definition of "free" is, but Stallman himself was selling copies of Emacs during the 80s.
Rewriting history must be a nice hobby.
Reading history is a great hobby, sure...it allows me to know when it's been rewritten by someone else.
You might dislike it, you might have another, but *ours* has been there well before BSD did *anything*.
Unfortunately that simply is not true...it's what you've been told. Don't take my word for it though...Go and do some research of your own. Some links that might help:-
Some accounts of early UNIX history from the UNIX Heritage Society. There's some early source code there as well.
20 Years of Berkeley UNIX.
Some info about where Stallman originally got at least some of his ideas.
The Art of UNIX Programming, which has a fair amount of historical info as well.
A rather non-canon biographical portrait of Stallman.
Another second opinion on Stallman, more or less in general.
Maybe if you take the time to go through this material, you might start to realise what my beef is. I don't like bullies, and I don't like frauds...Stallman is both, which from reading the above, you will learn. I strongly urge anyone else here who views me as merely a baseless troll to go to the above links and read that material as well. If I am a troll, the point of it is very simple:- This Emperor has no clothes.
You could argue that he cc'ed too many people, but to keep the matter private would have been unethical.
Why? The casus belli was the copyright violation, which could have been solved quickly and quietly by a more private mailing.
Not having a dog in this hunt--I use FreeBSD and CentOS primarily for server applications, and OS X for my personal use--I see Theo's point that it was overkill to cc so many people, and that it reeked of attention-seeking. IMO it is daft to assume that Marcus was deliberately attempting to thieve GPL code. It's possible that he was, but since the development process for both Linux and OpenBSD are so public, it would take a really bad (or bold) thief to assume he could get away with stealing code.
I guess it feels good to catch a thief and to take a swipe at that mouthy Theo de Raadt and his project at the same time. The temptation would probably be too great for me, too, if I harbored some ill-will towards OpenBSD and/or Theo. But from a purely logical standpoint, nobody came out of this covered in glory.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.