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.'"
If Theo didn't want people copying his code and redistributing it under another license, he should have used the GPL...
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Another trolling article submitted to /. and sadly chosen too.
/. these days. /. is turning into osnews in terms of trolling stories.
Yesterday RMS, today Theo, tomorrow Jeff Jones...
Too much trolls on
Nice going, keep it up troll feeders.
-- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
Could you please cut out these stories? He didn't say anything new. The Point was allready made. The mistake has long since been corrected and so on...
I think what he is trying to get at is, since the GPLers are so into the concept of 'freedom' of their license, and respecting it, why can't they offer the same level of respect to BSD license?
...
Instead, GPLers strip the license and replace it with a license that they feel is 'better', but incompatible with the BSD. If they had kept it BSD, they could use it with the GPL, and the BSD folks could still use any improvements made.
But again, no respect for the license. Following the letter of the law, true, but not the spirit. Geez, where have I heard that before
I have to admit I am a little confused. You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
Maybe some technical violation occurred in the credits or some such but this just sounds to me like sour grapes because they can't have the changes. They can't have the changes when the source is used in a closed commercial environment, the BSD guys maintain that as ethical so they really don't have any ground to stand on here. Nobody has violated the spirit of the BSD license which is essentially "Here it is, take it and do what you want with it, even if that means incorporating it into a product that makes you millions of dollars and completely closing the software without sharing any modifications back."
someone who writes code under BSD licence knows that this could be used for commercial projects without returning ANY source at all. one could argue that thus wirting code under BSD licence is stupid in the first place. but why do these people complain when someone uses it under GPL if they would even allow use it for bloody comercial, binary only products? this is stupid hypcriticism...
I'm going to give you an "If I were them, I would have...", but in this case, it's not hollow. I've actually done this before, to positive effect. If you're going to use someone else's code under terms slightly different from what they clearly intended, I see an obvious course of action: ASK PERMISSION.
They say that it's often easier to get forgiveness than permission. This is absolutely not the case in the FOSS community. Yes, Theo is a hot-head, and he's clearly over-reacting. But at the same time, some Linux contributor didn't think very hard about the wishes of the original author of the code they borrowed. They just took it. In the FOSS community, we're not about copyright. We're about ethical sharing of ideas and the rights of both software developers and software users.
How long could it have taken to ask? "May I use your code?" "May I alter the license on your code?" "If not, is there some compromise we can reach?"
Learn some manners!
It's still a license. The only way to make code truly unencumbered is to release it into the public domain. Then anyone can do anything they damn well please with it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hows that KHTML code workig out?
I hope that the code has been of some assistance at Apple.
Seriously, whoever posted the message, do you have any specific complaint?
Isn't one of the tennets of the GPL that when you distribute the code, you must confer the same rights onto the next person that you were given with the code? I would argue that includes the option to use the code under the BSD license rather than the GPL (given that GPL is more restrictive). If you fail to include the option to license under BSD in your distribution, you are violating the spirit if not the letter of the GPL by removing freedoms which you previously had been granted.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I don't want OpenBSD forked, I want the possibility out there, and the possibility means ensuring there's an organized group willing to take the reins should it be necessary. I believe that the threat of forking should be enough to prevent it from happening - at least, prevent it if the current leadership remain viable project leaders.
And if it forks specifically because OpenBSD's leadership are unable to behave responsibly, well, that's better than the project collapsing altogether, which is the inevitable result of the leadership and community continuing to behave as it does today.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If Theo didn't want people copying his code and redistributing it under another license, he should have used the GPL...
I think you are missing the point, it is one of ethics not legality. The FOSS community is built upon the notion of giving back. An ethical FOSS developer would take a BSD driver, improve it, and release his/her changes under the original license. This new work is usable in Linux and he has given back to the community that the improved driver is derived from. However in this case the developers chose to engage in zealotry, to violate the FOSS spirit of giving back, and that is very insightful into their character.
Perheaps the BSD crowd should do some soul-searching and ponder why there are four forks, each maintained by a crew which appears to be violently hostile to all the others (not to mention all "outsiders" and "interlopers", such as those building other Unix-like operating systems, say, Linux).
