Resolution of BSD-GPL Wireless Code Dispute?

An anonymous reader writes "The highly publicized debate between Theo de Raadt and the Software Freedom Law Center seems to have come to an amicable end. SFLC has published its research on the lineage of the ath5k driver and determined who owns which changes. In the end, everyone agreed to license their modifications to the Linux driver under the BSD license, and OpenBSD developers can now reincorporate those improvements into the original code (with the exception of one historically GPL-licensed branch)." The article notes that Theo de Raadt has not responded publicly to this development but that comments on the issue in an OpenBSD Journal forum have been generally positive.

Comments

Great. Can we move on now?

[Chas]

I, for one, am glad that this huge shitstorm over a minor licensing issue has been resolved amicably (or at least until Theo has his say...)

Theo is not a lawyer

[cdn-programmer]

While Theo is very intelligent and opinionated it is important to mote he is not a lawyer. His understanding of law should be taken with a grain of salt.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

The same could be said of a lawyer who only knows US Laws when dealing with things that are outside of said country.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

While Theo is very intelligent and opinionated it is important to mote he is not a lawyer. His understanding of law should be taken with a grain of salt.


And of course the same applies to RMS.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statement would be true except that many legal systems have the same origins.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[babbling]

Look, I like the GPL and prefer it as a license, but he actually had a valid complaint in this case.

So whilst it is true that he is not a lawyer, bringing that up is completely irrelevant. He was correct nonetheless.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[sumdumass]

I don't understand why you thought it was necessary to inject the fact that he isn't a lawyer. It was his interpretations of the situation the led him to believe he was wronged, it was his determination on pressing the issues that finally got some resolve. It was his right to make the claims he made simply because that is how anyone redresses issues against the laws that are broken in ways that effect them.

So it doesn't matter if he is or isn't a lawyer. He was making claims he knew to be true based on the laws governing him. If you need to be a lawyer to understand what you can and cannot do then we are in worse shape then I thought. Bring up the fact he isn't a lawyer seems kind of petty and unneeded.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[einhverfr]

Your statement could be true and would suggest that a scholar of the related tradition of the Rig Veda should be qualified to speak as to matters of modern law.

In case you are wondering, most European legal systems are in part derived from the Roman legal system. The Roman legal system and its legalese is actually structurally based on older liturgical structures which had died out in Rome (but were otherwise known throughout the Indo-European and even the Italic world). This tradition also gave rise to proto-Hinduism, the Rig Vedas, the Druids, the Eddas, and the like. Hence if we are going by origins, Hindu scholars ought to be qualified as lawyers, the whole lot of them.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[tetlowgm]

Your statement would be true except that many legal systems have huge differences when it comes to IP and Copyright issues.

Re:Theo is not a lawyer

[ozamosi]

True. Most of the world use Civil Law, while US, UK and a few former colonies use Common Law. And Civil Law is quite different in different parts of the world. In other words: GP:s statement IS true.

For instance, according to the french and the scandinavian copyright traditions (which is a slightly more complicated topic, since it is not divided only into common and civil law, but instead into english, american, french and scandinavian law - however, the two common law countries have similar ideas to each other, and so does the two civil law countries), it is not possible to sign away your copyright at all, since it's not considered to be an economical thing (Victor Hugo created the french version, primary about the moral right to be honored and paid for your work, and the scandinavian version is based of old Westrogothic law, that said something to the effect of "honor he who should be honored", which doesn't even mention money, but only honor), unlike the tradition in US and UK. It is possible to sign away economical rights, but not the whole thing. This has some important effects: one thing is that it makes it impossible for RIAA/MPAA to go after people in this part of the world - they only represent the companies, whose contracts with the employees are illegal over here, and they therefore have no copyright to enforce.

Finally, a pretty map to show what legal systems exists where: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png

Licensing conflict?

[Diakoneo]

Excuse my ignorance, but this open source licensing still confuses me. Can a distribution have both BSD-type and GPL-type licenses bundled together? Could there be a potential conflict in the mechanics of how both are used?

Re:Licensing conflict?

[glwtta]

Can a distribution have both BSD-type and GPL-type licenses bundled together?

No. That's why they were asking the developers to dual-license the code. Except their version of "asking" was to throw a hissy fit.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[debilo]

Excuse my ignorance, but this open source licensing still confuses me. Can a distribution have both BSD-type and GPL-type licenses bundled together? Could there be a potential conflict in the mechanics of how both are used?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean on an application level? If so, the answer is yes. It's what FreeBSD does (so do the other BSDs), they also ship some GNU utilities alongside the BSD kernel and userland, which obviously are under the GPL.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[DrJimbo]

You can distribute BSD code inside of a GPL project. When the SFLC published the results of its efforts in the wireless driver dispute, they simultaneous published a guide for using BSD code in GPL projects.

That was last week and there were about 5 submissions in the firehose about it. The Slashdot editors in their infinite wisdom chose to ignore this when it was new and instead waited a week and then published a summary with no link to the original SFLC article and no mention at all of the guide.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[Rakishi]

Oh for the love of god. Yes, you can use BSD code inside a GPL program, that's the whole bloody point of the BSD license. It let's the code be used anywhere and everywhere.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[glwtta]

Yes, you can use BSD code inside a GPL program, that's the whole bloody point of the BSD license.

I was under the impression we were talking about GPL code in a BSD program. Could be wrong though, I wasn't paying all that much attention to the whole mess.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[sumdumass]

The mess came around when the GPL peope begged for dual licensing to they could develope GPL style on the code in question. They ended up just taking the code, changing a few lines and claiming it as their own without attributing the copyright or anything the BSD license requires. They then relicensed the entire package under the GPL so it couldn't be used in a BSD program again. What brought the situation to light was when a GPL programmer attempted to call the BSD guys on using their GPLed code.

So yes, it is a mess. And it started with some serious misguided individuals who might have had good intentions but lacked enough information at one time to discern what was really going on.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[JesseMcDonald]

Yes, you can use BSD code inside a GPL program, that's the whole ... point of the BSD license. It let's the code be used anywhere and everywhere.

Provided you maintain the BSD license text, which is an additional restriction on distribution that a reasonable interpretation of the GPL might not allow. You can certainly combine GPL and BSD code, but the intersection of the two licenses might not let anyone distribute the result.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[Score Whore]

Oh. And here I thought it was because Jiri Slaby removed the BSD license from code that was BSD only licensed.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[fatphil]

Wrong. You can _bundle_ any code with any other code. You can stick gnu tools on MSDN CDs that contain originally-BSD network stacks. Bundling's mere aggregation, and is unimportant licence-wise.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[itsdapead]

As I understand it (IANAL) you can include chunks of BSD licenced code in a GPL product & distribute it under the GPL provided its possible to tell which bits of code is covered by which license, so a downstream recipient could potentially extract just the BSD-licensed elements and redistribute them under BSD terms. Unlike the GPL, BSD is not fussy about whether the code is linked or "merely aggregated".

The can of worms is opened when people create derivative works that can't sensibly be separated into BSD and GPL parts and want the added "protection" of GPL to apply to "their" contibution - but trying to distribute the same bit of code under both licenses is nonsensical since either the extra obligations in the GPL would prevent recipients re-using the code under the terms of BSD or the more permissive BSD license would trump the more restrictive GPL. Pay a lawyer lots of cash to find out which would prevail in a dispute (then pay another one more to get the answer you wanted).

Fortunately, it looks as if saner minds have ignored the flames and got together and sorted it all out like sentient beings. Which is nice.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[bmccartney]

Well... the answer is yes and no. It depends on which version of the BSD license... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses Simply put, there are a few different BSD or BSD style licenses (all refered to as BSD licenses). There is a deeper explanation of what you must do to encorporate BSD code into a GPL project http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html

Re:Licensing conflict?

[JasterBobaMereel]

Please note the "They" was not "The GPL guys" but one lone programmer who submitted his changes to the project, they were not accepted no-one else was involved .....

Re:Licensing conflict?

[sumdumass]

Yes, it was one misguided individual who thought he was working for one side and in the right when doing so.

But I do think they were originally accepted or in the process of accepting it and then it was rejected after the first complaint session was made. I don't think anyone caught it until that point which is why the implication of GPL guys are there.

Re:Licensing conflict?

[Anonymous Coward]

So your insinuation is that the "GPL guys"(*) are bastards because they didn't md5sum or fingerprint the patch against every piece of BSD or other code out there? If they're bastards for that, so are BSD people for not checking every piece of code they get against every piece of code created. For the most part authors of the original work and the modifiers are responsible for ensuring that things are done properly. As for it being in the process of accepting the code: part of that process is a RFC some of which were that the licensing was not kosher. At this point someone spoke up and the modifier immediately asked for the requested changes to be made (to some extent). More complaints were made and as long as there was an argument it was not accepted into the core-Linux tree, so pull your head and that twig out of your ass.

If the Linux guys were real baddies then they wouldn't have the LKML where all this is done trasnparently; to prevent things like this from getting into the mainline kernel.

*not even GPL guys, Linux guys as a significant number want nothing to do with the FSF past GPLv2

Re:Licensing conflict?

[sumdumass]

So your insinuation is that the "GPL guys"(*) are bastards because they didn't md5sum or fingerprint the patch against every piece of BSD or other code out there? If they're bastards for that, so are BSD people for not checking every piece of code they get against every piece of code created. For the most part authors of the original work and the modifiers are responsible for ensuring that things are done properly. As for it being in the process of accepting the code: part of that process is a RFC some of which were that the licensing was not kosher. At this point someone spoke up and the modifier immediately asked for the requested changes to be made (to some extent). More complaints were made and as long as there was an argument it was not accepted into the core-Linux tree, so pull your head and that twig out of your ass.

No, my insinuation is that it is more complicated them some separated for the group slop who did something and the entire group got the blame. This isn't the case of an isolated programmer not connected to anything large doing something separate from the pack. It is also not the case of the pack encouraging this guy to do this. There are levels of complicity appearing in this that don't amount to much of anything spiteful or filled with malice and ill intent. But to understand one side, you have to understand the other, or at least be willing to see things from a real perspective.

If the Linux guys were real baddies then they wouldn't have the LKML where all this is done trasnparently; to prevent things like this from getting into the mainline kernel.

I guess the real question is, if they aren't real baddies then why did it take a bunch of rantings and a review by the SFLC that took several months or years in order to get a resolution worth noting. The answer to that is that it isn't cut and dry. You have actions that were done that don't represent the group as an entire function that confused people into positions and stands that they probably wouldn't have taken if it was clearcut and dry like your attempting to make it out to be. And No, I am not claiming the linux guys are bad, I am attempting to show the confusion the led the situation to a higher state then it should have gone to.

Now you can take that as an assault on your precious linux team if you want. To anyone who isn't emotionally connected, it is just a mere breakdown of events that lead up to the mess we were in. I personally support the linux team and think they should practice what they preach. If they purposely take software from a group giving it away, they should attempt to give back any improvements they made even though the license doesn't mandate it specifically because that is what they expect others to do.

It is a practice what you preach mentality. It is hypocritical to expect everyone to give you something and not be willing to give back when you took the fruits of others labor. The issue with the removing the copyright only compounds it. Especially when you would have nothing "productive" without their hard work. And if giving something back to the BSD folks that provided something that your guys weren't able to do in years of work is too much anti GPL for you, I suggest you hide and live a miserable lonely life. In my eyes you are worse then the preachers giving sermons about the ills of drinking, smoking, and womanizing ways of modern people and then bitching after the sermon because he left his smokes in the apartment, of the whore, he picked up at the bar the night before going to church. This wasn't an attack on the community, just an attempt to show it was more complicated then people were willing to allow it to be perceived. It did however turn into a rant about elements of the community I don't like. Are you happy?

