Slashdot Mirror
Linux Wireless Driver Violates BSD License?
bsdphx writes "After years of encouragement from the OpenBSD community for others to use Reyk Floeter's free Atheros wireless driver, it seems that the Linux world is finally listening. Unfortunately, they seem to think that they can strip the BSD license right out of it."
It appears that someone's submitted a patch to the LKML that wrongly strips the BSD atheros driver of its license - a clear violation of copyright.
However, until it's in Linus's tree (or even the MM tree), the violation is not by "linux", but the contributor, Jiri Slaby.
Anyway, thanks to the OpenBSD team for these great drivers. Thanks to the Linux team for including them (under the correct license).
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
No orthography among ACs, eh?
That pot and kettle are here somewhere...
Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
- * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
- * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. Granted that section has been removed but the copyright notices referred to: * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis Are still there, it is then shown to have been newly licensed under the GPL (Which you can do with the BSD as I understand it, you could re-license a derivative or even the original code as you wish).
Personally I would have left in some detail to show that the code was initially issued under the BSD, I would find that meets with my own moral requirements, I would also include a link to the place the BSD code originated, but there is no requirement to do so. That is the difference between the BSD and the GPL, Previously this code could have been closed (and If BSD versions were lost then it would remain closed) under the GPL it now cannot be closed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I read the diff correctly.
Im suddenly reminded of this, where linux gpl'd code found its way into BSD via a wireless driver.
Those in glass houses shouldnt throw stones
No....
It appears that someone (Jiri Slaby) doesn't understand what they are allowed to do with regards to the license.
This would - unlikely - have ever made it into an official patch set.
No Story Here -- move along.
Is this suppose to be a flame? Assuming not, you would only have to contribute your code IF you distribute Linux yourself. It doesn't sound like you plan to.
And as to this statement: Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. that's just plain BS. You company needs to hire better lawyers.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Ignoring moral issues, is there a problem? The source was dual-licensed under GPL and BSD licenses ("Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation."), so isn't it allowed to release it under just the GPL? IANAL.
I'll leave moral issues to another thread.
The fact is the original patch post was on Tue, 28 Aug 2007 12:00:50. Since then, the discussions are ongoing as how best to proceed. Recently, this was posted:
...
Date Wed, 29 Aug 2007 08:35:05 -0200
From "Jiri Slaby"
Subject Re: [PATCH 4/5] Net: ath5k, license is GPLv2
On 8/29/07, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 12:00 -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>
> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
>
> Since the BSD people are already getting upset about (for various
> reasons among which seem to be a clear non-understanding) I'd suggest
> changing it to:
yes, please. Can somebody do it, I'm away from my box.
> + * Parts of this file were originally licenced under the BSD licence:
> + *
> > * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
> > * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
> > * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
> > *
> > * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL
> WARRANTIES
> > * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
> > * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
> > * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
> > * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
> > * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
> > * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> + *
> + * Further changes to this file since the moment this notice was extended
> + * are now distributed under the terms of the GPL version two as published
> + * by the Free Software Foundation
>
> johannes
>
As mentioned before, it is the LKML, not the Rosetta stone. Things change
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
"bit player"... 24% of all servers shipping with Linux I do not think is a bit player...
:-)
You my sir either do not understand GPL, or you implemented your design quite poorly. Simply using Linux does not constitute needing to "release your source". Also, if you do not want to deal with the GPL, great!! Use BSD instead....
Basically, you are allowed to link GPL'd code to BSD code. So if I wrote "The boy hit the baseball" under the BSD license and you alter it to "The large boy hit the baseball well" under the GPL, the original statement is still available for use under the BSD license - even in your second statement. As long as they remove your GPL'd addition (the intertwined words "large" and "well"), they are free to use it under the BSD's terms.
The practical point is that the BSD code, when linked with GPL code, must adhere to the restrictions of both licenses. Most people just say that it has been relicensed under the GPL. That isn't exactly true. From most practical standpoints, the BSD license has so few restrictions that it doesn't matter, but technically that BSD code is still under the BSD license and it's requirements must be met.
So, that BSD code can easily be linked and intertwined with GPL code, but those few requirements of the BSD license must be met so long as there is any BSD code in the GPL'd derivative work.
The move is clearly against the BSD license. (Also, combining GPLv2ed code and BSDed code is subtly against the GPL, as the requirement to reproduce the license - as shown and violated here - is an extra requirement compared to the GPL, violating the "no additional restrictions" clause of the GPL.)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Before anyone jumps and mods me troll (please feel free to bring down my imaginary karma), I am the developer of one succesfull program that is now open Source under the Mozilla 1.1 license, and yes, you must be carefully when you release something under any OS license. When the program was freeware , but not OS, I used to sleep a lot better than now, when the last 3 monts only I've been battling with the new team about only legal aspects... Oh, well, next piece os OS I release will be on the public domain.
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
mmm... copypasta
Problem solved.
The BSD and GPL communities are two groups with much in common and some differences. That's especially true of the OpenBSD people who are very much committed to freedom for their software (and just disagree with the GPL people about how that is best defined). This kind of article is about trying to set up atificial disagreements between those communities so that they don't cooperate well. I write copyleft software and content (GPL/GFDL/CC-SA) but I would mostly relicence it if an important project like OpenBSD or X.org asked for it. I would make that decision based on the value of the project. If I feel that a project is harmful overall then I probably wouldn't.
The trick is that we have to not be divided and work together sensibly.
An Anonymous Coward wrote this by the original article....
