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.
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 don't know what your parents taught you, but for me sharing isn't "I have some cookies and I'd be glad to give you some, but only if you promise to share with others." No, it's "I have some cookies, here have some."
If you want to share, you'll do what the developer of SQLite does and place your work in the public domain. BSD is one step away from that, and GPL is not even close. It doesn't benefit anyone when you start adding artificial restrictions on your work. Create it, be proud of it, and let others use it as they wish. That's my philosophy.
You are a fucktard of the highest order.
>There's a simple rule: Don't violate copyrights and don't get blamed for it. It's so simple.
Being in the right is okay; being a prick about it is not. It's so simple too.
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
You chose to grandstand, rather than act civilly and contact the developer off-list. Marcus already apologized for his mistake. He even deleted the entire driver from the tree. You've never apologized for being an ass, and I suspect you never will.
No that fact is YOU handled it wrong in the first place. If you had done the right thing in the first place everyone would have been happy. Now, however, everyone is shaking their heads at the whole thing. What an effing shame.
Is written specifically and deliberately to block inclusion in GPL works, why should the GPL community make any concessions for the BSD community?
Actually, you got it tremendously wrong. And that because you fail to grasp the fundamental fact that code is immaterial, because it is information. Information can be shared without depleting the source and, has the nice quality that, by sharing it, you are making everyone more information-rich, which, by creating a richer environment, creates a payback mechanism that enriches you. A real-life example: Science works that way. When you place constraints on the use of information, you try to "make water not wet" as Bruce Schneider says.
The behaviour of the GPL license is exactly like that of proprietary license: you play by my rules, and I'll let you have it. The difference is that, in proprietary license schemes, you are paid back in money. In the case of GPL, it is code, albeit in some cases useless or irrelevant (decreasing signal/noise ratio). In terms of use target, the effect is the same as freeware.
Empirical evidence appears to indicate that most open source project prefer non-GPL, non-viral variants. The ones who do prefer the GPL are usually somehow tied to the physical reality of hardware (e.g., the Linux kernel, where all players seal a "non-aggression pact" because they all depend on the same hardware features) or betraying the political view of the FSF and the reason that Stallman crafted the license in the first place, by deploying dual-license schemes (selling a proprietary license).
The FSF is technological reformationist movement, revered by some as a cult of personalities, whose philosophical underpinnings is moralism.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
Heh. Only when convenient. Fuck you, linsux faggots. BSD rules. Linsux SUCKS
Bruce:
You're justifying Michael's uncivil behavior. Your assertion that his public flogging of Marcus was an "obligation to post publicly that the code was GPL licensed" is complete nonsense. It's well documented that the bcm43xx drivers are GPL, both on the project website and in the code itself. I shall repeat myself one last time, since your ability to comprehend the written word pales in comparison to writing it; everyone in the OpenBSD camp admitted Marcus' mistake. The problem was simply that Michael chose to grandstand in front of his colleagues, presumably to embarrass a non-GPL developer.
Best Wishes,
Jason
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.
"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."
I guess English is not your mother tongue. I damn well stated what I would have told the Linux developer in this situation. Personally I think he needed to put up or shut the fuck up. One, the use was under 5% and not even functional code so I'm going to assume that would be fairly easy to write off as fair use. Two, it was never distributed. If you're going to harass someone and claim copyright infringement you better be willing and able to prove it was distributed. Three, Marcus seems to have a damn good case for slander (which is all documented in the list archive) if he were so inclined to go that route.
It might be a good idea for you GPL fanboys to take a second, hop off the the RMS train, and use some fucking common sense for just a bit.
Ubuntu: If at first you don't succeed, blindly slap a sudo in front of it
There is an elephant sitting in the corner of the room. No one wants to talk about it but it is there nonetheless. Facts of the matter are that BSD is essentially a failure with dwindling market share, no commercial enterprise support, and has fallen technologically behind.
As BSD continues to recede technologically, we are likely to see more and more cases of code theft by BSD developers. It is either steal the code or drop support. There is no other way BSD can keep its head above water feature-wise. Not enough talent, too few developers, and the diminishing size of its user base mean trouble with a capital "T" for BSD.