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[raddan]

There is one good thing that comes out of this: collaboration between BSD and Linux developers on wireless drivers. The licensing issue was bound to happen sooner or later on some piece of code. It's good that it happened early on in a project and with only bruised egos to show for it.

Wireless support in OpenBSD is outstanding. You can use ifconfig to manage your wireless devices just like you can for wired interfaces. I don't know a whole lot about OpenHAL, but if it works the way wireless does in OpenBSD, common libraries are simply reused so that developers can get new drivers up and running quickly. This will be a good thing for Linux, and the additional attention will improve wireless support for both platforms.

Um, is this a "resolution" at all?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Ok, they are indeed announcing that supposed changes by the Linux Wireless folks involved in this dispute will be released under a dual GPL or ISC license. But the last time I heard about this dispute, Reyk and Theo's most pressing claim was that the Linux Wireless developers in question illegally put their own copyright and license notices on work that they did not own; i.e., their position is that the Linux Wireless folks, in more than one instance, hadn't done enough original work for their release to qualify as a derived work of Reyk's code.

I don't see anything in TFA that directly addresses this. There is a link to a new document about originality requirements under the law (which I haven't read yet, I'll admit), but I would hope that this issue was addressed explicitly.

This is a good debate to have...

[Bamafan77]

NOTE: NOT FLAMEBAIT! There's often an assumption of moral superiority of the GPL from the GPL camp. The GPL spreads software "freedom" by way of sword, whereas BSD asks that derived works keep with the spirit of BSD (but you are free to walk in peace if you choose not to).

I'm glad Theo de Raadt is challenging the moral superiority of the GPL in a public way and not giving these guys a free pass. He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer, and so people are more willing to listen to his points without dismissing them out of hand (though this still happens).

At the very least, his challenges will teach people that the GPL isn't the only "free" license (don't laugh: for many, the GPL is all they know) and consequently educate people so that they might choose the right license for themselves.

Food for thought: Maybe it's in a lawyer's best interest to support the spread of complicated licenses like GPL? Not trying to say Eben or anyone else is being deliberately underhanded, but there is at least an unintentional conflict of interests.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Companies will not give the code back unless they're forced to by sword. Any belief otherwise is a fluke or delusion.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

"NOTE: NOT FLAMEBAIT! ... whereas BSD asks that derived works keep with the spirit of BSD (but you are free to walk in peace if you choose not to)."

But then, when I "chose not to", you wage the whinny bitchfest spam campaign rather than let me be "free to walk in peace".

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bollocks. When openBSD stole Linux code and incorporated it, Theo deTwat went ballistic when the code owner found out and tried to work out a solution for this code theft. When a patch submitted to LKML, which wasn't accepted, almost did the reverse, Theo deTwat went ballistic, even though the submitter owned the code. Notice a theme here?

BSD license all about vanity, companies like it because they can take the code and do nothing in return. GPL please infinitely more developers because it offer some protection that their efforts from this happening. Not that companies don't steal GPL code, it just takes a while before they get caught. End users don't give a shit about either, they just don't want to pay for software.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Anonymous Coward]

here's often an assumption of moral superiority of the GPL from the GPL camp. The GPL spreads software "freedom" by way of sword, whereas BSD asks that derived works keep with the spirit of BSD (but you are free to walk in peace if you choose not to

That seems to be only true if one wants to relicense it under a non-free license, but if one is willing to license it under a license with a different sense of freedom, they obviously get their panties in a wad.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[allthingscode]

Other than the fact that this is a flamebit, you seem to have missed the obvious moral superiority that BSD developers believe they have. If they didn't, Theo wouldn't be yelling about how wrong the GPL is.

The GPL is a militant license. I totally agree. It's just as militant as the companies it was designed to fight against. It was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without returning the favor. Most companies would not do that without being forced. Look at Microsoft use BSD code in its operating system, not provide access to it, and at the same time try to destroy free software with the money it makes. Look at the trouble it is having doing this with GPL software.

As I have said before, when the only two ways to release software are BSD and GPL, the GPL will no longer be necessary, but we are not there.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[semiotec]

He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer Does he? I don't know Theo, have never met him or communicated with him, but he does have certain "reputation". Same with Steve chair-throwing-"I'll-bury-them" Ballmer, but while Ballmer seems to be able to control his tantrums in public, Theo does not appear to be able to do so.

Many people still put great store by public demeanor, that they will prefer having a business relationship with someone who appears reasonable (even knowing that they will probably stab you in the back tomorrow) over someone who cannot control their temper to have a discussion.

Having said that, I have to make it clear that in no way do I think Ballmer's contributions (if they can be termed as such) towards IT is anywhere close to Theo de Raadt. And just in case you want to bring up RMS, I really don't know much about him, but while GPL is his baby, I don't think he represents programmers who adopt GPL for their codes.

There's often an assumption of moral superiority of the GPL from the GPL camp. And there isn't such an moral superiority assumption from the BSD camp?

I understand Theo does not represent the whole of the BSD camp, but if Theo really thinks their "philosophy" is "morally superior" to GPL, then he should stop complaining in interviews about how companies don't give them money.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[chromatic]

[The GPL] was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without returning the favor.

The GPL only covers redistribution, not use.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, are you saying that Ballmer put him up to it, since more people would listen to Theo?

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. BSD users have an absolutely sky-high sense of superiority (OpenBSD users being the prime examples). You just apparently can't see it because you already agree that the BSD license is superior. This is a common problem: people take a stance, and assume that it is "neutral"; that is, the way things simply are. To you, it's a foregone conclusion that the BSD license is great. You simply can't understand that someone might feel about the GPL as you do about the BSD license. It's almost as though you feel that GPL advocates see that the BSD license is better but choose to follow a worse path. Once you learn to see things from other people's perspectives, however, the world becomes an interesting place.

And Theo has credibility? He is a truly reprehensible human being. It's sad that other OpenBSD users see him as an example and follow how he acts. OpenBSD mailing lists/forums are truly sad to read.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Tim C]

While that's true, I've come across an increasing number of Windows open source software that requires you to "agree" to the GPL at install time, just as though it were a more traditional EULA.

If nothing else, that's going to start confusing the issue.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[MotorBheaded]

>> [The GPL] was designed to make sure that no company could take GPL'd code and use it without
>> returning the favor.

> The GPL only covers redistribution, not use.

The original poster didn't mean "use" as in "using the gpl'd software as a user" but "using the code" in the sense of taking portions of code form a gpl program and "use" (or copy) it in derivative work.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[chromatic]

The original poster didn't mean "use" as in "using the gpl'd software as a user" but "using the code" in the sense of taking portions of code form a gpl program and "use" (or copy) it in derivative work.

The GPL allows that too. It's only redistribution that requires the release of source code, modified or not, under the same terms.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Anonymous Coward]

He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer,

Your point being ....?

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[sumdumass]

I think your both wrong and are showing it. Everyone knows that outside VI, Emacs is the best operating system, flight simulator and license. And that is a completely neutral position.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[krunk7]

This statement:

BSD asks that derived works keep with the spirit of BSD (but you are free to walk in peace if you choose not to).

Seems to be in contradiction with this one:

I'm glad Theo de Raadt is challenging the moral superiority of the GPL in a public way and not giving these guys a free pass.

The GPL contributers tried to walk away....but they sure didn't get a free pass as Theo threw a hissy fit. I completely agree with the contention that if the authors/relicensers of the GPL code didn't comply with the one restriction of the BSD license (attributing the original author), the should get called on it. However, I find it the epitome of hypocrisy of the BSD advocates to release their code under a "do what you will" license, but turn around and cry wolf when someone takes them up on their offer.

The "resolution" above does not address any of the core issues (attribution or license conflict), rather it looks as if the GPL authors just gave the dog a bone and sent it to the shed.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[rdebath]

Then you should raise a bug against the installer.
It's reasonable for the installer to bring the GPL to notice at install time but if it has a 'decline' button it should allow the install but notify the user that redistribution is not allowed.
Maybe you should suggest that there's a decline button that just pops up a message to that effect and a next/continue button (but not an accept).
The BSD license has a similar issue in that you can't actually decline the license in any real way because you don't have to do anything. I suppose the decline button should be greyed out!

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[dkf]

Look at Microsoft use BSD code in its operating system, Which is one of the things that is supposed to be possible with BSD code. Really.

not provide access to it, Like the BSDers care. After all, their code is still available for all to use.

and at the same time try to destroy free software with the money it makes. Pass that man a tinfoil hat!

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[Lotunggim Ginsawat]

BSD license is not a "do what you will" license, more like a "do what you will, but put our names on your software too" license.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[jonasj]

Again, that's what they meant!

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[krunk7]

I believe I made explicit mention of the one restriction here :)

I completely agree with the contention that if the authors/relicensers of the GPL code didn't comply with the one restriction of the BSD license (attributing the original author), they should get called on it.

Re:This is a good debate to have...

[chromatic]

English has a perfectly good word which means "distribute". That word is "distribute". Using the word "use" when you mean "distribute" is unnecessary and confusing. There are plenty of people on Slashdot who apparently believe that merely using GPLd code means that you have to make modifications available to the entire world. It would be nice to reduce that confusion by being precise in language.

(Yes, I'm aware of the irony of conflating the words "free" and "libre".)

Hmm, helpful documents

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I mention in an earlier post an SFLC document about originality requirements. They've also put together a set of guidelines for using permissively-licensed software in a GPL project.

These are both in TFA, but it seems that most people here will find them more interesting than what the writeup actually says. Of course, important caveats: if this is really important to you, consult an unbiased lawyer.

Re:Hmm, helpful documents

[einhverfr]

On the latter paper, the SFLC didn;t answer a key question on GPL v3/BSDL compatibility. The basic question surrounds whether and how the permissions granted by the GPL v3, section 7, paragraph 2 could be meaingfully applied to BSDL software.

This paragraph requires that GPL v3 compatible licenses be written in such a way that they can be reduced to the GPL v3 by anyone who merely distributes the softwre, adding no copyrights of his/her own Since the GPL v3 applies to the Corresponding Source as well, this means that any GPL v3 application that uses PostgreSQL could only do so without license modifications if the distributors could take the Libpq source and change the license without otherwise changing the code. I don;t believe it is possible, and the SFLC seems to advise not going this route.

IANAL, etc.

Reasonable People

[allthingscode]

Isn't it horrible that reasonable people came together, worked things out, and decided on the best course of action? Now, the people who will obviously continue to rant will look like all they have is an agenda.

Re:Reasonable People

[Braino420]

Isn't it horrible that reasonable people came together, worked things out, and decided on the best course of action?

I know, it's so stupid. I have no idea why they just didn't fork both licenses and come up with a 3rd.

Re:Reasonable People

[sumdumass]

It is odd that without the rants and people with agendas, this would have never been worked out. So while I admire your point, I have to inject that we are where we are today because of these rants with agendas. It isn't something that should be discouraged.

Re:Reasonable People

[MrNaz]

They could call it the BSL!

Re:Reasonable People

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it horrible that reasonable people came together, worked things out, and decided on the best course of action?

Supposed reasonable person reads: Permission to use ...etc... this software ...etc... is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.

And then supposed reasonable person: Tries to get this relicenced by the original author for months, because he KNOWS HE NEEDS TO. But original author won't, so supposed reasonable person just goes right ahead and CHANGES IT ANYWAY!