As an aid in your investigation, pay attention to these unseemly feral cries of "Mine! Mine! Mine!" emanating from the land of the supposedly "most free" (to use by anyone for anything, even closed source projects!) license, brought on by this very incident.
All proving to be rather amusing (and quite educational) experience.
Wait, so as long as one admits to violating copyrights and stops doing it, it's ok to abuse anyone whose copyrights you violated, to lie about them, to insult them, to generally do what you can to alienate a similar community with similar ideals?
And where did I say copyright law no longer applies to the OpenBSD team? Because I don't see it.
In both cases, where the OpenBSD team violated the copyrights of the Linux community, and where one person in the Linux community proposed a patch that, had it been accepted, may have violated the copyrights of the OpenBSD team in some instances, the OpenBSD team's behavior is utterly unprofessional, dishonest, insulting, abusive, and ultimately alienating. That's the issue here. This is why the OpenBSD community needs to take a good, hard, look at the way they do things and consider reforms before the group destroys any ounce of credibility it still has.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Anyone who wants to use the BSD code can use the BSD code.
Anyone who wants to use the BSD code with GPL modifications will have to use it as GPL.
Neither of which applies to this case where the original code was already GPL (via a dual license) and so anyone who wants to use the GPL code with GPL modifications will use it as GPL.
None of this is new to anyone. The complaint is that GPL developers benefit from the hard work of BSD developers without giving back. Of course, that's exactly how the BSD developers intended for their code to be used and that's not really what's happening since the GPL developers *ARE* giving back, just not in the form of BSD code.
Historically, I tend to side with Theo on things, but this time I think his position is inconsistent and indefensible. Either I haven't seen all the facts or Theo has made a mistake.
*sigh* back to work...
Here is one reason why BSD guys would rather see BSD code taken completely proprietary than see it go GPL: when the code goes completely proprietary there is still a chance that patches will be contributed back to the original BSD project.
Consider the "stupid tax". This is the "tax" you must pay if you take BSD code, change it, and keep the changes to yourself: every time the BSD project releases a new update, you will need to sync up your custom changes to the official project. The time and effort this requires is the "stupid tax" you are paying for being "stupid" (i.e. not contributing your changes back to the project).
The hope is that after a while, companies that have been paying the stupid tax will say "this is stupid" and contribute their changes to the main project. But with a GPL fork this just won't happen.
Any time the BSD project releases an update, someone will merge the changes in to the GPL fork. And if you contribute changes to the GPL fork, of course they are in every release and you don't need to do anything. So there is no real pressure on features added to the GPL project.
With no GPL fork, you must choose between sharing with the BSD project, or "paying the stupid tax". With a GPL fork, you have a way to avoid the stupid tax and share with others, yet deny the changes to the BSD project. (If you are doing proprietary things with the BSD project, you will not of course have this option.)
And of course, it must be maddening for the BSD project guys to see the patches going in to the GPL project and know that they can't use them. If the GPL project gets a new feature that's a good idea, they must re-code the feature, just because of an incompatible license. (That's why I licensed my lf utility under BSD; I'm hoping it will become a standard part of the userland in all *NIX someday, and the thought of the BSD guys having to re-do all my work just made me sad.)
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
And it is!
The fact that somebody licensed a derivative work under the GPL in no way changes the license on Darin's code. Darin's code is still BSD and always will be, and from now into perpetuity, anybody can use Darin's code however they want, just like he'd intended.
What people can't do is use the derivative work however they want -- like, in a proprietary piece of software. But that's another issue! Some guy started with Darin's code and made something else out of it; let's call that guy "Bob." It's really just Bob's changes to Darin's code that are GPLed.
You see? Nothing the GPL people can do or have done will change the fact that anybody can get Darin's code under the BSD license.
The problem is this damn word "relicensing" we keep using. It implies that the license is somehow changed. It isn't!