How much you will to bet this won't instantly appear on Slashdot
;-)
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
> OpenBSD developers have time and time again claimed "moral superiority" over GNU and Linux due to their adoption
> of a license that allows code to be used in closed projects. It always was a specious argument, but it's looking
> all the more absurd today.
Doesn't this always tend to happen with organized religion? The "our ideology is better/truer/stronger than yours so we are superior and can condescend/oppress/forcibly convert" syndrome?
(Flashes on the surrealistic scene of the Romans watching RMS fight Theo de Raadt in the Colosseum...)
Seems someone found an earlier article on his blog that is a bit hypocritical. :-)
9 7783716840&postID=4418674504017401530
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=63671940
Peace sells, but who's buying?
"Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License". So it certainly appears that you can choose between distributing it and keeping the notice intact, or distributing it under the GPL. Now it may be that not all the files say that, or that you have to keep the notice anyway, or there's some other complication, but on the face of it it may be that the person who removed the notices thought they were allowed to.
That bit sounds remarkably like "Mike Cox" from the ZDNet boards. It just seems like his style.
To begin with, I just contacted one of the authors and it appears
this is just miscommunication by some people who didn't bother to ask:
the code is really dual-licensed BSD and GPL, so that people
from all sides can get the benefit. The case that wasn't.
Let's remind that GPL and BSD are different licences.
You can turn a BSD code into GPL but not vice versa
and this has some serious implications, since GPL *does not*
enforce author back reference as long as the code remains GPL;
short of "the copyright holder is FSF" itself.
It means that this is a legally valid path:
BSD code with ref. -> GPL code with ref. -> GPL code without ref.
It is not clear to me though if BSD's request for author reference
should be considered "a further restriction" under GPL's regime.
A lawyer please?
We all agree that some back reference would be nice,
if not for credit at least for documentation reasons.
Considering that Jiri happens to be the original copyright holder of the code in question,
they DO very probably understand what they are or are not allowed to do with regards to
the licensing of the code. Since HE does NOT need licensing to produce it, relicense it, etc.
he can do with his code what he sees fit to do.
This would likely have made it into an official patch set if it could have been verified
that Jiri did the change.
Still, no story really here other than Theo and company being their usual abrasive selves-
move along seems fitting still...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
BSD types licensing is just evil or plain dumb. Someone may license some code using a BSD license and, sometime later, is obliged to pay for his own code that was used in some gadget by someone else. I think that GNU License is the way to go.
OpenBSD Wireless is something the OpenBSD team does really well. I had a brand new laptop, in which I first installed Ubuntu 7.04. Well, wireless didn't work and after reading all the hacks that would be required I decided to install OpenBSD out of curiosity. Well, everything worked with no hacks required. Kudos to the OpenBSD team who perform such miracles as well as all the other wonderful things they have done for the open source community e.g. OpenSSH.
Theo and Company happen to be VERY obnoxious at times. This would be one of them.
They were guilty of the very thing they're accusing the Linux crowd of back a while
back and the Linux crowd handled it rather nicely and helpfully, but Theo went ballistic
and basically got all bent out of shape indicating that they weren't really violating
the GPL licensing on a kernel driver (they were, but...) and so forth.
Now, we see a percieved violation being "observed" by Theo and Company
and in reality, the people in the discussion thread all bent out of shape over it weren't
paying close attention. The original author did the change- which is legit all the way
around.
This isn't about dividing BSD and Linux. This is about Theo and some of the OpenBSD
crowd being a little more mouthy than usual and simply going off half-cocked.
Nothing new here- move along.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
It appears that you can't read this particular patch style. The lines with + mean added, the lines with - mean removed.
.c files were handled appropriately and it was merely the .h files that had the license completely ripped out. The .c files were dual-licensed and said you could choose either. They just removed the BSD license as that was "choosing" GPLv2. The .h files are just some interfaces and don't change often anyways, so the BSD license is good enough for them (they should have left those). The .c files are the actual implementation, which would change between operating systems.
.h files since they didn't have the dual-license notice in them. If they aren't dual-licensed under both, you can relicense as GPLv2, but you have to include the BSD notice under its own terms. The GPL itself even says not just attribution, but the original notices themselves must be preserved. One additionally might say that since the GPL says to preserve the original notice, that even in the dual-license case you must preserve the BSD license in order to initially comply with the GPL, although that's a requirement of the GPL and not a dual-licensing/BSD provision. A dual-licensing (as you can see in this case) clearly says you can pick either, since the word "Alternatively" (e.g. the ath5k_reg.h license) implies if you chose the following path, you can ignore the provisions of the previous path.
The lines without either mean that's context for the differences.
If you look at the original patch, no attribution was removed. The attribution was in the context lines.
It looks like the
Here's a link to the actual diff as provided in the original article:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157
You'll also note that the dual-licensed code had the committer's copyright notice on it. In some cases it was only his notice, originally. With the data immediately available, maybe he stripped it out in a commit before this one, but they don't seem to be accusing him of that. They are mainly accusing him of ripping out the BSD license from a couple
In summary, it looks like a lot of this was nit-picking over how to actually do the license notice preservation, rather than preserving somebody's attribution. I imagine it'll be fixed up in very little time and few people will care about this in more than a day or two.
Stan: They Killed BSD !!
Kyle: You Bastards !!
I think we need a new tag: Astroturfer
I wouldn't be shocked to learn OSS projects are the biggest violators of OSS copyright.
I know a few years back I took some code from a GPL project and ended up releasing my software as MIT. No one till this day has brought any objections. I am sure many other smaller projects do the same thing... no one checks and the chances of being sued are unlikely as the community is not commercially minded.