Person involved with BSD code complains.

Supposed reasonable person stands ground in face of this perfectly reasonable and legally sound complaint! Basically, he boldly thumbs his nose at a clear LEGAL REQUIREMENT!

Lawyers ultimately have to come in ON THE SUPPOSED REASONABLE PERSONS BEHALF and ultimately have to pull the supposedly reasonable person into line.

I only see one reasonable person here. The term is really clear.

Re:Interview with Theo

[debilo]

How odd. I had the exact same conversation with my wife over her spending habits.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[LWATCDR]

I am waiting for RMS to way in on how they are don't care about freedom.

Re:Interview with Theo

[semiotec]

you married your brother?

Oh, I found it.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Reading quickly, the real meat of this is code analysis document, where the SFLC seems to argue, contrary to Theo and Reyk, that the files with the added copyright notices do qualify for derived work. (Still reading it.)

Re:Interview with Theo

[debilo]

Fool! I'm not from Georgia.

Re:Interview with Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

Your wife is your sister? That's awesome. Currently I'm dating my cousin, but my sister is so much hotter.

Later y'all.

Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[Crazy Taco]

What ordinarily might have been an issue barely worth noticing became a loud, public dispute in Linux and BSD circles.

Seriously, is there anything that doesn't turn into a large, public dispute when the open source community (and their overly large egos) are involved? Whether its constant squabling over scheduler FUD, Linus Torvalds saying that security professional are just running around "wanging opinions", people freaking out about GPLv2 vs GPLv3 vs BSD, or this latest issue, it seems like we have several large, ridiculous disputes a day. Why can't people in the FOSS movement just get along? They like to bash Microsoft and talk about how it is attacking other developers/companies/3rd party groups, but FOSS can't even get along within its own movement. At least Microsoft doesn't attack itself.

Re:Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[mrslacker]

> At least Microsoft doesn't attack itself.

I guess you don't read Slashdot then:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/01/235237

Re:Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[debilo]

Seriously is there anything that doesn t turn into a large public dispute when the open source community and their overly large egos are involved Whether its constant squabling over scheduler FUD Linus Torvalds saying that security professional are just running around "wanging opinions" people freaking out about GPLv2 vs GPLv3 vs BSD or this latest issue it seems like we have several large ridiculous disputes a day. Why can t people in the FOSS movement just get along They like to bash Microsoft and talk about how it is attacking other developers companies 3rd party groups but FOSS can t even get along within its own movement. At least Microsoft doesn t attack itself.

What makes you think such behavior only applies to specific groups? Have you been to a Windows forum lately? I visit a DSRL forum regularly, and the Nikon and Canon camps jump down each others' throats regularly. Have you watched a political discussion on TV lately? It's just the way it is. Bigger movements sometimes gain too much momentum, interest groups sometimes get too emotional, fanboys tend to yell a lot. It's a lamentable fact of social life, but it is hardly specific to F/OSS.

Re:Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[babbling]

Each project is a different group of people. There's hundreds of thousands of projects. Of course there will be disputes.

Re:Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[Crazy Taco]

Bigger movements sometimes gain too much momentum, interest groups sometimes get too emotional, fanboys tend to yell a lot.

Granted, all that is true. However, the difference I see is that FOSS is supposed to be striving for a higher calling. People like Richard Stallman pretty much elevate it to a religious/moral level. This isn't just some XBox fanboy telling a Nintendo fanboy how much better his console is than the Wii. Supposedly, FOSS is bigger/higher than those sorts of things. Yet we see these arguments over even the slightest issues.

Issue number 2 is that FOSS is supposed to be more of a scientific/engineering/technological group as well. I understand 14 year old gamer fanboys getting up in arms about things, but these participants are supposed to be scientists critically and logically examining issues. Instead, their debates usually turn into shouting matches with lots of red herrings and poisoning the well type attacks (such as the security professionals "wanging opinions" remark), and often aren't inherently logical debates at all. Maybe I shouldn't expect anything of them, but I really would expect a group that markets itself the way FOSS does to be above a lot of the pettiness I see day to day from the leaders.

Re:Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[MrCopilot]

Why can't people in the FOSS movement just get along? They like to bash Microsoft and talk about how it is attacking other developers/companies/3rd party groups, but FOSS can't even get along within its own movement. At least Microsoft doesn't attack itself.

Obviously not a Vista User.

Re:Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[Anonymous Coward]

but FOSS can't even get along within its own movement.

FOSS is a "grand coalition" of many camps under the banner of providing access to code. The problem is that the coalition disagrees on the How and the Why.

The why side of things involves two major camps, the free software advocates and the open source advocates. The free software advocates tend to believe that freedom is an end in itself, whereas the open source advocates tend to believe that freedom is beneficial for some other reason (typically technical, and an example of this is resistance to binary blobs for security/portibility reasons).

The division of the How is mainly divided into permissive vs. copyleft licensing.

Given the current balance of issues, the difficulties of certain parties are definitely understandable. Take someone like Linus Torvalds, he has stated that he believes in open source and copyleft. He has chosen the GPL for his main projects (linux and git). And he feels that the GPLv2 suits his needs.

So what happens when the FSF (free software + copyleft), who determine the direction of new revisions of the GPL, decide to update the license to reflect their beliefs of free software better (which is understandable) at the expense of those copylefters who believe in open source? If the changes are drastic enough, a schism between the two copyleft camps will grow. And could possibly fracture them.

Thus, the GPL 2v3 issue isn't ridiculous, it is about the future of a very large and important branch of the FOSS community.

The good news is that if a split does occur, then there will be fewer issues to be argued (because the camps will no longer need to interact with each other, and will hopefully have licenses that suit them perfectly). The bad news is that the split itself will be very painful.

Re:Loud, Public Dispute As Usual

[Crazy Taco]

Actually, I am. Microsoft developers aren't out there bashing each other. I don't know why you guys aren't seeing my distinction. There are always people who bash any product. Even though slashdot mostly is a pro-Linux crowd, people bash Linux too. But I don't know of any other product development group that degenerates into infighting over every little development issue that comes along.

And to counteract the objection that these are seperate projects, you don't hear Microsoft's XBox 360 project team bashing the Office team, do you? And the comparisons are comparable, because the FOSS community is in essence the overall organization, despite having different product groups and subhierarchies. Technically everyone is still claiming allegience to FOSS.

Re:Interview with Theo

[Braino420]

I had the exact same conversation with my wife over her spending habits.

Your wife is your brother?

BSD license confussion.

[MikeFM]

This stems, mostly, from confussion over the BSD license I think. It's accepted that you CAN just take BSD code and build it into your own code without returning anything back. It seems the major issue was the lack of credit given and that the changes from the BSD version to the GPL version were really minor.

It seems kind of petty to whine about someone stealing your code if you're releasing it under the BSD license though. By using the BSD license instead of the GPL you're choosing to let people take from you without giving back. I frequently hear the argument that BSD licensed code is really free, and the GPL isn't, over exactly this issue.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[einhverfr]

First, I am glad that this came to a reasonable resolution that benefits all parties. Nothing is really to be gained by splitting effort in the way things were going.

However, I think that this does go to show that there are real questions whether the BSD license actually does follow the copyrights of the code in question, and if it does, then it would seem to limit what one could do to included pieces under the GPL v3, section 7, paragraph 2 (removal of additional permissions). This might make the BSDL incompatible with the GPL v3. If that section of the GPL means what it says, then it is a real shame because it means that more of these issues will come up in the future.

We ought to remember that our greatest strength lies in not forcing everyone to reinvent the wheel over and over. If we band together and stop fighting over whether the BSDL is helping commercial competitors, etc. we can beat everyone. Together. BSD, Linux, and the like.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

First, I am glad that this came to a reasonable resolution that benefits all parties.

Has it? All I see is SFLC pronouncements.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[Ruliz Galaxor]

You are correct in the fact that you don't have to give back modifications when using the BSD license. However, you cannot change/remove the original copyright and that was what all the fuss was about in this case.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[MikeFM]

The main problem is that code under the BSD license can be taken by major companies, embraced and extended, and leave the actual authors of the code as second-rate citizens of their own project. If this happens there is no legal protection. It's open to the dirty tricks companies like Microsoft like to pull. Even being under the LGPL instead of the BSD license, KHTML was plundered this way by Apple for quite some time before they started playing nicer. BSD code has been built into OS X and Windows with no legal room for demanding that changes, to maintain compatiblity, share features, etc be returned to the original authors. When people use BSD licensed code they can force the original author to keep reinventing the wheel to keep up with their own project.

I don't really care a lot if other people want to use the BSD license but I can't see why anyone that isn't a masochist would want to. The GPL is like loaning your neighbor your lawnmower and expecting it back when they're done. The BSD is like loaning your neighbor your lawnmower and letting them just keep it when they're done.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[markov_chain]

I don't think you understand the point of the BSD license. It's designed intentionally to let the commercial entities use code this way. The idea is that some big government sponsored project, such as the thing at Berkeley, will produce useful code that can then be transferred to the industry and still help any companies that form. The taxpayers get everything no strings attached. I guess this was a nice idea when the US was the only country with Internet, but now virtually everyone has access so it doesn't really make the domestic companies more competitive.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[MikeFM]

For code developed by the government at the taxpayers' expense I can see that the BSD license might be a good choice although then I wonder why not just release it as PD. For open source projects though I can't see it as very good because it's not protecting the original author or the community. Even if the code is developed by the government I can see the benfit of forcing code changes to be returned to the community at large while I can't see any benefit to the community for these changes not to be returned.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[Lotunggim Ginsawat]

Releasing codes to public domain is harder with more paperwork. For example, just because I release my code to public domain in USA, it does not mean the codes will be public domain across the world. Need more paperworks to ensures that will happen. With BSD, copyright laws can be used to essentially made codes almost public domain.

Re:BSD license confussion.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem is that code under the BSD license can be taken by major companies, embraced and extended, and leave the actual authors of the code as second-rate citizens of their own project.

And those authors should obviously be okay with that if they've actually read the licence and thought of the implications. I'm perfectly happy for Apple to take my code and use it without "giving back". Their action does not prevent me from continuing to use and extend my code for myself, others or even them again.

I'm okay with that. It is not a "problem" for me. I don't see how I could be a second rate citizen of my own code, when nobody can stop me from continuing to use and modify it. I am still in control of my code and get this...

Apples additions to my code are not mine! My code is mine, theirs is theirs and my code with thier additions is also theirs. But that is okay because my code by itself is still mine.

Get it? How can I be a "second-rate citizen" of my code when nobody can stop me from continuing to use and modify it? And how are Apples additions "my code"? It's not, it's theirs.

And I'm fine with that.

credibility?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm glad Theo de Raadt is challenging the moral superiority of the GPL in a public way and not giving > these guys a free pass. He has much more credibility than say, Steve Ballmer, and so people are more > willing to listen to his points without dismissing them out of hand (though this still happens)

Maybe more people wouldnt dismiss Theo out of hand if he started talking like a normal person instead of going on manic depressive tangents he usually prefers.

When it comes to conflict management/resolution and anything dealing with interpersonal dynamics, Theo can pour gasoline as good as Ballmer. Maybe even more so.

It worked?

[Edward Kmett]

I for one am quite pleased, and I rather surprised that the matter was able to be resolved successfully in a manner that didn't completely screw over the BSD folks.

Heretofore I had held the opinion that one random unaccepted patch inappropriately removing a license notice wasn't worth the resulting furor. But by conflating that general non-issue with the root cause of the GPL borg consuming BSD code, the events here did reveal to a lot of folks whom hadn't previously paid much attention the cause of a lot of frustration on the behalf of the users of more open licenses.

