Slashdot Mirror
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."
He says that you cannotmodify a file to remove a license without permission, but he fails to acknowledge that a dual licensed file gives you that permission with the other license. If the GPL gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the BSD license from that file. If the BSD license gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the GPL license from that file. So long as I comply with the remaining license, I have permission to distribute the result, as the remaining license is what gives me legal permission from the copyright holder.
GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get it back. Ironic.
No, not ironic. Just dishonest. You say all along that taking without giving back is the ultimate freedom, you criticise the GPL for not allowing more of this, you allow it for proprietary software, but just as soon as GPL software does something you consider to be similar (even though the source is still out there, it's unusable to you), then you have a problem? You can't get the code back from proprietary software either, but you don't bitch and moan when proprietary software does it, in fact you criticise the GPL for not allowing it. This just looks like you have a problem with the GPL, hold it to a higher standard than everybody else, including yourself.
So what he's basically saying is that he'd like modifications to the code to remain in the open. They should create a license that makes sure that always happens! Oh wait...
The intent of the GPL is to be a one-way trip. The idea is to create a large pool of identically-licensed code so that projects msy mix and match, borrow and steal from each other.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
They made their rights clear when they licensed it under the BSD license. If you want others to share code, make it mandatory and use the GPL. If you just want credit for what you've written, you're still getting it with dual-licensed code. Oh, wait, you want to be able to use the changes as well under the original license? I'm sorry. Don't license it under the BSD license and expect someone else more comfortable with the GPL to make large changes and not use the GPL. The GPL is just more honest and upfront, and it's the GPL's fault?
The problem is that certain Linux developers don't want to 'just get along.' Driver support is an important issue for all Free operating systems. Projects like DRI have been really great for this. DRI drivers are licensed under the MIT license (as is the rest of X), which is about as permissive as you can get without going public domain; it's even more permissive than the BSDL. This has allowed the DRI drivers to be used on FreeBSD, and even on some more obscure and less UNIX-like operating systems (I believe Haiku has used some of their code, for example).
Many people within the Linux community seem to view hardware support as something that gives them a competitive advantage over other operating systems, a viewpoint, perhaps, that they learned from Microsoft. Because Linux has the most restrictive license of any non-proprietary kernel, they make it hard for others to use their work, but continue to benefit from the work of others. Porting a driver from OpenBSD (for example) to Linux requires changing the interface. The converse requires a complete reimplementation.
When Linux developers go to the trouble of reverse engineering a piece of hardware, no one is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to pick their own license. The problem comes when an OpenBSD developer goes to this trouble, and the Linux team then decides that any changes they make to the driver will be licensed in such a way that they can't be ported upstream.
In much of the community, it is generally considered bad form to add more restrictions to someone else's work. I tend to prefer the 3-clause BSDL for my own work, but some code I am working on now is based on some work that was originally released under the MITL. If I slap a BSDL at the top, then no improvements I make can be used by the original project, or by anyone else basing their work off the same source. If I stripped the MITL and replaced it with the BSDL then, as Eben Moglen points out, this would be illegal. This is the equivalent of what a few people in the Linux community wanted to do. I could place the BSDL above the MITL, covering my changes and the complete work, but not any of the original code. This would be legal, but it would be incredibly impolite. The F/OSS community is a community, and if it wants to survive then a culture of respect for the opinions and work of others is important.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The difference is that commercial entities which modify BSD code, compile it, and distribute binary-only distributions are not pretending to own the share and share alike happy friendly community open source high ground. The Linux community does try to own this high ground, really to the point where BSD gets no credit for having the less restrictive (more "open" and more "free") license. What Theo is saying is that if the Linux community wants to maintain its hold on this high ground, they should play fair with code they get from BSD, and share back with that project. Good in the world would be reduced if this turned into a war. Imagine BSD projects getting relicensed as a lever against Linux, say some sort of clause which prohibits dual licensing, and requires non-commercial entities to share code back to BSD. It could get uglier than that, but it probably won't, since the BSD camp has a long history of being the most open and free of free open source licenses, it's unlikely they would start using their license as a weapon at this point.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
http://marc.info/?l=openssh-unix-dev&m=1143162246
You can't get much direct than that. I suggest you visit the link and read the rest of his mail.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
It's about PERSPECTIVE, dude. I don't know if you're being facetious, but things are relative. Just like in OO programming, if two objects are effectively identical in behavior and interface, they are interchangeable.
From a BSD coder standpoint, the GPL IS no different from a proprietary license. Well, there is one difference. It's a white box instead of a black box. I can go in and see how it works and come up with my own algorithms. I could do it with a the black box as well, but it takes longer. But the reason why its no different is because as a BSD coder, I am no more able to use the GPL code DIRECTLY in my work as I am with a company that has locked it up.
And that is PERFECTLY FINE. GPL or proprietary, someone has found a use for BSD code and it moves on. Directly or indirectly, EVERYONE benefits. But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?
because it is a legal document.
It is not "illegal" if the license permits it. The license says:
Now, if someone makes the tiniest change to the code and only licenses their change under the GPLv2, then the entirety of the software can only be distributed under the GPLv2, which means that the portions of the BSD license simply are not applicable anymore.
The usual way of doing this would be not to alter the existing copyright notice, but to add a second copyright comment that says something like: "Portions of this code are copyrighted by John Smith and are licensed under the GPLv2. Please note that as a consequence, the entirety of this file may only be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2."
The effect is, however, the same: the file can only be distributed under the GPLv2, and the result is perhaps more confusing to users, which is why deleting the now inapplicable part of the original license is probably better.
The fundamental issue that this kind of dual-licensed BSD/GPLv2 code can be turned into GPLv2 code is unavoidable, however: that's the purpose and intent of dual licensing. Note that the reverse is also possible: someone can make additions to the code and only license those under the BSD license, killing the GPLv2 portion of the license.
(I won't even comment on Theo's use of terms like "illegal" and "breaking the law" other than to say that it's inflammatory bullshit.)
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?"
Is this an honest question? Isn't it obvious that the GPL folks will not do that because they cannot just share it with the BSD coders who made it possible. To share it with the BSD coders, they would also have to share it with the lock up coders. Something they are unwilling to do and hence their choice of the GPL and not the BSD in the first place. Do you see some third way I am not getting right now?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
You're right, but that situation is BETTER. Theo pointed something very obvious out that you're missing:
Many businesses give back to BSD.
No GPL code will ever go back to BSD.
GPL'ing BSD code is a slap in the face that says "We will never, ever, give back. Period."