This line (taken from the diff in the link) says it all, really.
The original implementation was dual licensed BSD/GPL.
The submitter changed some bits and decided to pick the GPL license (both would have been allowed).
Now the submitted code is GPL-restricted.
It's a pretty pathetic thing to do, cutting off the source from any usefull changes, but perfectly legal nonetheless.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
No, the code in question was not dual licensed under the GPL and BSD licenses. Some of the files were, and the person making this mistake was the original author of those files, that's not the problem. The openbsd developers added additional files (to make the driver actually work instead of requiring a binary blob), which are released under the ISC license only. The linux developers are welcome to add additional GPL restrictions to this free code if they wish, however they may not remove the original copyright notice from it. Its very simple if you take the 2 seconds required to look at what happened instead of picking sides and choosing to flame the other side like a bunch of morons.
Considering that Jiri happens to be the original copyright holder of the code in question,
they DO very probably understand what they are or are not allowed to do with regards to
the licensing of the code. Since HE does NOT need licensing to produce it, relicense it, etc.
he can do with his code what he sees fit to do.
Except he's not the only copyright holder of the code in question:
* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis
* Copyright (c) 2002-2007 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005 Reyk Floeter
The same could definitely be said about Linus and the Linux crowd as well. I seem to remember the Linux boosters getting very upset about a similar problem with code being taken improperly. As I recall, it was somewhat different, but I don't recall anybody at the time suggested that Linus and the boosters were mouthier than usual.
And it is quite reasonable for them to complain that the BSD license was explicitly stripped from the source without permission. It would be an oversight if it was just violate the terms of the license, but to explicitly strip out the licensing is a getting towards the egregious end of the spectrum.
Ha! Now the pot calls the kettle black, while the kettle is calling the pot the same. Both are shouting at eachother that the pot is calling the kettle something, or vice versa. At least both aknowledge that both where or are wrong somewhere with something, but in a while I guess everyone is forgotten what exactly was the case. Except for the fact that the opposing party was far more wrong to begin with, because their own side was less black. Grey even, maybe anthracitish. They will accuse eachother of this, and so the cycle starts over again. Rinse and repeat until... Until what exactly?
Man, where is my popcorn. This must be the funniest flamefest I saw about BSD vs GPL yet.
Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
The fact that code released under the GPL can not be closed is a lack of freedom which BSD doesn't have. Not only is this a highly restrictive aspect of the GPL it's also the "totalitarian communistic" aspect of the GPL that attempts to enforce "social controls" on the software industry.
Before you get all McCarthy on me let me explain. Communistic in this case refers to the "community" and the high value that the GPL places upon keeping code available to the community as a whole - this is the principle of communism that I refer to: a higher value is placed on the rights of the community than the individual. GPL simply places higher values upon the rights of the community. BSD places high value on freedom to choose by the individual and the community.
The GPL's sad devotion to it's community (aka communistic) principle creates a lack of freedom and a number of serious adoption problems for many considering using, extending and modifying GPL'd software. The lack of choice is prevalent since the GPL requires one to share ones changes IF the resulting binaries are "distributed". Such arbitrary arrogance of control by the collective! When will it end, GPL v20.0 total social control? Yes you have freedom to choose to join the GPL collective, but after that your freedom is diminished significantly.
The BSD license enables full freedom. You are free to use, modify, edit, distribute (or not) the source or the binary. You are free to close the code! You are free to keep it open! That's total freedom and crucially important to innovation, the creative process and to the financial success for many of us. No adhering to totalitarian social control rules of the GPL restrictive license. Freedom to choose what you wish to do with the code when you wish to do it and how you wish to do it. Most importantly you can choose to change how you do it at anytime, unlike the GPL which requires you to adhere to the communistic party line at the moment you join and forever onwards.
Free software and open source software communistic free: BSD all the way!
As someone who has published software licensed the same software under the GPL and the BSD it's clear that BSD trumps GPL rules at anytime - allowing software published in this manner to override any GPL'd rule, phrase, sentence, paragraph or concept (and anything else I might have missed). Subsequent authors are of course free to do what they wish with it. Oh my god, they are even free to impose their draconian and totalitarian GPL license on their changes - IF AND ONLY IF their changes pass the derivative works test. HOWEVER, the original BSD license still applies to the original material - AND to minor changes that fail to pass the derivative works test! (See the second quoted text from the USA copyright office below for their derivative works test).
This is what the USA copyright act states:
103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
To remove the copyright when you are not the copyright owner is a violation of copyright law. The original authors should be contacted and asked how they wish to proceed.
The original BSD code should at least be linked to or made available on the derivative site to clearly show the pedigree and respect the original authors rights.
When you use another's work and modify it you are creating a derivative work and possibly a compilation work. There are tests to be applied as to the extent of your changes. Changing a single word in a sentence of a comment or program line isn't enough to make a derivative work.
For exampl
The only thing oss developers have is ethics and credits. We are ashamed of what Slaby did. In fact, vendors may see slaby's name in the git logs and he can get a job with lots of $$$ for it. This is unacceptable. Linux wasn't made with stealing the work of others. MS does that.
The response should include a big "SORRY". Not, i'm not home atm so somebody else take care of this. kthnxbye
If i was linus, i would kickban slaby.
People are just trying to make it seem like it's getting more complicated. It's actually quite straight-forward.
If something is under BSD license. You CAN re-license it under the terms of the GPL provided you maintain the list of copyright holders, warranty disclaimer, and do not use the names of the copyright holders for purposes of advertisement or promotion.