I also had honestly not expected Moglen and company to be able to track down and get the GPL code contributors to relicense their code to appease the BSD crew, or even really suspected that they would do so. Bravo! I had largely taken the 'we're working on resolving the issue' statements as empty rhetoric.

In general I expected this to resolve with de Raadt and company stomping off, legally outmaneuvered by the GPL once again, without access to the improvements that had been made to their code by GPL contributors that they could see but not use. At least closed source corporate improvements are typically locked away behind closed doors and you don't have the code staring you in the face and you can rely on your larger development community to catch you up over time. With the GPL it seems so much more personal and tedious.

I had come to see that scenario as part of the genius (or bedeviling nature) of the GPL: its ability to co-opt the code of less opinionated. In essence doing the very thing it tries to prevent other legal entities from doing to it.

Neither the GPL nor the BSD licenses are perfect. The BSD license doesn't have a way to prevent GPL 'lockout', and the GPL doesn't play nice with others.

While I'm a little leery that this sets an awkward precedent that GPL developers on high profile projects will bend if people scream loud enough, overall, I think this was a remarkable feat of diplomacy on the part of the SFLC. Moreso given that it was done in the face of so much overt hostility.

Good job.

Re:It worked?

[squiggleslash]

Neither the GPL nor the BSD licenses are perfect. The BSD license doesn't have a way to prevent GPL 'lockout', and the GPL doesn't play nice with others.

That's a very strange way of putting it.

There are those in the coding community that are happy to see their code distributed far and wide as long as it stays "open", and those that don't care if it stays open or not. The latter use the BSD license, the former the GPL.

The BSD people got upset for a variety of reasons, but one of them is what you're apparently claiming above. Theo said it was "unethical" for someone to take BSD code and license a modified version under the GPL. And the thing is, it clearly isn't. It clearly isn't because that's essentially what the BSD people said they were perfectly ok with - they licensed it under the BSD license because they didn't care whether or not it stayed open, so whether it's being incorporated into the next version of Windows, or a GPL licensed Linux code-base, really isn't an issue, at least according to what the authors claimed was their intent and desire.

This is one reason why most of us looking on this from the outside were completely bewildered. Despite the enthusiasm the BSD community has for calling GNU people "zealots" it was very obvious that the BSD community is the one with the extremely weird and extreme views, notably a hatred of a particular license that's far closer to their ideals than alternatives they've never expressed a problem with, from Apple's APSL to Microsoft's various EULAs.

Honestly, I have to congratulate the SFLC for a variety of reasons. One is that if I were in the Linux developers shoes, I wouldn't want to cooperate with the OpenBSD people any more, given the mindless hatred and illogical confrontation the Linux community has been under, and I certainly wouldn't relicense any of my code under a non-copyleft license. There's nothing, of course, preventing the OpenBSD people from accepting GPL'd changes beyond ideology. So for the SFLC to actually persuade the Linux people to do this shows both very positive diplomatic skills on their behalf, and beyond reasonable attitude from the developers.

It's also impressive they did this rather than giving up in disgust while Theo apparently misrepresented what they were doing and tried to undermine their talks.

The GPL is not, in any sense, incompatible with the BSD license except in the minds of a few extremists or except in the sense that the additional conditions of the GPL may be unacceptable to some of those who developer under the BSD license. Add GPL code to OpenBSD's kernel and you can legally redistribute OpenBSD, still. You may not be able to allow others to release closed changes to the kernel, unless you take care to identify the GPL'd portions and ensure that they're optional. Given this furore was about a device driver, a strictly optional component, it's hard to see how the argument that the Linux community were taking without giving back has a leg to stand on, especially when the argument is that they're not giving back because they're refusing to allow others to take without giving back. Uh-huh. Right.

I've said everything I needed to about Theo and the bizarre difference between the way the Linux community dealt with a real copyright violation on the part of the OpenBSD developers, and the OpenBSD developers were/are dealing with a proposed change that may be a copyright violation if done now, but I did want to make a comment on the inanity of the ideology and arguments about "morality" that Theo and some of the other hot-heads in the BSD community have been making, and also to congratulate, with a certain amount of surprise, the SFLC on their achievement. Honestly, I don't think the right way of dealing with a whining screaming child that's clearly misbehaving is to give them what they claim to want. I don't think this will ultimately pacify the OpenBSD zealots in the long term. But perhaps, ultimately, those with cooler heads in that same community might be more willing to speak out against the zealots the next time they blow up, and if that happens, the SFLC will have done the free software community a favor.

Re:So uh..

[rainman_bc]

but umm.. ... .. . Who cares? I care - my laptop is using Madwifi and it runs like ass with Gnome NetworkManager. It's been an open case with Ubuntu for over a year now. Atheros cards can't handle the scan requests and disconnect after the scan request.

It'd be nice to get better collaboration with the Atheros drivers.

Wireless is the big hole with Linux. Its support is dodgy at best.

I think the tagline from AvP is oddly appropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever wins... we lose

Re:Interview with Theo

[babbling]

You've made it quite clear who the idiot is. Whilst I disagree with his choice of license, Theo de Raadt has done wonderful things for Free Software in general.

It should be this simple

[alexborges]

Cant the BSD people get together with Linus and his guys and agree to relicense every derived work in the other license?

For example:
1) Linux dev dl's spiffy-superdrivers from openbsd
2) Linux dev ports it and makes changes to it
3) Linux dev branches resulting code with the original license BSD and points the bsd guys there
4) Linux dev submits driver to linus (or whomever) in the GPL license
5) Should work the other way arround (s/Linux/BSD)
6) Even in the future, should anyone from the BSD camp request a particular piece of Linux kernel-world, they should be able to get it under the BSD license IF and ONLY IF, the BSD guys are willing to do the same with THEIR stuff.

Proprietary companies make cross-licensing deals all the time. We should be able to do the same.

Re:It should be this simple

[Epsillon]

It won't work. The BSD licence (I'm going to get modded down to oblivion and flamed from several directions for this) is completely open. Anyone, including large corporations, can take it and use it for whatever purpose they like providing they leave the copyright header and however many clauses of the license intact in the source, binary and documentation. The GPL, on the other hand, is open with the proviso that it does not end up in proprietary software. You can take BSD code and put it into Windows. You can't take GPL code and put it into Windows without opening and providing source for everything that it touches and everything that links with it [1].

Now, here's the problem: The proponents of the GPL, quite rightly and legitimately, want to keep their software and source both available and out of closed source software, which is their right as copyright holders. Under no circumstances will a binary based on GPL source be distributed in a form that is unalterable and without source. However, if the developers of, say, the Broadcom driver allow one of the BSDs to relicense under the BSD two or three clause licence, this protection no longer applies. Broadcom could then quite legitimately drag any changes they think are more elegant or effective than their in-house methods and use them without a thought to giving back to the community that wrote them. This is why it is a one-way street. I don't necessarily agree with it, being a BSD user, but I certainly understand the objections of the GPL developers.

[1] The LGPL is slightly different in this respect.

Re:It should be this simple

[alexborges]

Yeah but (dont you love those?), if the original work is BSD, the BSD camp should get at least the first iteration in their own license. I think its fair even if it sacrifices the GPL spirit a little.

The pitfall is precisely what you point out, no doubt, but if a public arrangement can be made (as in, the next three versions of the derived work in linux will be dual licensed and after that, no more), I think they could reach an agreement that lets both camps take from the other without passing so much flame.

Re:It should be this simple

[Epsillon]

Yeah but (dont you love those?), if the original work is BSD, the BSD camp should get at least the first iteration in their own license. I think its fair even if it sacrifices the GPL spirit a little.

No argument from me there. I'd love to see this happen. However, we're dealing with something akin to two different religions here; we both worship the same god but our doctrines are incompatible.

The pitfall is precisely what you point out, no doubt, but if a public arrangement can be made (as in, the next three versions of the derived work in linux will be dual licensed and after that, no more), I think they could reach an agreement that lets both camps take from the other without passing so much flame.

That is a nice ideal, but it probably leaves room for abuse because it requires absolute honesty to work. Hypothetically, one method of abuse: The GPL guys (folks, I'm not picking on you. This is the easiest example I could come up with in /. post time that would be easily understood) would take the source, fork it, dual licence the fork (which is a direct copy of the original at this point), make three minor changes to bump the version to release the code from the BSD licence (not possible at the moment without copyright holder consent) and only then make the significant changes to make it work with the GPL kernel, along with any major architectural changes they feel necessary. This is quite legitimate under the scheme you propose, keeps the GPL methods from the big, nasty corporates, leaves BSD out in the cold again and still leaves us with Theo and possibly others criticising the GPL movement for the fundamental principles of their licensing structure. As you can see, we're back to square one. Yes, I'm thinking like a sneaky bastard, but you can bet someone on either side would do the same, bringing the whole effort to a grinding halt.

What is really needed is a whole new licence structure for shared drivers. Quite how you would go about that is anyone's guess, especially with, on the one hand, the SFLC making proclamations on other people's code (without my objectivity chip switched in, this really pissed me off) and people taking that in the same way they would a landmark court decision and, on the other, a sense of immovability and inflexibility on the part of developers on both sides of the fence. How would one word a shared driver licence to fit with the BSD structure and still keep the corporations' hands off the GPL contributed code and the source open downstream, yet still allow BSD to take back changes without allowing the megacorps to Do What The Hell They Like [TM] with the code? Beats me. Welcome to open source cooperation. 'twas ever thus and, seemingly, ever shall be, simply due to these incompatibilities between the two camps' chosen licences.

In summary: BSD will not allow the BSD licence to be replaced by the GPL because it disqualifies them from using improvements in the GPL fork. GPL won't let BSD replace the GPL with ISC/BSD because that then leaves their code vulnerable to megacorps making changes and closing the source, freezing them out of their own creation. Both sides have the same problem, but the ideal resolutions for each make this divide larger.

What about "information wants to be free"?

[mi]

Here is a juicy flamebait for you all...

A large number of Slashdotters reject any right of music- and movie-creators to tell us, what we can do with the music. The licensing of the entertainment media files are rejected by both the vocal minority and the moderating majority. In addition to the juvenile (and Communist) "rob the robbers" (il)logic (applied to the **AA members, who are "large corporations" or "rich and powerful"), all sorts of other arguments are put forward, including how copyrights are a fairly recent (only a few centuries old) fenomenon, and how creators should be encouraged by fame, etc. instead of by keeping full control of their creations.

Why should not the same logic apply to software? Why are we even looking into the intricacies of GPL vs. BSD licenses, instead of denouncing them altogether like we (or most of us, anyway) do with entertainment licenses?

If, as is the prevailing view on Slashdot, any curbs on entertainment are wrong, why are we supporting curbs on software use — by, for example, cheering the GPL-enforcement litigation?

Re:What about "information wants to be free"?

[kebes]

Here is a juicy flamebait for you all...

Sorry, but your flaimbait is hardly novel. This gets mentioned on just about every story that deals with copyright in some way. The counter-arguments have been exhaustively delineated in previous slashdot discussions. Briefly:

1. There is not a single "Slashdot mind." Despite the groupthink that moderation may encourage, varied and even dissenting views frequently arise. Thus the preponderance of highly-moderated "current copyright law is bad" posts and the preponderance of "pro-GPL" posts are not necessarily posted by the same people. Also note that moderators should (and probably frequently do) mod-up things they don't agree with. So even if the average opinion were that the GPL was bad, it's possible to see highly-modded "pro-GPL" posts.

