Theo de Raadt Responds to Linux Licensing Issues

bsdphx writes "While Theo may have a reputation of being "difficult" in some circles, this response to the recent relicensing controversy is thoughtful and well penned. Through this whole process I've learned some new things about both GPL and BSD licensing, and especially about combining the two."

Comments

Dual licensing interpretations

[Novus]

While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that Theo is confused about what the dual licence in question actually says. I quote:

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.

In other words, the author specifically allows you to distribute provided you meet all the requirements of the GPL and nothing else. Well, the GPL says that you have to license your work under the GPL (see section 2b), which they did. In other words, the wording of this dual licence allows the redistributor to choose one licence or the other and thus remove the dual licensing; Theo is wrong. Of course, Theo is right about removing the BSD licence from code.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[roman_mir]

*scratches head*

        Your comment misses the point. What Theo claims (and he is right about it) is that by removing the BSD licence you don't contribute back to the BSD project that created the code you took. In other words you are doing just what you claim companies would be doing, because as soon as you put that under the GPL, the BSD project cannot use it anymore.

Right, but the BSD in fact gives you the permission to do this

- BSD does not let you remove the BSD license from the BSD code. Also NO license can supersede the copyright.

BSD allows you to use the code in your own project, your own project can be then redistributed with BSD code in it, however the BSD license cannot be removed from the BSD code. BSD code can be modified but the BSD license cannot be removed from the modified file either. It is not possible to add a new license to a BSD licensed file without permission of the original copyright holders.

However you can take BSD code, add it to your own project and distribute just the binaries of your project without giving any source code to anyone and it is not illegal under BSD. But BSD is a license and it cannot be legally removed from a licensed file.

Re:Hmmm

[MysteriousPreacher]

Bullshit. Read this comment regarding vendors using SSH that Theo posted on one of the OpenSSH mailing lists.

These vendors include:

        Sun Apple IBM HP Cisco Netgear RedHat SuSe

        most operating system vendors except Microsoft

        nearly other major network equipment manufacturer

        (but many other vendors too)

These vendors have never given us even a dime. (To put it more
clearly, IBM loaned one developer a machine to make sure that OpenSSH
would run better on it, but they INSISTED on it being a loan instead
of just giving it to the developer).

http://marc.info/?l=openssh-unix-dev&m=11431622462 7520&w=2

You can't get much direct than that. I suggest you visit the link and read the rest of his mail.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[Score Whore]

Then please explain this quote from alan cox:

Alan is either an ignoramus or lazy? If he took the time to look at each of the files patched he would have noticed that some parts of that driver are not dual licensed or GPL, in particular the ones I mentioned specifically.

Explanation enough for you?

Everybody crying "dual license" "dual license" is like a five year old child who's mother told him to sit on the sofa or play video games, but not eat cookies. When his mother catches him sitting on the sofa eating cookies he says "but you told me to sit on the sofa."

People need to grow up and recognize that Jiri did something illegal here and stop arguing half the situation because some of the files he modified were dual licensed.

I think I grok this

[Rumble]

Once you have the dual-licensed code, you can do with it what you want, so long as you respect ONE of the TWO licenses. However any derivative of this work must also have BOTH licenses included. The linux people are way off on this. Dual licensing does not mean pick one license and go with it, it means proceed with both licenses, obey one. The onus is on you to prove that you have the right to remove one of those licenses without proper permission. Why even have dual licensing if this is the case?

Secondly, the concept of community and sharing. Since both gpl and bsd have similar ideals (open the source), a certain amount of camaraderie and back scratching is nice. Each camp has similar goals. What pisses off the openbsd people in this case is that the gpl people acted in bad faith and removed a license illegally. Theo is 100% right about this.

If you want your work to be GPL only, separate it out and place under GPL only, and leave the dual licensed code alone, which would be legal. But as Theo says, this will reflect badly on the spirit of cooperation between the two license camps, and probably mean less inclination to support dual licenses in the future.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[grumbel]

I think it comes right from the BSD License itself:

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.

Nowhere does the BSD license allow you to remove the BSD license from the code, in fact it states the exact opposite. Which of course is kind of a mess, since your modifications to a BSD covered file might be covered under a different license, thus effectively covering the whole file under that different license and making the BSD license kind of useless, but you still have to keep it in.