So, I can take a BSD licensed code, keep the BSD warranty disclaimer, keep the list of copyright holders, and add the GPL license notice. All future modifications from that source base (not the original) are now required to meet the requirements of the GPL.
If it's dual-licensed, I can simply drop all mention of the BSD license and it's requirements. I am CHOOSING to distribute under the terms of the GPL then in that case.
Simple. Not complicated. Anything else is FUD!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Actually you are not merely a citizen of the state of texas, you are a Sentient Human Being which trumps all imaginary rules or categories such as "states", "texas", "taxpayer" or "consumer".
As a sentient human being you are a part of the universe that is alive and sentient. That is unique and special. It also infers powerful rights to you that the collective can't ever remove from you. Enjoy your power. Wisdom is advised however as others have the same immutable and powerful rights as you.
-------
Chapter Two of Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science is enough proof that God not only Doesn't exist but isn't needed except to placate the masses.
And what about the files written by Reyk Floeter, Nick Kossifidis, and Sam Leffler? if_athvar.h specifically is BSD-only licensed my Sam.
I think this mostly a storm in a teacup though. Some developer who's not really that up on licensing knowledge made a change and some over-enthusiastic person really jumped on him. The fix is simple enough (add back the BSD notices).
it's a copy paste job:
6
o ld=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=13343214
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/2/13/8422/1665
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159323&thresh
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
So you did read the part of the license where it said you can do exactly what was done, right? Remove the license as long as the copyright notice is in tack. There is even a specific line which says you can distribute it under the terms of the GPL.
Nothing to see here.
An off topic reply to your sig:
"Why does Apple hate DRM on audio, but not on Software or Video?"
Apple doesn't hate DRM at all. They just decided to get rid of some of it to please the angry masses and to generate more sales.
If it was a good idea financially to keep the DRM, Apple would happily keep it. Bastards.
This is what the USA copyright act states:
t ive/ [copyright.gov]
103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
To remove the copyright when you are not the copyright owner is a violation of copyright law. The original authors should be contacted and asked how they wish to proceed.
The original BSD code should at least be linked to or made available on the derivative site to clearly show the pedigree and respect the original authors rights.
When you use another's work and modify it you are creating a derivative work and possibly a compilation work. There are tests to be applied as to the extent of your changes. Changing a single word in a sentence of a comment or program line isn't enough to make a derivative work.
For example, lets say you take a BSD copyrighted program such as Apache, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, or any other large program and make some minor changes. If you modify a subroutine in a large program that's not a derivative work since that is a minor change and wouldn't qualify. In fact most contributions by folks to any large free or opensource projects don't qualify as new versions of the work and the copyright remains with the original authors.
Here is a summary from the US to back up the above assertion.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html#deriva
To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.
Remember that while you can have all the open source or free software fantasies you wish the bottom line is that the copyright laws of your country and the country that the software originated from still apply and in many cases trump or nullify the license terms - sometimes in unexpected ways.
So in this case if the changes were minor the derivative works test fails, and the license MUST remain BSD as the subsequent work isn't a new copyrightable version!
Now the question is: how extensive where the changes? IF what was presented in this Slashdot thread is the entire source code AND it wasn't produced by the original author THEN one would easily see that it's not a new copyrightable work and the original authors copyright remains in full force with his BSD license terms.
Some points...
/ah5k_hw.h / ath5kreg.h and ath5k.h do not come from openbsd tree, they have code from bsd (that's why Reyk's copyright is there) but are written from scratch. They first appeared on madwifi svn (http://madwifi.org/changeset/2232) and are part of madwifi-old-openhal project. They have a different layout (eg. code is not split per-chip as in openbsd cvs but it's common for all chips, lot more documentation on registers etc) and you can see that changes have been done since http://madwifi.org/log/branches/madwifi-old-openha l/openhal (initial register writes for example are done in a different way than original openbsd code). So it's a derivative work or a "fork", not a "copy" as the license says ("copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."). So if those files had from start a GPLv2 license it wouldn't be a problem (since they are not "copies" of the original code and author's copyright -Reyk's- is still there so there is no copyright violation either).
l opers-Steal-OpenBSD-Code-for-Wireless-Driver) and this is really anoying !!!
/ ic/), so "bad linux developers against openbsd" scenario doesn't apply here...
0 7-April/004370.html), not a test branch like -mm, the core cvs. Also have in mind that Theo back then criticized Mike for doing this on a public mailing list etc and now he didn't say a thing about publicity.
a) ath5k_hw.c
b) Original author of those files (mickflemm) later uploaded them on madwifi svn repository again but now with a different license (http://madwifi.org/changeset/2670), GPLv2 as you see (Reyk's copyright is still there of course)...
So where is the problem ???
I see no violation, only people calling other people thieves (http://www.osnews.com/story.php/18528/Linux-Deve
Also have in mind that Madwifi team have provided patches on openbsd (you can see that on openbsd cvs http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev
To summarize the whole thing IMHO is nonsense, Theo just wanted to make a point against linux developers after a serious (even copyright was removed) violation commited on openbsd's cvs (http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/bcm43xx-dev/20
The code is under a dual license and permits the person distributing the code to choose BSD or GPLv2. Well, the person chose GPLv2. That seems legitimate to me: the license does not require the code to continue to be distributed under both license. In fact, this may be unavoidable in many cases: if the code is modified in a way that would cause it to fall under the GPLv2, it simply cannot be redistributed anymore under a BSD license.