2. It is not inconsistent to say "status quo copyright is bad" and "the GPL is good." It may be that the person's consistent viewpoint is that a scaled-back version of copyright would be best. Such a scaled-back version of copyright could be consistent with both the GPL and broad fair-use (e.g. non-commercial private copying of music).

3. Many posters may agree with the spirit of the GPL, and even the spirit of copyright law, but believe it is immoral to use great force in enforcement. Put otherwise, they do not see anything wrong with copyright per se, but they decry the abusive measures utilized by entrenched monopolies such as the RIAA and MPAA represent. Thus it is the tactics they are unhappy with. This stance is not hypocritical because, at present, the tactics used in GPL enforcement are rather more reasonable as compared to the tactics used in the widescale "fight against piracy."

4. Many slashdotters actually don't agree with the GPL. You'll notice many highly-moderated posts that describe why the BSD license is better (even "more free") since it imposes effectively no burdens on other's use of the code. Such a stance is entirely consistent with a similar stance with respect to music: that everyone should be able to freely use/modify/redistribute intellectual works.

5. People can have nuanced views or see a continuum of options. For instance, a person may believe that status-quo copyright is terrible, that a no-copyright world would be better (but not ideal), and that a medium-copyright world (with protection arising only in cases where source material is released: i.e. copyright applies to BSD, GPL, Creative Commons, but not to closed-source works) is best. If a person holds such a view, it is not inconsistent to say "the GPL is good and should be honored" but to also say "status-quo all-rights-reserved copyright is bad and should be ignored."

And so on... I'm not necessarily defending any of these particular viewpoints, by the way. I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't require much imagination to come up with a consistent viewpoint that matches the highly-modded rhetoric seen on Slashdot.

Basically it is a fallacy to believe that Slashdot is a single mind that you can argue with. If you are attempting to point out some hypocrisy, then find a particular user who you think is espousing contradictory viewpoints in different posts. Beyond that, any cry of hypocrisy is actually a failure on your part to understand the inherent variability among the Slashdot readership, and the subtlety in the opinions being expressed.

Re:What about "information wants to be free"?

[swillden]

Why should not the same logic apply to software? Why are we even looking into the intricacies of GPL vs. BSD licenses, instead of denouncing them altogether like we (or most of us, anyway) do with entertainment licenses?

For personal, non-commercial use, it should.

For large-scale, commercial work -- like the Linux kernel -- it should not.

Re:What about "information wants to be free"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it the same people making these arguments?

Re:What about "information wants to be free"?

[jc42]

If, as is the prevailing view on Slashdot, any curbs on entertainment are wrong, why are we supporting curbs on software use -- by, for example, cheering the GPL-enforcement litigation?

Well, one possibility is that a lot of people here would prefer weaker copyright laws for both entertainment and software. The problem, which a lot of us understand, is that under the current laws in the US and most other countries, it doesn't work to just release your software as public domain. There is a history of companies taking public software and asserting their own copyright claim over it. People have found that they don't have the legal right to use their own software, after some corporation has started selling it.

One of the functions of the GPL is to use copyright against itself, in a sense. By aggressively claiming copyright but providing an automatic free license to everyone, you stand a good chance of being able to use your own software in the indefinite future. And by requiring that "derived works" be released under the same free license, you interfere with the natural desire of corporations to fork your work and not "pay" you by sharing their improvements with you.

To those with an "information wants to be free" ideology, this is probably the best that can be done under current laws. You really have little choice but to claim your own copyright in self defense. But schemes like the GPL let you get close to the state of freedom and cooperative development that you'd like.

Currently, there's no hope that the copyright laws will be relaxed anywhere. The natural tendency of corporate bribery (I mean campaign contributions) is to make such laws more restrictive over time. About all we can really do is try to find ways to subvert such a system. We can't fix it, but maybe we can trick it into enforcing open publication and cooperative development.

One reason for cheering GPL-enforcement litigation is that the anti-FOSS folks have been arguing that the GPL can't be trusted because it has never been tested in court. Lawyers might point out that this is because they advise their clients that if you fight the GPL, you'll lose and it'll cost you. But this doesn't register with the political system, and most managers continue to insist that court tests are necessary before they'll consider using GPL'd software. So if we want GPL'd software to make inroads into business settings, having a few actual court cases to point to is probably a good idea. Depending on what the courts say, of course, and we really don't know what that will be until it happens. Courts have this way of confounding the expectations of even the expert lawyers, and how many judges have any idea what this "software" stuff is all about?

Re:What about "information wants to be free"?

[JasterBobaMereel]

There is a very simple difference between the GPL/BSD and Music Copyright ... ...To use GPL copyright works I have to obey the GPL/BSD licences .. It costs me nothing I can (with reasonable restrictions) do what I like with them ...To use Copyright music, I have to pay for it again and again and again, for each new device I put it on for each new format and the devices I put it on have to have an overhead of DRM to restrict my rights, meanwhile I have the threat of being sued for large amounts of money for copying/distributing files without (seemingly) the requirement of adequate proof by a private company

Re:What about "information wants to be free"?

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Many slashdotters actually don't agree with the GPL. You'll notice many highly-moderated posts that describe why the BSD license is better (even "more free") since it imposes effectively no burdens on other's use of the code. Such a stance is entirely consistent with a similar stance with respect to music: that everyone should be able to freely use/modify/redistribute intellectual works.

Just to be clear, those freedoms are guaranteed by the GNU GPL too.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[mok000]

Does anyone else think that this whole affair is Theo de Raadt's payback for the Broadcom Driver dispute earlier this year? Then, de Raadt vehemently accused the Linux developers of "ganging up" on one guy from his OpenBSD team, who had copied code GPL'ed from the Broadcom Driver project and removed the GPL clause.

See here: http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/85224/index.html

GPL no more.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm beginning to dislike the GPL more and more. I don't think it's the right way to go about things. While I'd prefer all software to be Free Software, I don't think of proprietary software as evil. If people don't want to use proprietary software, they don't have to. They have the freedom to say no. The FSF seems to think that nobody should have the right to say yes to proprietary software. Not as users nor as developers. I don't agree with that.

What I think is more important is freely available documentation. Join that fight instead. If FOSS is so superior as the advocates claim, then proprietary software will eventually go away, GPL or no GPL (unless, ofcourse, people actually /want/ proprietary software).

Tivo(ization)? Really, what's wrong with it? People have the freedom to not use it. They also have the freedom to use it, and many do. Why? Because it's a cool product and 99.9% doesn't give a crap about having access to source code and being able to modify the product. The FSF seems to imply that you do not have the freedom to not care about these things. "No! That's not freedom! You'll be dominated by your software, handcuffed!". What? I'm watching TV!

"But without the GPL, software won't /remain/ free!" Nobody can make your ISC/BSD/MIT/whatever-non-GPL licensed code non-free. They can make their modifications to your work non-free, but so what? Your code is still free, and people still have the freedom to choose.

Now, this wasn't exactly what the article was about, but I just felt like having a little rant ... Carry on.

Re:GPL no more.

[renehollan]

Nobody can make your ISC/BSD/MIT/whatever-non-GPL licensed code non-free. They can make their modifications to your work non-free, but so what?

Yes, but they can't redistribute the combined work of "your" code and "their" modifications, in binary form, without redistributing the source to their modifications. That's very significant if their goal is to profit from the combination via redistribution.

The argument goes like this: "Why should you freely benefit from my hard work when I can't benefit from yours?" the BSD camp doesn't care (as far as commercial lockup is concerned) where the GPL camp does.

The argument that the GPL is "restrictive" or "non-free" in the sense that it does not permit the "freedom" to make derived works "non-free" is simply semantic bull feces. Without a license, copyright (at least in the U.S. and similar places) would grant NONE of the freedoms the GPL does. The fact that it does not grant ALL freedoms instead does not make it "restrictive". The fact that it grants many makes it "free" (though "liberal" might be a better adjective).

GPLv2 had a number of weaknesses and I think GPLv3 retains some of them. For example, I once was employed by a company that took much GPL code, made significant enhancements (particularly to the Anaconda installer, and SYSLINUX), redistributed the result, but did not share the enhancements with the "community"... all in accordance with the GPL.

How?

Simple. We DID distribute source to all our recipients of the combined work, some half-dozen of them, for millions of dollars each. Each of them had absolutely no interest in further redistribution, having paid the high price, and so the enhancements effectively stayed "locked up". Pity that: I thought some of them were useful.

As far as a GPL-hijacking of BSD code is concerned, it seams to me that the combined derived work can be licensed under the GPL, so long as the original BSD bits (including bits that were deleted) can be extracted and taken private. What part of "Portions licensed under the BSD license" is so hard to understand? Of course, I'm muddying the difference between derived work and aggregated works here, but if I combine A and B to produce C, and can yet recover A and B from C, who's to say it isn't an aggregate? I fact, if I simply aggregate A and B, and provide the recipient the mechanism to produce C from them for his own use, the aggregation argument is even stronger (another potential weaknes of GPLv2).

A court might not see that "hack" in a positive light, and argue that the combined work is a derivative of BSD-licensed code and therefore has to be redistributed as such, but even that can be overcome: imagine I have a box into which I download A, and B. I can ask the box to produce A or B. The box, however, can use A and B in an interesting way. Who's to say the box does not aggregate A and B? Who's to say that C is not a compressed version of the aggregate of A and B? I think that if something has all the properties of an aggregate, a strong argument can be made for treating it as an aggregate.

Of course, that wouldn't be playing nice with the BSD folks, but it strikes me as possible.

Re:GPL no more.

[itsybitsy]

Nicely stated AC.

Re:GPL no more.

[Anonymous Coward]

If people don't want to use proprietary software, they don't have to. They have the freedom to say no.

And if people don't want to contribute to proprietary software, they don't have to. The have the freedom to say no - by releasing their own code under the GPL.

The FSF seems to think that nobody should have the right to say yes to proprietary software.

Reference? Of course, there are plenty of times when they have advised people not to use proprietary software, but I'm not aware of any statement from them that people shouldn't be allowed to do so if they choose.

Re:GPL no more.

[chromatic]

The FSF seems to think that nobody should have the right to say yes to proprietary software.

Citations, please.

Re:GPL no more.

[fatphil]

"We DID distribute source to all our recipients of the combined work, some half-dozen of them, for millions of dollars each."

That's not in accordance with the license. What company was this?

Re:GPL no more.

[smash]

Hurrah, another person "gets it".

If DNS, NFS, etc was all originally GPLed and commercial devs couldn't use some example code as a starting point, you can bet dollars to donuts that they wouldn't be standard protocols...

Re:GPL no more.

[renehollan]

Just how does it violate the license? To each recipient of binaries, we provided the sources, licensed under the GPL (yes, including our changes). They could have redistributed if they wished. They did not.

If there is a bona-fide GPL violation here, I'd be happy to testify as to what we did, but I don't see one.

Re:GPL no more.

[Anonymous Coward]

[not original poster]

It's maybe quetionable that the FSF holds the opinion that one shouldn't have the choice to choose free software, but it is clear that they consider individuals who use non-free software, or of course especially those who write such things, to be "evil". As I recall, when quesioned what to do if someone was forced to use Windows as part of their work, rms once replied that they should of course quit such work. When the person countered that maybe that wasn't such a practical solution, rms compared it to be in the same league as someone who punches someone else in the face! And that if they were forced to punch someone in the face as part of the work, wouldn't they quit?

Re:GPL no more.

[catprog]

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/info/GPLv2.html

  3 b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
        years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
        cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
        machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
        distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
        customarily used for software interchange; or,

Re:GPL no more.

