Slashdot Mirror
Theo de Raadt On Relicensing BSD Code
iBSD writes "KernelTrap has an interesting article in which Theo de Raadt discusses the legal implications of the recent relicensing of OpenBSD's BSD-licensed Atheros driver under the GPL. De Raadt says, 'it has been like pulling teeth since (most) Linux wireless guys and the SFLC do not wish to admit fault. I think that the Linux wireless guys should really think hard about this problem, how they look, and the legal risks they place upon the future of their source code bodies.' He stressed that the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false, adding, 'in their zeal to get the code under their own license, some of these Linux wireless developers have broken copyright law repeatedly. But to even get to the point where they broke copyright law, they had to bypass a whole series of ethical considerations too.'"
So pretty much ever license seems to have spoiled brats as the "main supporters."
GPL has a hypocritical zealot who doesn't care for anything except his own skewed view (not even ideal), unless of course his main sponsor disagrees in which case his ideals aren't that important.
For BSD it seems to be likewise hypocritical but also inferiority complex inflicted individuals who can't deal with the fact that GPL is more popular.
Implement the changes, compile it into a binary, slap some crazy draconian type EULA on it and distribute away....
Got Code?
"the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false"
...you know, the '15-minutes of fame'. There is no way that a person, even slightly knowledgable about the licenses, would come up with such crap - unless for the reasons I just mentionned.
This is complete bullocks. The whole point of the BSD vs. GPL (eternal) debate is just that the former always claim it's more free (to use/distribute). In fact, with the BSD, it's completely possible (and legal) to take it and make a proprietary program/application of it. And now one would claim it can't be turned into GPL 'without changes to the code'? Where does that guy get that crap?
One has the distinct feeling TFA is one (in a row) of articles meant to be controversial and nothing else, for the sake of being in the spotlight
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I seem to remember from multiple Groklaw posts that Linux is just chock full 'o BSD code anyway. Why would this code be any different? Is the attribution requirement of the BSD license really a GPL killer? If so, Linux is apparently already in deep doodoo. Not to say any existing BSD code in Linux has already had the atribution removed, but since GPL doesn't require maintaining the attribution, wouldn't that make BSD and GPL incompatible?
To paraphrase you "I don't really care what you say, I'm going to randomly quote a paragraph from what you said and then write about something else."
I mean, in all seriousness, what the hell does anything you wrote have to do with either the paragraph you quoted or anything else I wrote in the comment you're replying to?
This is something I'm finding from the pro-Theo camp, they're not interested in how utterly insane they're looking at the moment, they're just blindly lashing out at anyone with a dissenting view. They're absolutely not interested in addressing the fact that the OpenBSD team is looking increasingly ridiculous, increasingly unstable, and definitely not a group anyone in their right mind would trust.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Well, right now, in all honesty, there's little evidence of a problem. There may be a misunderstanding about licensing, but that's a long way from there being actual copyright-infringing kernels being around.
The copyright infringement by either team is less of an issue than the seriously out of control behavior by the OpenBSD group, who on either side, whether violating copyrights themselves or accusing others of doing so, are lying, insulting, and just plain alienating the very groups they would benefit from working with.
That's the real issue here, the one that's actually serious.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.