Im pretty sure the main caveats of BSD licence is
1. Dont say you wrote it
2. Dont sue us if it breaks
3. Otherwise party on!
I would say that modifying/recompiling for linux and changing the license is fine. Microsoft took their TCP/IP stack from BSD and closed the source completely but nobody cared cuz it was how the BSD license was meant to work.
nothing to see here
"Except that it's the author and copyright holder who did it, and he's allowed to do what he likes with his copyrighted works."
The submitter wrote some of the driver, but there are a few other names in the Copyright list. There is no information in the article indicating their (dis)approval.
This is a reoccurring copy/paste troll which has seen it's rounds on /.
Let's not give it any more thought or discussion, as that has been done many times before.
The BSD license is a permissive license. If you release ANYTHING under the BSD license you're basically saying "here, I've done this, now use it". Which is great. We can use the code, modify it, roll it up into our proprietary package and happily redistribute it. And everyone's known this forever.
... C) ask (never hurts, but it doesn't politically make sense to reverse your stance on such a permissive license) D) reject the patch and fork (happens all the time) E) change licenses to something that better reflects your expectations.
/. style entertainment and I'm sure they'll work out their differences (I'd guess by doing D). And since when does the BSD have X11 like clauses? I'm having deja vu.
So mingling BSD and GPL code shouldn't produce such surprising results. I'm sure the original developer would have been much happier if the updates could be given back under the original license to the original project. But adding new code under a different (in this case less permissive) license does exactly what it should do. No-one TOOK his code. He gave it away. They made improvements but licensed their work under the license they preferred.
They could just as well have taken it, improved it and rolled it into a massive money making venture and never even provided the code and somehow in this funny climate it seems *that* would have been better.
Don't like the license? Don't use the code. Write your own code. We GPL monkeys have to do this all the time. Technically, so do the commercial shops. Sounds like a petty squabble. If they didn't want it to be free, as in they had some expectation of being given something back then should have chose another license. But it's BSD. I could write a patch and release the patch under the most insane license I could find. Folding my patch into their codebase would then 'taint' their licensing. That's exactly how the BSD works. In fact, that's exactly the BSD's strength and it's flexibility.
Personally I prefer the GPL for this very reason. If I release work and people improve it and benefit from it I'd like to see some return on the gains. But since it's BSD you can A) accept it because it's the nature of the license you chose B) whine
Mind you, this all makes for good
Quack, quack.
I am not directly involved with the OpenBSD project. However I am an OpenBSD user and (small) donor, and I do appreciate their attitude towards software freedom.
Asking strictly for myself, and without any knowledge about who you are or what your projects are, would you please relicense them to add the ISC license?
Thanks!
(No Funny mods, please... I'm quite serious.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
I am not directly involved with the OpenBSD project. However I am an OpenBSD user and (small) donor, and I do appreciate their attitude towards software freedom.
Asking strictly for myself, and without any knowledge about who you are or what your projects are, would you please relicense them to add the ISC license?
Thanks!
(No Funny mods, please... I'm quite serious.)
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Hi,
So someone categorized my earlier reply as off topic, sigh. Since the posting that I originally replied to included a signature footer including the statement "I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas" my comment was perfectly on topic. If anything his posting was off topic for including said signature. Commenting on signtures is perfectly valid.
Thanks.
If Slaby is the *sole* copyright owner, he's welcome to release it under another license. It appears however that his work was probably done in concert with other contributors and those contributors may not have transferred their copyright to him. Hence, he may not be able to just change the license like he did. That said, the modification that he's agreed seems correct -- ie, parts of this code are BSD, but remaining changes are under the GPL. Hence, unless you know which parts are GPL and which are BSD, its in effect a GPL license. So, same effect. It's a legal technicality.
If this is the *sole* work of ostensible author, Jiri Slaby, there is no further issue.
However, if this software has contributors from the BSD community, then the act, while technically legal, is extremely rude , uncooperative, and I'd argue, morally problematic. People write BSD code so that people can take advantage of the code in any way, including making proprietary forks or whatno -- the code is truly *FREE*. The conversion to GPL like this isn't actually helping to keep it "free", it's a privatization of the code to a different definition of "free", preventing further work from being included in BSD* distributions. This is the net effect of the change; the Linux people are essentially saying: thanks for the fish, now go away. They are building off FREE software, but are unwilling to grant the same freedoms granted to them back to those who helped build it. It's classic GPL and Stallmanist logic. It's now "free", so long as "free" means what Stallman say it means. The proper response to this by BSD people is to continue to develop the *BSD licensed version, and just ignore the Linux fork. Yes, they can take the fish if they want, it's not legally incorrect -- but the action itself speaks loudly of the Linux community, however.
I guess I'm wrong about the copyright notice. It seems a little counter intuitive and with th dual licensing issue thrown in I'm fairly lost.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
- Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
- Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
So the BSD is mostly permissive but contains restriction with what could be considered a viral copyright notice?
Quack, quack.
I am not sure why there is confusion. The original code was available under EITHER the BSD license, and the GPL license. They have decided to use the GPL license, which does not bind them to the BSD license.
So they removed mention. The provided the code back, under the gplv2, which the original authors could then include into theirs.