[renehollan]

You quoted from http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/info/GPLv2.html selectively :

"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one [emphasis mine] of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"

We distributed under 3a.

Those to whom we distributed could have freely redistributed the code, but as the aggregate was useful to their potential competitors, and they paid us a lot of money, there were disinclined to do so.

Believe me, we dotted the I's and crossed the T's on this one: we had RMS give a lecture to our devs.

Re:GPL no more.

[einhverfr]

There was no GPL violation. IANAL, though.

If you pay me millions of dollars for me to give you a copy of the software, provide support, etc, that is fine. Yes, I have to provide the source, and that is what the poster obviously did.

BTW, in the GPL v3, I see no reason you can't offer beta versions under NDA provided that you state that you do so solely for the purpose of the recipient rendering services (in this case testing) for you. The FSF aside, their license says something other than what they think it says.

Similarly, under the GPL v2, I see *no reason* why I can't distribute the source code under an appropraitely scoped NDA. I could, for example, state that you cannot disclose that you got the source from me, must remove all my trademarks, and the like, but I can't prevent you from distributing the code once you comply with such reasonable restrictions. So you can accomplish anything other than code redistribution control using NDA's and the GPL v2. (THe GPL v2 does not preclude an NDA about my company's business activities regarding GPL'd code-- it just precludes using this to restrict redistribution of the code per se.)

Re:GPL no more.

[einhverfr]

Yes, but they can't redistribute the combined work of "your" code and "their" modifications, in binary form, without redistributing the source to their modifications. That's very significant if their goal is to profit from the combination via redistribution.

The argument goes like this: "Why should you freely benefit from my hard work when I can't benefit from yours?" the BSD camp doesn't care (as far as commercial lockup is concerned) where the GPL camp does.

I am not sure that is a valid concern for a viable project wiht a reasonable pace of development (such as Apache or PostgreSQL. In such a project, it doesn't really matter what commercial versions are developed and what closed source licenses they are under. They can't compete with Free, and witholding contributions, especially when the community wants them, is a good way to drive up one's own costs.

If the community doesn't want PostgreSQL to behave like Oracle in some ways why shouldn't they let EnterpriseDB sell an Oracle compatibility component? In fact this is good for everybody as it helps to attack a viscious competitor and at the same time, generates work on the codebase on behalf of the customers they pull over from Elison's Empire (which, to the extent the community wants it, is donated back to the project).

The argument that the GPL is "restrictive" or "non-free" in the sense that it does not permit the "freedom" to make derived works "non-free" is simply semantic bull feces. Without a license, copyright (at least in the U.S. and similar places) would grant NONE of the freedoms the GPL does. The fact that it does not grant ALL freedoms instead does not make it "restrictive". The fact that it grants many makes it "free" (though "liberal" might be a better adjective).

One of the issues I have with the GPL v3 is that it adds a lot of new restrictions which are both outside the scope of a general purpose software license (Tivoization for example), it seeks to extend itself well beyond the scope of general copyrights (section 7, paragraph 2 requires that licenses allow for sublicensing under the exact terms of the GPL v3 to be compatible).

Note that Tivoization, while slightly more expensive under the GPL3 is still quite possible (by using the aggregation clause to create an environment where the updated application doesn't have anything to talk to because other software components on the other sides of pipes are missing), and a similar scheme (using VMs and hypervisors) can remove access to DRM controls from the GPL'd system.

GPLv2 had a number of weaknesses and I think GPLv3 retains some of them. For example, I once was employed by a company that took much GPL code, made significant enhancements (particularly to the Anaconda installer, and SYSLINUX), redistributed the result, but did not share the enhancements with the "community"... all in accordance with the GPL.

How?

Simple. We DID distribute source to all our recipients of the combined work, some half-dozen of them, for millions of dollars each. Each of them had absolutely no interest in further redistribution, having paid the high price, and so the enhancements effectively stayed "locked up". Pity that: I thought some of them were useful.

I have no problem with charging someone several millions of dollars for the software and then giving them and only them the source in addition.

As far as a GPL-hijacking of BSD code is concerned, it seams to me that the combined derived work can be licensed under the GPL, so long as the original BSD bits (including bits that were deleted) can be extracted and taken private.

This is my problem with GPL v3 compatibility and the BSDL. The license seems to indicate that one cannot do this, while the GPL v2 indicated that one clearly could.

What part of "Portions licensed under the BSD license" is so hard

Re:GPL no more.

[fatphil]

Above you claimed you charged millions for the source.

Re:GPL no more.

[renehollan]

Private forks aren't a real concern for large, active, projects. But, in my case, I made changes to SYSLINUX and Anaconda, that allowed support for headless installs that were configured on a per-machine basis by config scripts on floppy in addition to the original install media. One mod permitted the wiping out of the existing hard drive if an appropriate serial port dongle was installed as well (install CDs that wipe stuff out on their own without asking are baaaaad.)

It wasn't a BIG deal, but it bugged me that it could not be shared with the community.

On TivoIzation, I see the position of the FSF as clear. GPLv2 was always vulnerable to this sort of thing, as well as dynamic linking (when it was novel), process wrapper shims, etc.

Re:GPL no more.

[renehollan]

We charged millions of dollars for the binaries, as part of a larger, supported, system. and included the source free of charge. There was no extra charge for the source, nor were there restrictions on redistribution.

In fact, we had one customer who BALKED at receiving the source! We had to explain that we were legally obligated to do so.

Largely positive?

[Anonymous Coward]

The OpenBSD Journal article states

"Note that the issue of authorship has been conveniently glossed over"

  It appears from the posting there that while the issue of which licence to
use may have been resolved, the issue over when you claim you have made a significant
contribution to the work and put your name on it has not been. - Which was a large
part of what the BSD people were complaining about in the first place (well, at
least the people who write any code, as opposed to people bleating about dual
licensing on slashdot)

"Glossed over"? No; deemphasized, certainly.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I wouldn't go as far as calling it "glossed over," but there is sure as hell a lot of talk about the issue being "resolved" without waiting for Theo and Reyk to chime in.

The real meat of the whole thing is in this analysis, where the SFLC argues in some detail that the changes made by the Linux Wireless folks do qualify for a derived work of their authorship. Do Theo and Reyk agree with this? We don't know. The licensing concession might be enough to get them to settle, independently of the authorship dispute, or then again it might not.

Certainly calling this "resolved" is very, very premature. You don't get to call this "resolved" until the other guy agrees not to sue.

Re:"Glossed over"? No; deemphasized, certainly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, it's surprising how few people are actually paying attention to these matters while at the same time jibbering about them.

Re:"Glossed over"? No; deemphasized, certainly.

[dshadowwolf]

Theo and Reyk quite clearly don't think the changes are sufficient. I started looking at the code and could see the massive differences between the OpenBSD and Linux versions immediately - to the point that I stated as much in the most recent flamewar over it on LKML. The OpenBSD folks shouted me down, yelling that "I didn't care about the truth" and that the changes were "mere adaptation not deserving their own copyright". When presented with facts to the contrary they got real quiet and the thread died.

So I'm guessing that Theo (at least - Reyk strikes me as much more intelligent and open to the truth) won't accept this examination. He has, at least once, very vocally accused the FSF of backing Moglen setting up the SFLC as a move to "infect" all code with the GPL. With that viewpoint in mind - the paranoid, FSF is out to get me viewpoint - I can deduce that Theo's response will be "Lawsuit! The SFLC is an arm of the FSF and Linux! Our code is being stolen!".

Of course, with the re-licensing of the once GPL(v2) only changes under the ISC license (and with the SFLC's review of the code), I can't see any lawsuit being successful. Strangely, I don't expect Theo to understand this, as he doesn't seem to understand anything else.

(And, from pages linked to from TFA, it appears that the BSD people, in general, aren't all that happy with the review. One of them has even claimed that the review is wrong and at least one of the files the review claims contains a lot of original work shows only changed variable names and some "minor" work to make it work with Linux.)

Re:"Glossed over"? No; deemphasized, certainly.

[Slashcrap]

Certainly calling this "resolved" is very, very premature. You don't get to call this "resolved" until the other guy agrees not to sue.

I really hope that Theo does sue over this, even if the matter is said to be resolved. Of course, this is because I would like to see him waste a lot of money, publicly humiliate himself and slow the adoption of his project due to the perceived legal risks. I have nothing against the OpenBSD project and no real opinion on the BSD Vs GPL license issues, but I do love seeing arrogant little fucks get what's coming to them, especially when it's by their own hand. I'd also like to see the OpenBSD devs counter-sued over the BCM driver affair. I know that Theo thinks there's a world of difference and that it can be dismissed as a deliberate attack by those "inhuman" Linux devs, but judges tend not to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and may not see things the same way. Once you start threatening legal action, there tend to be consequences.

Do you think that Theo's handling of this matter has increased or decreased the amount of people who share my opinion?

Re:"Glossed over"? No; deemphasized, certainly.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I really hope that Theo does sue over this, even if the matter is said to be resolved.

There are two major misconceptions in this sentence:

1. Nobody who actually is involved in the dispute has said that it is resolved, AFAIK.
2. Theo is not the copyright holder, so he can't sue anyway.

I'd also like to see the OpenBSD devs counter-sued over the BCM driver affair. I know that Theo thinks there's a world of difference and that it can be dismissed as a deliberate attack by those "inhuman" Linux devs, but judges tend not to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia and may not see things the same way.

Sued how, exactly? You're misremembering what happened, or just failed to understand it at all.

The BCM driver folks notified the OpenBSD folks that some of the code submitted to their CVS tree was infringing. The OpenBSD folks admitted their error and removed the code within 24 hours. There was no controversy over the existence of a legal problem, or over its nature. There was controversy over the way the BCM folks handled the process, and over Theo's way of complaining about this. Theo's complaint is reasonable: the issue should have been raised in a less formal and more private manner; nothing was gained by voicing it so loudly and publically. Theo's way of voicing this reasonable complaint was, unsurprisingly, very undiplomatic.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[yo_tuco]

"There is one good thing that comes out of this: collaboration between BSD and Linux developers on wireless drivers."

Let's hope. I'd like to see 802.11g in host AP mode and better performance in lossy and long range conditions in the OBSD ath(4) driver. Maybe the Linux guys can improve this and it gets back to OBSD.

Why I'm using Vista right now

[LM741N]

Because Linux wireless support sucks. I mean why should I have to hack the latest Ubuntu to get WPA-PSK? Thats ridiculous. And to make it worse, I have to use a PCMCIA Atheros card and not the internal Intel one as there is no driver.

Re:Why I'm using Vista right now

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm using a sony vaio, which uses the built in intel wireless with ubuntu no problem.
Maybe you need to choose to install proprietary drivers ?

Re:Why I'm using Vista right now

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have to use a PCMCIA Atheros card and not the internal Intel one as there is no driver."

Because the majority of American wireless hardware companies don't have selling their hardware as their number one priority. They have a long-standing tie with a leading American software vendor and they won't release specs so drivers can be written on free operating systems without someone crossing their palm with lots of greenback and signed restrictions for use.

Another observation.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

The SLFC's document about originality requirements spends nearly all of its time citing USA court decisions, whereas any action would be brought in Germany, not the USA. Yes, the very last section of the document (section 7) handwaves away this critical issue, by saying that we can use American copyright law as a guideline as to whether requirements of E.C. copyright law are met.

IANAL, but isn't this a pretty bad idea?

Re:Another observation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Western European copyright law is basically modeled on the U.S. original. The changes over time have been mostly ironed out by international treaties. The idea being proposed by the SFLC is not that bad.

Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

Theo said:

It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either
license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is
still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal
document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may
not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual
licensed, every time it is distributed.

Which makes this kind of hard to explain, doesn't it?

Re:Pop Quiz

[DeBeuk]

Which makes this kind of hard to explain, doesn't it?

No. The author himself has every right to change the license.

Re:Pop Quiz

[Anonymous Coward]

The change carries the tag "ok jsg@ reyk@ deraadt@"

The code has the following copyright info:
  * Copyright (c) 2001 Atsushi Onoe
  * Copyright (c) 2002, 2003 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting

Do you see a difference?

Err? iwl4965 works fine

[Krischi]

The Intel cards are among the best-supported wireless cards on Linux. The new one has been supported for a while now by the iwl4965 driver. It is in Ubuntu Gutsy (which is quite stable already, btw), and Gentoo, just to name two distributions.

Oh, and I am typing this on WPA-PSK with the native iwl4965 driver on x86-64, without any hacks or tweaks.

Specifically...

[msimm]

The copyright clause. Which is really possibly the most tangible thing the BSD license insists on (so I get that they would be unhappy) aside from open. As for the hypocrisy claim vaulted at the GPL community I am of two minds 1) sure, I personally wouldn't mind giving back 2) wtf?

The BSD is a permissive license and getting bent out of shape over the "Linux" community adhering to it but relicensing their own work under a more restrictive license makes it clear that there is just as much misunderstanding in the BSD community as this made clear existed in the GPL community: BSD is permissive, GPL is restrictive (in a very forcefully open way). Claiming that it's hypocritical to benefit from permissively open software, altering it and redistributing it with a more aggressively open license really shows some people are missing the boat. GPL !=BSD. Different motives, different politics, etc. Just like BSD != [insert company] proprietary license. The only difference is that sometimes GPL developers, out of the kindness of their collective hearts, will BSD or dual-license their work. Which is probably a little confusing, particularly when they don't (but that is kind of the point of the GPL, protectivism) and the GPL developers do have a right to license their own modifications as they like (just like the BSD developers, it just happens the GPL restricts some of what can be done).

That said I'm glad this came up because I do have a more rounded appreciation of the expectations of someone releasing code under the BSD and some of the misunderstanding on both sides (and a much more RMS-like view of Theo, which is kind of amusing after thinking we were the crazy ones for all these years). Ciao!

Re:Specifically...

[MikeFM]

From a legal standpoint, as well as fairness, I think it's always important to give proper credit. I think, as part of that, that you can't actually relicense someone elses BSD code but you can use it, make changes, and you don't have to share your own changes. Other than that I don't see that there was anything to make a fuss about. You can include BSD code in a GPL program without any legal issue. That's why they took off the advertising clause.

I think the need to multi-license code is one of the stickiest points of open licenses. The biggest issue of course is that a single logical segment of code may not have been authored by a single individual and in that case no single individual may have the right to release the entire logical segment under additional licenses. On the one hand this makes it harder to re-close open code but on the other it's also harder to relicense or multi-license code.

From a practical point of view, multiple owners of a code stack is something of a pain. If I want to dual-license a program I wrote under GPL and a closed license (ie for money you can license the code and not return your changes) I can do that but the issue becomes stickier if I merge changes submitted by others back into my code tree. If I don't merge those changes back into the code tree then much of the benefit of making it GPL is lost.

Re:Specifically...

[dfghjk]

Claiming, rightfully, that GPL champions are hypocritical for doing to the BSD community what they insist must not be allowed (and the GPL forbids) is not "missing the boat". It was not central to the discussion, either.

Apparently, GPL true-believers don't believe in treating others as they demand to be treated.

Re:Specifically...

[mrsteveman1]

The difference is in the license used, not in beliefs. If you want to ensure you get all the changes to your code back, don't use BSD licenses. It's that simple.

This is way simpler than that.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

It seems kind of petty to whine about someone stealing your code if you're releasing it under the BSD license though. By using the BSD license instead of the GPL you're choosing to let people take from you without giving back.

If I release my code under a BSD-style license, the fact that I allow you to use my code in nearly any way you want doesn't mean that I allow you to steal the credit for my work. This is really what this issue boils down to, which people repeatedly seem to miss.

The OpenBSD side's legal allegations are that first that their code was taken without attribution (stripping the original author's copyright notices), that somebody who doesn't own their code acted as if they did (by changing the license notice to GPL only), and then that even when the original notices were more or less restored, there was a claim to owning part of the work in question (by adding additional copyright and license notices), when there were (by their allegation) no original contributions, and thus, no part of the released work that was owned by anybody other than the BSD folk.

Re:This is way simpler than that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Theo did ignore the dual license code being able to be licensed exclusively under GPL since the dual license says you can do this ("Alternatively, ..."). And that ignorance caused many of the problems here. No one said you can re-license BSD code under GPL without author permission. The single coder who made that mistake immediately repudiated his changes when his mistake was pointed out to him by the community. So BSD code stays BSD. It is the dual license stuff where Theo and a lot of his supporters failed it. And pretending straight BSD code cannot be incorporated into GPL projects so long as the BSD license is retained is part of that. BSD code can be incorporated into GPL projects. Why some still persist in claiming otherwise, I still do not understand.

Re:This is way simpler than that.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

And pretending straight BSD code cannot be incorporated into GPL projects so long as the BSD license is retained is part of that. BSD code can be incorporated into GPL projects. Why some still persist in claiming otherwise, I still do not understand.

I think the only correct thing about any of that is "I still do not understand." Nobody's claimed that BSD licensed work can't be incorporated into GPL licensed ones. In fact, the "morals" part of the argument that Theo first made clearly presupposes so.

Which version of the GPL? (IANAL)

[einhverfr]

I see no reason you can't have BSD files in a GPL v2 application, or a GPL v2 application which depends on BSDL components. After the GPL2 does not appear either grant rights not granted by the BSDL, nor does it require that you violate the BSDL.

The GPL v3 is a far more interesting question. The key questions involve applicability of Section 7, Paragraph 2 to BSDL portions of the application. What does it mean to remove additional permissions from these portions? And is that a right that the BSDL gives absent the enforcement of additional copyrights? If the BSDL does not allow you to change the license when you have not added copyrights, and if the GPL3 means what it says in this section, then I would answer "no" in terms of a single copyrighted work. Mere aggregation would be a different question (i.e. only applies tothe single atomic copyrighted work, not to the larger distro where these could be mixed).

Resolved?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I for one am quite pleased, and I rather surprised that the matter was able to be resolved successfully in a manner that didn't completely screw over the BSD folks.

Has the matter been actually resolved successfully? All I see is a set of pronouncements by the SFLC, some of whose staff apparently work as legal counsel for the parties in one side of the dispute.

Yes, it seems like Theo is using the wrong license

[Nursie]

If you're going to release your code to the public under a license specifically allowing reuse and extension without releasing the source for the extensions, then get annoyed when people do exactly that -

You're doing it wrong!

What he wants is the GPL, that way people can't just take it and put it under other, incompatible licenses.

BSD licensed code really is 'free', or as near to free as you can get whilst not being PD, sure, but if you're going to sing its praises then shut the hell up when people use it exactly as intended.

Also I find it disheartening the number of folks saying "Well the Linux guys should just release their work under both". Why? That's entirely pointless. If you want your code under the GPL, you specifically don't want people to be able to take it and not fulfill their obligations, releasing under BSD as well would just allow anyone to circumvent that.

Share and win, or so

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not question personal motives, but while some/most openbsd guys did not and do not want to relicense their code, linux guys agreed to do so this time.
This rounds goes to Linux.
(Cf. bcm43xx debate).

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[fatphil]

I, for one, thought for a moment that you were going to say that you, for one, welcome your huge shitstorm-over-a-minor-licensing-issue-resolving overlords.

Mod parent troll

[Nursie]

"Is it because it allows you the convenience of assuming that you're always right?"

Get of your high horse, asshole.

"Unless you judge that the disadvantages of doing what you recommend outweigh the advantages of using the more permissive license."

There only "advantage" to the BSD license is the freedom for anyone to take it and use it for whatever they like. That's why you choose it, to get pissy when people use it is ridiculous.

It's like standing on a street corner shouting "free money" and then being annoyed that people come and ask you for it.

I know what you're driving at, vaguely, that BSD licensed code encourages propagation of standards a nnd interoperability, but for most that doesn't come close to outweighing the idea that they don't want their effort to be able to be taken and sold for profit by others. Asking them to change it (as if they hadn't even considered their license choice in the first place) is ridiculous, and having a pissed of rant is hypocritical. "I don't like you relicensing my code so you'd better relicense yours to my license that specifically allows relicensing". Idiocy.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe most open source devs don't think further than "GPL GOOD!", but somehow I doubt it. Most software folks I've ever met have been extremely clued in on the main two (GPL and BSD) licenses.

Re:Mod parent troll

[Anonymous Coward]

There only "advantage" to the BSD license is the freedom for anyone to take it and use it for whatever they like. That's why you choose it, to get pissy when people use it is ridiculous.

And so it continues. I come back to slashdot after years away and still the most vocal are those most uninformed.

Read the fucken background to this story, moron.

- * 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.

Those terms were removed against the plain-as-day terms stating they MUST remain!

Some of those files which have had a GPL placed on them are Reyk's
work, with basically only a few small editorial changes, and then a
GPL placed at the top. That is not legal, and we ask you stop
distributing them immediately. - Theo de Raadt.

This is not about taking code. This is about removing a licence which states that it cannot be removed.

It's like standing on a street corner shouting "free money" and then being annoyed that people come and ask you for it.

Or like coming to a techie forum and getting annoyed because so many people post passionate messages about tech news, without actually first informing themselves of what they're supposedly passionate about and as a result being completely and utterly wrong?

Yes, my mistake, I should have just stayed away from this shithole that the self important ego whoring asshole fuckwits like you have made of a once great site.

But please continue your debate! Fools surround themselves with fools. You're only impressing yourself and other fools. Not really something to be proud of eh?

"I don't like you relicensing my code so you'd better relicense yours to my license that specifically allows relicensing". Idiocy.

Why don't you inform yourself or otherwise not concern yourself with something you don't have the time or ability for.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our new BSDL-embracing overlords.

Aw, come on guys

[ignavus]

Aw, come on guys!

Where's the multi-million dollar law suit? The lawyers versus the lawyers? The court room drama?

How can you have any commercial credibility if you resolve things like rational human beings. Where's your greed, your lust for power, your ruthlessness?

That's why Linux and BSD are not ready for business - no socially destructive tendencies. No underhandedness.

Not even a little dagger in the back. Come on guys!

Re:Aw, come on guys

[jc42]

Not even a little dagger in the back. Come on guys!

Well, some of the folks here seem to have taken care of that oversight. ;-)

Re:So uh..

[cockroach2]

Well, this highly depends on your card. I do agree that the madwifi driver tends to be a PITA, my laptop's Intel chip works flawlessly, though...

Clean room BSD from now on

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the BSD crowd do their own thing from now on. Clean room the code and go straight GPL. No license problems in the future from Theo and his ilk.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[aichpvee]

For real, next time someone just buy that guy a blankey and some tissues.

when will openbsd people dual licence malo

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD malo is based on GPL mrv8k ... maybe bsd people needs to look in their own camp too .

Theo is an idiot and a loud one at that!

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck theo and his goatse lovin bsd cronies!

