Software Freedom Law Center vs Theo de Raadt

An anonymous reader writes "In a recent public posting to the Linux Kernel mailing list the founder of the Software Freedom Law Center, Eben Moglen, lashed back at OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt without actually mentioning his name. 'What has happened is that people who do not have full possession of the facts and have no legal expertise — people whom from the very beginning we have been trying to help — have made irresponsible charges and threatened lawsuits, thus slowing down our efforts to help them.' Moglen pointed out that they have and continue to help all open source projects, including OpenBSD, but the process takes time. 'The required work has been made more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good faith. But we will complete the work as soon as we can, and we will follow the community's practice of complete publication, so everyone can see all the evidence.'"

Comments

Shades of grey do not a good argument make

[Space cowboy]

I dunno, from the thread that's on the "lashed back" page, linked-to in the summary, it seems to me the SFLC does have some explaining to do...

On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote:
> > We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and
> > we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us
> > instead of helping.
>
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/
>
> As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems.
>
> As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates
> the issue at hand.
>
> Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now.

Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the
above press release.

Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address,
there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply
outrageous! Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to
SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention
that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL.

Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities
together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the
people and projects who performed most of the work? After all of
these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing,
after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option,
are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that
SFLC is getting now? Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is
well-deserved?

http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258

I'm a software developer, and I don't always write open-source code. I've written plenty of OS code, contributing to PHP, GCJ, SDL etc. and I GPL'd my geolocation website, but I also write commercial code.

It can be hard to see a perfectly good piece of code, that does exactly what you want, and then have to go and re-implement it yourself, but that's what the GPL requires, and that's what I do. At the moment, I'm drawing over 1000 tiles for a CIV-2 type game, because the 'freeland' tiles are GPL, and having to put the amount of work in to duplicate it that I am doing, I completely understand why.

I think that if anyone relicenced any of my OS code under their own, more restrictive (to pluck an example out of the air: GPL rather than BSD) licence, I would be incensed. It remains to be seen if this has happened within Linux, and if it has, hard questions are going to require very good answers..

Simon

Re:Shades of grey do not a good argument make

[Anonymous Coward]

The current 3 clause BSD license allows someone to release derived works under the GPL (or under closed-source commercial license). Yes, it does. But, and this is the important part that the Linux people keep on conveniently forgetting: IT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO REMOVE THE ORIGINAL LICENSE!

You can add the GPL to it if you like. It's allowed. You CANNOT do what the Linux people did and then REMOVE the BSD license from the code. The code remains licensed under the BSD license. Any changes you make can be other another license, but the original BSD license and attribution MUST be kept.

The other important parts that the Linux people keep on trying to cover up is that while parts of the code in question were dual-licensed under the BSD license and the GPL, parts were BSD-ONLY and could not have the BSD license removed from them.

It's also highly ironic that the "Software Freedom Law Center" is fighting to restrict freedom and prevent the BSD projects from using this code.

Re:Shades of grey do not a good argument make

[poopdeville]

Regarding the BSD license:

Yes, it does. But, and this is the important part that the Linux people keep on conveniently forgetting: IT DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO REMOVE THE ORIGINAL LICENSE!

It doesn't have to. If a product is dual licensed, and you choose License A over License B, you are not bound to the terms of License B . License B has no legal bearing on the relationship between the licensor and licensee. It is effectively nothing but "plain text", modifiable under the terms of License A, if License A permits modification. After all, if License A is accepted, it becomes the de facto copyright notice.

IANAL, and I think you are missing the point

[einhverfr]

If you released something under the BSD license and someone made a closed-source commercial program out of it (as allowed under the BSD license and done many times by many companies), would you be incensed? If so, why would you release something under a license that allows others to do something you don't want?

The current 3 clause BSD license allows someone to release derived works under the GPL (or under closed-source commercial license). If you don't like that, then don't use the 3 clause BSD license. Licenses have specific meaning that should be understood before they are used. Ok, I think you are mischaracterizing the dispute. I don't think that anyone disagrees about the BSD license allowing for derivatives under the GPL v2 (see my latest journal entry why I don't think this applies to the GPL v3).

The large issue has to do with whether the BSD license allows for sublicensing (i.e for a licensee to offer a portion of his/her rights to a downstream licensee as a separate license). I personally don't think it does. Instead, I see the BSD license as a direct grant of rights to anyone who gets a copy of the source code.

In the case of a derivative work, nothing here prevents you from enforcing your own copyrights in any way you see fit (as long as you obey the terms of the BSD License). However, you cannot dictate to other people what terms govern the code which was provided to you under a nonexclusive BSD license. This is actually a big difference. Mr Moglen is on record saying that he thinks that the BSD license allows for this sort of sublicensing, and I disagree.

The Actual BSD License

[TrumpetPower!]

Since previous iterations of this discussion have been dominated by wildly inaccurate characterizations of the BSD license, it seems only proper to actually include it:

http://ftp.bg.openbsd.org/OpenBSD/src/share/misc/license.template

/*
* Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
* ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
* ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
* OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/

To break it down even further:

• You must keep the text of the license intact in any copies you make.
• So long as you keep the text of the license intact, you may do pretty much anything else you like with it.

Now, obviously, slapping a copy of the GPL in the file is within your rights to “use, copy modify, and distribute” the software. However, it is entirely pointless to do so: the GPL places additional restrictions on what you may or may not do with the code, yet those restrictions are voided by the fact that the BSD license — and, let’s not forget, removing the BSD license is the one thing that the license forbids — grants you those very rights that the GPL takes away. In order for the restrictions of the GPL to be effective, you must remove the BSD license, which you cannot legally do.

Now, can we please stop this nonsense about the BSD license giving you the right to re-license code under the GPL?

Cheers,

b&