AVAILABLE under dual license doesn't mean you accept both. They abided by the terms of the GPL.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
It was not a violation. HE'S using and redistributing it under the terms of the GPLv2. Granted, it would seem a bit rude, but, not a violation of the gplv2 at all. Dual license doesn't mean BOTH.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
As far as I can tell, is to do something like this: /*
* Copyright (c) 1903-2009 Bsd Fan
* Copyright (c) 2007 GPL Zealot
*
*** GPL standard notice goes here
*
* Portions of this file were taken from XXX
* These portions are licensed under the following license:
*** BSD license goes here
*/
This way both licenses are respected, everyone get their copyright, but the work is licensed under the GPL ONLY! If someone can separate the original work (say, by taking it from the original location), then that work is still licensed under the BSD license, but non of the new modifications are licensed under BSD, only under GPL (which is BSD compatible)
Shachar
A patch to existing code would be considered a derivative work.
Derivative works all belong to the original copyright owner. No matter who wrote them.
This is what keeps someone from trying to add in a patch that has a different license from original GPL work.
The original licensee does not allow it.
Except, that dual licenses means just that. In the case where a program is dual licensed, one must maintain compliance with both licenses, or do so to the fullest extent possible. In this case that means very little beyond keeping the BSD license notice attached to the code. What if he had decided to go the other way, removing the gpl2 license? You don't honestly think that, that would significantly alter the requirements in terms of redistribution, do you?
The only person that can change the licensing on code is the person that owns it. From what I have gathered, the person that relicensed the driver only contributed a portion of the driver, meaning that there was a portion of the code which was not his to relicense. I have no problem personally with people changing their minds over what license to use, it often times ends well, but changing the license on somebody elses work is pretty much piracy.
It would be terribly convenient for me to change the licensing on commercial software programs so that I could use them with impunity because now all of a sudden they have become public domain. But it doesn't work like that, and for good reason.
Either it's totally free, like you claim - then everybody be it commercial vendors or GPL people can do with it what they like. After all that's the point of BSD: extensions need NOT be given back to the BSD community. Why should a commercial company be allowed to take the code, whereas GPL people would not?
So either live with it or stop talking about that free nonsense.
I'm comming more and more to the conclusion that BSD authors are friggen' hypocrites.
And equating one proposed patch with the whole linux community makes you more than a hypocrite, it makes you a back-stabbing liar.
A) Not the original author, and B) in definite violation of that license. And the amazing thing is it's the first first part of the diff. You have to go looking for code written by Jiri.
After a quick look back at the diffs, you're right, Slaby gets to change one license almost will, but needs to ask for the others:
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.c
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby
* All rights reserved.
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k.h
* Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_base.h
* Copyright (c) 2002-2007 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby
Perhaps there's a thread with Floeter, Kossifidis, and Leffler giving him the green light, but I didn't see one.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Doing the same thing in the other direction (including GPL-licensed code in a BSD-licensed project) is a no-no, by the way. The GPL has additional requirements that the BSD license doesn't satisfy.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I read through that thread, and most of the yelling from the openbsd side was that the complaints were being handled in an immature and unprofessional manner. Quite a bit of complaining about why it was necessary to humiliate the maintainer if the original programmer just wanted the code fixed to properly attribute the license and copyright information.
As for Linus, the reason I mentioned his name was that the post I was responding to was suggesting that Theo can be a bit coarse and hard to deal with. Which is largely the same way that Linus frequently comes off at times.
I'm sorry, but I really can't see how the Linux devs are any better than the Openbsd devs in all of this. It might be better to make sure ones own house is cleaned before complaining about the cleanliness of others.
I think the difference is how freedom is best preserved. In a BSDL community, you encourage everyone to contribute because it benefits them and everyone else by doing so, and it hurts them not to contribute. This works becasue if one doesn't contribute back then it becomes prohibitive to upgrade to the latest version fairly quickly, but if one does contribute then everyone else can supply patches and improvements. Furtermore, if two people create a different fix to the same problem and only one contributes the patch, the person who didn't gets screwed, especially if their version is better since now they have to maintain the difference or lose functionality.
:-)
BSD uses economics to protect freedom. GPL tries to use the force of law.
Generally I prefer the BSD approach but tend to feel safer with the GPL
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system).... I suppose it depends how you frag the filesystem to start with. Windows will only defrag a filesystem it has messed up. Since Linux doesn't mess up the filesystem for you, fragging it might require a plasma gun or the like and then, I am afraid the software isn't going to be much help.
As for Tolkein Ring support, ask the Nazghul;* they might, for the right price, let you port the drivers from AIX.
* Nazghul in this context refers to IBM's lawyers.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Please cite me any source of information that says dual license means you are bound by two separate and distinct licenses. All definitions of Dual License I have seen are an either license context, not BOTH licenses. A good example is MySQL. Dual licensed under a commercial license where anyone can do what they want for a fee. They in no way are required to redistribute the code if they choose a commercial license.
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Bullshit! Derivative works are separate works that receive separate protection under the Copyright Act to the extent that they are different from the original work and to the extent that that difference satisfies the requirements for copyright protection. It is, however, infringement to create a derivative work without the permission of the original author. Then you get into a situation where you own the copyright to the derivative work, but cannot exercise any of the rights of a copyright holder without infringing on the rights of the original holder.
There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
Well, now, that's a truly fabulous slight-of-mind. Kudos. But tell me, is 1st amendment a reference to first post? Under this theory of law, you really want to get there first.
The GPL actually functions like a 1st amendment which states that America grants certain rights to Americans (some in the guise of restrictions on restrictions), and we're going to bomb any country which doesn't follow suit back to the stone age.
Tell me, wouldn't the 1st amendment be better if it was more honest about the carpet bombing of contrary views back to the stone age? Subject only to available funds?
