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.'"
the BSD license is completely open, why would they want to hamstring it with GPL? BSD doesn't prevent you from doing anything, other than mucking with the BSD licensing, right?
why?
religous reasons?
I hope Theo tears them a new one on this one....
Shit son, it's called copyright, welcome to the real world. Feel free to read up on the way copyright law works, you'll find that the BSD licence is quite permissive, and that the restrictions placed are there for a holders protection, their, "rights," to control their works. When a licence says you cannot remove it, that's the terms of the licence, and you cannot use the code unless you follow it. How hard is that to grasp? I mean, obviously the Linux developers were dense enough not to understand the tab on their shirt that says, "do not remove," but I would hope most of the world understands that kind of thing.
Of course there are restrictions, otherwise it would be public domain. The restrictions under the BSD license are much less restrictive than those of the GPL, though. IIRC, the BSD license basically says you can do whatever you want, but you have to retain the copyright notice (with author's name) that is included with the code. In this case, it seems that the GPL zealots have failed to comply even with that requirement in their zeal to rebrand the code as GPL.
Doing anything to the code, up to and including redistributing it under a new license, while failing to comply with the terms of the old license is infringement.
It should be open source vs. Microsoft. Meanwhile idiotic religious zealots have now fragmented the open source community and they are now fighting amongst themselves. Perfect, exactly what Microsoft wants.
What is with all this religious nonsense over BSD vs GPL? If someone wrote code under the BSD license YOU SHOULD RESPECT IT. What's the point in trying to convert it into a GPL license, besides pissing that person off and essentially wasting a whole shitload of everyone's time. Some people have philisophical disagreements over it, fine, but starting to make enemies against people who are only a hair's difference apart, when the real enemy is in the back laughing is so retarded.
You fucking idiot.s
Really. Just about every one of you. You think code grows on trees and every programmer in the world who doesn't subscribe to some crazy religeous mantra is an immoral thief. You think that some random unnamed company is somehow stealing your future if they happen to not want to contribute their changes back. In fact, you all seem to think that these companies are somehow adding such a huge improvement to code X, Y, and Z that the open source world couldn't duplicate it. You think the entire world consists of large immoral corporations and OMG WE NEED A LICENSE TO PROTECT US FROM THEM! Or what? What utter and complete nonsense.
Those of us who actually WRITE code will universally agree on the primary moral issue: You don't remove someone else's copyright, period. End of story.
-Matt
The best part is that Theo starts shouting about lawsuits, because he values comunity spirit so much, or something like that. The moment he started talking about lawsuits he completely lost a my respect. Not that he has anything to so about anyway, he is no party at all in this whole mess, yet he makes a hell of a lot of noise.
From now on I will refer to OpenBSD as BSDIAA. This attitude reminds me far more of *IAA then it does seem to relate to Open.
Now, don't get me wrong, as far as I can see there is indeed an issue to be sorted out with this driver, and there is reason to complain about certain things. But being right does not exclude someone from being a asshole. Theo might be partly right, he sure is a total asshole. And it's not even his code which is involved...