Perheaps the BSD crowd should do some soul-searching and ponder why there are four forks, each maintained by a crew which appears to be violently hostile to all the others (not to mention all "outsiders" and "interlopers", such as those building other Unix-like operating systems, say, Linux).
Yes, because there is only one distro of linux out there...That might be true in many cases, but IMHO it is a mere reaction which occurs because the GPL crowd is rather frequently confronted with various truly ridiculously hypocritical stances by the BSD proponents. Such as the one we are discussing.
As to why so many forks, the answer is definitely not technical as the distinctions you indicated make no sense. One can have fast and portable OS, just as well as one can have SMP capable and fast one, one with small memory footprint and portability. Etc and so on.
The true answer is different: Towering, Monumental, Gigiantic Egos of the various participants. Egos which have to be kept apart at astronomical distances lest explosions brighter then the Sun were to immediately occur otherwise.
Oh, nice rhetorical technique...Next you'll say there isn't a problem at all.
I think Theo has been very clear. In particular, when he points to Copyright law and to the fact that, in the EU, Eben Moglen needs a tourist guide.
The linuxers just can't take it that they have to respect a different license. And one very different than their moralisitic, religious choice.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
To paraphrase you: "I didn't read what Theo wrote."
Actually, that was uncharitable. Let me offer you a better paraphrase: "I didn't bother to try to understand what Theo wrote, because I was convinced beforehand that nothing he could say could change my mind, because my opinions are not based on anything as flimsy as evidence."
Are you adequate?
my password really is 'stinkypants'
although I imagine that the authors opinion is only partially relevant: it's written right there that it's "you can choose to be covered by either the GPL or the BSD, at you option", so the authors opinion only serves as an aditional guarantee.
No it's not irrelevant. The author grants you Copyright. You do not take it. There's a difference. Furthermore, the author was very explicit in his intention in the mailing list. It's very clear for all to see. I'll bet that this would make a reasonable case in any country signataire of the Berne convention. Of course, it will be up to a judge to decide. But if you ever used a lawyer's service, unless a judge is completely detached form reality, a party's intention is always taken into consideration and evem more so when he feels harm has been done to him or because of him.
Forthermore, you can't strip the BSD license. The license says so. The BSD license does not license the license as that would void it (and would be utterly ilogical). The license licenses the code. The license says: "do what you want to this code, but maintain the Copyright and this note." It's not so hard to understand. Yeah, I know...reality sucks. GPL zealots do not like the conundrum this situation poses to their beloved moralisitic philosophy written in stone.
In fact, this would be a very interesting case on Copyright laws and open source development, specifically as it regards the fashion in which these people work (distributed tools, mailing-lists...). I'm actually suspicious that some lawyers in the Linux camp want to take this to court...Maybe that's the root cause of all these US lawyers giving strange advice.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
I'm not eligible to comment on the legal ramifications, but I certainly think there are moral issues in there.
If you're supporting GPL and hence software freedom, you must respect other's freedom too. There is nothing like my way of freedom is bigger than your freedom.
It *might* be ok for a corporation to lock their modifications under lock-n-key, but it's certainly NOT ok for software freedom torch bearers to do the same AND thump their chest about supporting freedom of software. Respect given is respect got! There are no two ways about it.
What was done might not be illegal (I don't know!), but it was definitely abusive and obnoxious. You can't claim the moral high ground after doing the same thing as the people you denounce. Hell even everybody's favorite enemy Microsoft didn't change the copyright on BSD derived software they use... ftp.exe still contains the BSD license.
Think again!
- mritunjai
Maybe Theo should follow his own advice.
before [OpenBSD] destroys any ounce of credibility it still has.
The developers of, among many other achievements, OpenSSH, have more than an ounce of credibility. Any attempt to marginalize a group that's produced such a vital, omnipresent contribution is an attempt to rewrite history.
We should remember that security is hard and that to produce secure software requires not just the will but also rare ability.
Your other criticisms may be valid, but we should remember who we're talking about here. Security experts are among the most difficult developers to replace. There's a reason that we're talking about OpenBSD on slashdot right now: the viability of the project could have an impact on many people.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.