I admire the GPL empire, but personally I choose not to live there. I think the GPL is the right choice for systems and the wrong choice for technologies. If I invented a new network protocol (Internet 3, since Internet 2 is already registered) I would license the implementation under BSD, and the compliance suite under GPL. A protocol is worthless if people don't steal enough of the original code to make everything work together. Likewise, the protocol is worthless if people Balkanize compliance with the edge cases. I see two different purposes, and two different licences with respect to those purposes, neither of which involves any recursive viral calculus to comprehend.
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. Note that the Nazghul have signed off on Linux from the standpoint of their parent company's global consulting services, which now amount to over half the revenue of that Fortune 100 company. Perhaps the Nazghul like dragons?
In short, I believe that you should ask your lawyer for a good definition of derivative works, or read Gates v. Bando (no relation to Billy) and look at these things yourself. While IANAL, I do divine the future by watching the flights of the Nazghul on their draconian steeds.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Ignore the more relevant discussions from technical people. Like at Kerneltrap. And answer by replying blindly what I called you. - Hey, you farted, it's disgusting - No I didn't, you did! - Right
..to violate a BSD license? I mean really?
expandfairuse.org
again!
Copyright law pretty much requires you not to attempt to steal someone else's copyright, as in by taking out their copyright notice.
;-)
The reason the BSD copyright notice containing the license requires keeping the copyright notice is that the BSD copyright notice is a bit more complicated than many copyright notices. Without the license part of the notice being explicit about that, some people might have thought it was okay to strip out the license part of the notice as long as they left that one line of copyright claim. (And the law itself has not been tested in this way, so it was good to be safe.)
It was okay for the original author to change the license until the derivitive work contained code from someone else. Once there is code from someone else, the authors of the additional code must be also consulted, and if they don't agree, the copyright claims (included the license, in this case) must remain intact.
Why do so many people seem to fail to read the licenses for comprehension before they assume what can and can't be done.
(And I'm not talking about the original author in this case, my guess is that part of his brain hadn't really quite fully registered that someone who had helped him with his creation might not think that removing the dual license was just a matter of tidying up, and once that was brought to his attention, he seems to have recognized the issues and taken care of it.)
joudanzuki
-- READ your licenses before you use the code. (And if you don't understand the license, don't use it.
The BSD license stuff _was_ put back in, but under a clause clarifying that the code was _originally_ dual-licensed with the BSD-licence.
They didn't say "Can't do that."
What was suggested was "How about an clarifying clause, explaining that the code was originally dual-licensed (with reproduced BSD-license), as a way to demonstrate good-will towards the BSD-based contributers and appreciation of their efforts.
Then, as you say, Jiri S. said "Good idea! But I'm not at my own computer right now; so would someone pretty-please take care of it for me?"
No... He is not the _sole_ copyright holder and not all files are dual licensed!
Also note the wording in one of the diffs:
The word 'Alternatively' usually means that I may select either of the rules it stands between, not that I must abide by both.
List: openbsd-misc
/sys/dev/ic/{ar52{10,11,12}{.c,{reg,var}.h},ar5xxx .{c,h}}./ ic/#ar5210.c
/ ath/if_ath.c#rev1.170d &committer=sam
/ ic/ath.c#rev1.64d &committer=reyk
Subject: Re: Linux Driver Violates BSD License
From: "Constantine A. Murenin" [...]
BTW, since this is misc@openbsd.org, people might be interested to
know about the history of the licensing terms of ath(4) in OpenBSD.
OpenBSD's ath(4) consists of two parts:
1. a driver, copyrighted by Sam Leffler of FreeBSD
2. a HAL, copyrighted by Reyk Floeter of OpenBSD
What Theo explained above concerns the OpenHAL code. OpenHAL is the
Linux name for madwifi driver connected with reyk's entirely free and
open source ath(4) HAL code.
Sam originally put a dual BSD/GPL licence onto his driver code.
Reyk always put a BSD-style licence onto his HAL code.
At the time OpenHAL was forked from OpenBSD, OpenBSD's ath(4)
_driver_, but _not the HAL_, was dual licensed.
As already mentioned, OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL, written by Reyk, was
_never_ dual licensed. See the history on
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev
Few months ago, Sam changed the licence of _his_ code to a 2-clause
BSD licence. Sam had every right to do so, because he was and is the
only copyright holder of that code, as the licence header of the
driver file indicates, in FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev
http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=freebs
Reyk committed Sam's changes to OpenBSD the same day, so now,
OpenBSD's ath(4) is _entirely_ BSD-licensed, with no alternative
licensing available.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev
http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=openbs
However, what Jiri Slaby does in his diff is simply outrageous. He
changes the licensing terms of the code _he does not own_ _at his own
will_. A clear copyright violation.
As I can see from that diff on LKML, Jiri Slaby doesn't even have his
name as the copyright holder in many of the ath5k files that he tries
to change the licensing terms of. In other files, he is not the only
author, so he can't change the terms unless _all_ other copyright
holders agree to the new terms.
I'm very upset that certain people think they can get away with such a
blatant disrespect of the copyright law. I trust that this violation
won't be left unnoticed.
What I personally don't understand, however, is that if Jiri Slaby
thinks that he can simply change the licence of someone's code without
explicit agreement of that someone, then why on earth does he think
that changing the licence to a more restrictive one will offer him any
protections, as, presumably following his logic, other people could
later change the licence to whatever they feel like, in the very same
illegal manner as he did in the first place. IMHO, that is the real
question that he has to answer.
Constantine.
The BSD troupe got their panties in a twist and theo exploded in the earlier setting. In this one, the BSD troupe got their panties in a twist and the GPL people said "OK, missed that. Ta".
I fail to see where both sides have been equally as bad. Pantie twisting is OK but the bit where Theo and his acolytes (or is that elecrolytes..?) went apeshit and called the GPL people all sorts of mean things and went so genuinely ballistic is NOT OK and the GPL people here aren't going in the least bit apeshit.
Theo's a twat (a useful one, maybe) but he's not portrayed as one because businesses looove BSD (when written by others: try asking your boss if you can release your code BSD...).
PS I thought that the BSD was "better" than the GPL because there's "like, no retrictions, the code is just free, man". Uh, if it was REALLY free why is it possible to infringe the copyrights?
That is simply not true. If I write something new, I own the copyright on it, and can choose to place it under the GPL. If someone else then modifies that same software, they own the copyright on their modifications; however, they are bound by the terms of the license under which they obtained the code in the first place (the GPL), which obligates them to release their modifications under the GPL as well. Since they don't own the copyright on all of the code, they cannot choose to release it under a different license.
I, as the original copyright holder, could release my original version under a different license, but I could not change the license on the version that consists of my original version + their modifications. The only way that I could do that is if I had the permission of the other copyright holder(s). This is one reason that some companies are so scared of the GPL: in the general case, it is very hard to get ahold of all of the relevant copyright holders.
For projects submitted to the FSF, they take out some of the confusion by requiring that copyright is transfered to the FSF itself, but the FSF is a special case in this respect.
There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
Since you seem to have a good handle on this I'll ask you: Sifting through the linked discussion and Theo's flames, I ran across an argument about the nature of dual-licensing. Someone mentioned that the GPL has wording to the effect of "You must give others the same freedoms that you had when you received the software" - I presume that's from the preamble or something higher-level than legalese. Still, could that be properly interpreted to mean that, under the terms of the GPL itself, if you receive a piece of software that is dual-licensed, you are required to preserve both licenses in your redistribution? I kind of doubt it, but I wonder what the argument in that case would be.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Also, how does the attribution clause play into this? Isn't the existence of a piece of code licensed under BSD (as opposed to BSD-like) incompatible with the GPL? How is it that you can include conditions on the redistribution of source - specifically that an additional notice must be maintained - and still be GPL compliant?
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
So they removed mention.
Which violates the BSDL.
The GPL does not replace the BSDL. The resulting work remains subject to both licenses. The GPL can't change that.
Is this Slashdot? Where's the flamewar, the zealotory?
I have read only calm, (mostly) informed opinions so far.
I'm deeply disappointed.
-snip- Theo and Company happen to be VERY obnoxious at times. -/snip-
Well, I don't know about the "and Company", But Theo is a blowhard asshat (come to think of it, I will include "and company" in that comment). See, I personally can be ALMOST as obnoxious as he (and they) are usually. I once made an innocuous comment (one line, tongue-in-cheek irony, not flame) on a BSD forum and got a multi-page flame-and-hate mail in response (I don't remember if it was from Theo personally or from "and company", nor do I care). It seems that "BSD" means "flame, hate, and arrogance" not "an open source license". It also means "don't confuse me with facts, only MY opinions matter, if you disagree you are not human and I will tell you so". I had considered using BSD licensing on some code, but after that experience, I would in no way wish to be associated with the "BSD fanboys". So, for me, "LONG LIVE the GPL"!
Or the new GPL v3.0:
No, you're not required to accept the GPL at all, and if you choose not to accept it, then you are not bound by its terms. This section says nothing else grants you permission, but in the case of dual-licensed software, that's not the case: you can choose to accept the other license, and be bound by its terms instead.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
The argument was more along the lines of, if you accept the GPL and agree to be bound by its terms as opposed to the other license's, you are still bound by both because the GPL would require you to respect all the terms under which you originally received the software. Which I don't believe to be true, but that was what they claimed.
It also appears that Theo is now claiming dual licensing is required by law to be preserved. More on this in that article's thread I suppose.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Right. So you're saying basically exactly what I just said. Anonymously. Good job. Anyway, viral is pretty inaccurate. Very FUD'y. Viral implies that the code is somehow infected. But it's not actually that way at all. The code is exactly as it always was. What happens is there becomes a copy and that copy, which has been modified, is now licensed as if it was an independent work.
You see? You're code was never infected. It's right where you left it. Exactly as it was to start. The new fork continues under a new set of terms. You can use it (as often happens) or you can ignore it. But if you want to stipulate what happens to your code downstream you are probably using the worst possible license for it. In fact I'd suggest that you really don't believe in the terms of the BSD license at all. Which is too bad, I think it's a pretty good idea. But I favor this other.
Quack, quack.
Keep in mind that the BSD License does not prohibit the creation of derivative works under other licenses. For example, the BSD Sockets drivers were repackaged by Microsoft as WinSock for Windows NT. As a result, there is nothing improper about publishing an enhanced version, a derivative work, under the GNU Public license, or similar license. Where things get sticky is that just as patches and changes made to the Microsoft version are protected under Microsoft's propriatery copyrights and NDAs, so to are patches made to the GNU version only permitted under the GNU license.
Linux users have used the Atheros MadWifi drivers for quite a while now, but when HAL changes required to support the AR5008 chip were delayed excessively, a new version, under GPL, called DadWifi was created. This version had the HAL changes, but since they were not done by the "official" maintainer, were not subject to the BSD license.
It seems that some vendors are not happy, because it appears that the Windows version may have also been based on the BSD version, and now the Linux version works, and Microsoft can't get the patches legally.
IBM Certified IT Architect http://www.open4success.org