You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

It seems kind of petty to whine about someone stealing your code if you're releasing it under the BSD license though. By using the BSD license instead of the GPL you're choosing to let people take from you without giving back. I frequently hear the argument that BSD licensed code is really free, and the GPL isn't, over exactly this issue.

You completely misunderstand the issue. The issue is not complying with the letter of the BSD license, the issue is ethical behavior and the spirit of FOSS. At the core of FOSS is the ethic of giving back to those whose shoulders you stand upon. If you are taking a BSD work, integrating it into your GPL project, and making *minor* changes or bug fixes it is ethical to submit those changes/fixes to the BSD community. If you are making *major* additions then there would be no ethical requirement to share, but for minor changes and bug fixes there is. Again, I'm referring to ethics and the spirit of FOSS, which is certainly something different than the letter of a license.

I also find *some* hypocrisy among the more enthusiastic GPL advocates. They defend the letter of the license with respect to using BSD code, yet they claim that those selling products based upon Linux should go beyond the GPL and give back more than the source code. That such vendors should also target their products towards Linux desktop users rather than only Windows and Mac users. I have nothing against encouraging vendors to consider Linux, but this logic bothers me given the way BSD developers are sometimes treated. Which is it? Share when it is not excessively burdensome to do so or do what is minimally required by law?

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[Tweekster]

There is no spirit inherent in the license. People have built that around the projects.
The licenses are quite explicit on what is expected. If more is expected, it should be a part of the license.

Saying "you can do x, y and z" then getting mad when someone does precisely that becuaes they didnt do "a" is absolutely idiotic.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[Cylix]

You are one of those people who only wears the required amount of flare!

(I saw that and had to make some flare joke... forgive me ;) )

However, it does make the point well doesn't it.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

There is no spirit inherent in the license. People have built that around the projects. The licenses are quite explicit on what is expected. If more is expected, it should be a part of the license. Saying "you can do x, y and z" then getting mad when someone does precisely that becuaes they didnt do "a" is absolutely idiotic.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. Compliance with a license and living within the spirit of FOSS are two different things. Giving back to those whose shoulders you stand upon, assuming your changes are relatively minor, is part of the latter. Again, it is a matter of ethics, not a matter of license compliance. Ethical behavior is not required, but that is no reason not to encourage people to behave ethically.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[MikeFM]

*shrugs* If you want something to happen with regards to how your code is used then put it in your license. Never count on fellow humans doing the right thing because truth be told most of us are scum.

I certainly agree that the ethical thing to do, and the smart long-term thing to do, is to open all source code, protocols, specifications, etc. In reality that isn't how things work though. Just wishing for it to be that way won't make it that way. Intelligent people know that a basic principal of life is that we're all in it together. Unfortunately most of us can't see past our immediate self and how our choices will have a short-term benefit to our person. That's why you need restrictions in your license - to push people to act in ways they might not otherwise be willing to act.

If the world was full of unselfish good people the BSD license would be the way to go. It isn't - so the GPL is smarter. BSD dreams of a utopian society while GPL builds a workable, utopiaisk, society in our current reality.

I don't really care that much if developers are Linux friendly. I have a simple solution to that. I just don't buy from companies which don't work with the systems I need them to work with. If they don't offer full Linux support I just won't give them any of my money. Pretty easy. If there is demand for Linux support then somebody will fill that demand. That is how business works. e.g. I've been a long time user of Nvidia video cards. With AMD/ATI opening their specs I'll be keeping an eye on them for future video card purchases. If better drivers exist for ATI cards then I'll buy ATI cards. I spend the vast majority of my time using computers running Linux so that has high priority for me. I also use BSD, OS X, and Windows on a daily basis so I hope that by opening specs I'll see better support in those also.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

If you want something to happen with regards to how your code is used then put it in your license.

I don't think you quite understood my post. I am not saying that everyone should be required to give back. What I am claiming is that those who claim to be ethical members of the FOSS community should behave in that spirit, not merely the letter of the license. It is not so much the actions, but the hypocrisy that reveals the true character.

... Unfortunately most of us can't see past our immediate self and how our choices will have a short-term benefit to our person. That's why you need restrictions in your license - to push people to act in ways they might not otherwise be willing to act.

I was hoping that GPL devs would act ethically without such arm twisting. To be clear, I am only referring to relatively small changes and bug fixes.

If the world was full of unselfish good people the BSD license would be the way to go. It isn't - so the GPL is smarter. BSD dreams of a utopian society while GPL builds a workable, utopiaisk, society in our current reality.

You can hardly claim the GPL leads to a utopia-isk society if ethical behavior is optional, hypocrisy acceptable. Again, if a closed proprietary dev does not contribute small changes and bug fixes to the original devs that is fine. They are not claiming the moral superiority of being part of the FOSS community.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[argiedot]

The problem is, the GPL advocates believe in "keeping the code free", so to speak. By licensing the code BSD they can no longer do that. Another solution would be for OpenBSD to use the code as GPL. See, the conflict here isn't over giving back to those who helped make that code. It's about giving to those who won't. The BSD gang is saying, "Here, we made the most of that. You really should give minor changes back to us, and also to anyone who would want to just take the code and close it." In any case, I thought the real problem here was the fact that one dev removed part of a BSD licensed file which is unchangeable? Wasn't that reverted though, very quickly?

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[mdwh2]

The issue is not complying with the letter of the BSD license, the issue is ethical behavior and the spirit of FOSS. At the core of FOSS is the ethic of giving back to those whose shoulders you stand upon. If you are taking a BSD work, integrating it into your GPL project, and making *minor* changes or bug fixes it is ethical to submit those changes/fixes to the BSD community.

The ethics, if there are any, is the idea that code changes should be available. And they _have_ made their code changes available.

What they aren't doing is releasing those changes under BSD, but that is hardly against the spirit of somebody who believes in the GPL.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

The problem is, the GPL advocates believe in "keeping the code free", so to speak. ... See, the conflict here isn't over giving back to those who helped make that code. It's about giving to those who won't.

Given that we are dealing with only small changes or bug fixes such zealotry is petty and childish.

I thought the real problem here was the fact that one dev removed part of a BSD licensed file which is unchangeable? Wasn't that reverted though, very quickly?

Beyond restoring the original copyright, I think the authors of the minor changes/fixes were tracked down and they OK'd putting these updates into the original code base. In short, they behaved as ethical adults.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

"The issue is not complying with the letter of the BSD license, the issue is ethical behavior and the spirit of FOSS. At the core of FOSS is the ethic of giving back to those whose shoulders you stand upon. If you are taking a BSD work, integrating it into your GPL project, and making *minor* changes or bug fixes it is ethical to submit those changes/fixes to the BSD community."

The ethics, if there are any, is the idea that code changes should be available. And they _have_ made their code changes available. What they aren't doing is releasing those changes under BSD, but that is hardly against the spirit of somebody who believes in the GPL.

GPL is *not* intervhangeable with FOSS. In the FOSS spirit of giving back the minor changes/fixes would need to be usable to those whose shoulder you are standing upon. To expect these original developers to change their license is ungrateful and petty, childish actually. Again, if the GPL dev made significant enhancements that then the situation is different.

Re:You ignore spirit of FOSS, giving back ...

[argiedot]

Indeed, in context, the small changes don't seem to need to be 'protected' by the GPL. Agreed. At that point I was just talking about just "giving back" without this context.

Here's a scenario.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I know what you're driving at, vaguely, that BSD licensed code encourages propagation of standards a nnd interoperability, but for most that doesn't come close to outweighing the idea that they don't want their effort to be able to be taken and sold for profit by others.

That's not exactly what I have in mind. The case I have in mind is along the following lines: suppose I think it's desirable for others to take my BSD-licensed software and incorporate it into propritetary works, as long as I judge the resulting work to be truly innovative. I think FOSS licensing makes sense for software that is, in effect, a superior, community-driven reimplentation of something that already exists, but that it's good that people can license truly innovative software proprietarily, so as to create incentives for such innovation. On the other hand, I think people who take my software and incorporate it, without doing any truly innovative work, are being selfish.

Now, of course, the problem is that I see no good way at all of writing a free software license that allows people to incorporate my work into proprietary products only they are "innovative." I can't see myself ever being able to nail down what "innovative" means without the benefit of hindsight. I'd be setting myself up for legal nightmares if somebody tried to test my attempts in court. Also, an unclear and complex legal document will most likely prevent interested parties from using my work in ways I intended, because of the legal unclarity of the status of their derived work. I could have such parties contact me for special licenses, but that's a hassle both for them and me. In the light of these issues, I judge that it's better to just allow people to do what they want, because it's guaranteed to empower the "good guys" (in my hazy, not-well-defined conception) to do the things I want them to be able to do. The downside, of course, is that I'll get "bad guys" doing things that I think are bad. But I will sure as hell reserve the right to protest when they do so. I've renounced the right to sue them, not the right to tell them they're being bad.

Ugh, markup error.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

I know what you're driving at, vaguely, that BSD licensed code encourages propagation of standards a nnd interoperability, but for most that doesn't come close to outweighing the idea that they don't want their effort to be able to be taken and sold for profit by others.

That's not exactly what I have in mind. The case I have in mind is along the following lines: suppose I think it's desirable for others to take my BSD-licensed software and incorporate it into propritetary works, as long as I judge the resulting work to be truly innovative. I think FOSS licensing makes sense for software that is, in effect, a superior, community-driven reimplentation of something that already exists, but that it's good that people can license truly innovative software proprietarily, so as to create incentives for such innovation. On the other hand, I think people who take my software and incorporate it, without doing any truly innovative work, are being selfish.

Now, of course, the problem is that I see no good way at all of writing a free software license that allows people to incorporate my work into proprietary products only they are "innovative." I can't see myself ever being able to nail down what "innovative" means without the benefit of hindsight. I'd be setting myself up for legal nightmares if somebody tried to test my attempts in court. Also, an unclear and complex legal document will most likely prevent interested parties from using my work in ways I intended, because of the legal unclarity of the status of their derived work. I could have such parties contact me for special licenses, but that's a hassle both for them and me. Many of them might never be aware that they I'd be interested in doing so. More importantly, it becomes really hard to manage in a large FOSS project with many authors.

In the light of these issues, I judge that it's better to just allow people to do what they want, because it's guaranteed to empower the "good guys" (in my hazy, not-well-defined conception) to do the things I want them to be able to do. The downside, of course, is that I'll get "bad guys" doing things that I think are bad. But I will sure as hell reserve the right to protest when they do so. I've renounced the right to sue them, not the right to tell them they're being bad.

Re:Yes, it seems like Theo is using the wrong lice

[MikeFM]

I do think the relicensing of the BSD code as GPL was wrong but I think it was probably a misunderstanding. It wasn't the proper way to merge BSD and GPL code but merging BSD and GPL code is perfectly legal if done correctly.

I agree with you though that releasing GPL code as BSD is not agreeable. There are specific protections that the GPL gives the author that the BSD license doesn't. Whining about not having these kinds of protection when using the BSD license is kind of out of the spirit of using the BSD license.

The BSD License provides other ways to deal with

[einhverfr]

that.

There are two basic things:

1) No company wants to compete with a Free product. Even one which is merely gratis is problematic (look where Netscape went). Since a proprietary product can only charge for their value adds, they don't get anything by taking the code continuously while never giving back. Note that in the last siven years, I have watched most prioprietary spinnoffs of PostgreSQL die. These include Mammoth PostgreSQL, Pervasive PostgreSQL, and Fujitsu PostgreSQL.

2) Refusing to contribute has serious financial risks in BSDL project. Basicaly, if someone else makes inferior but similar modifications, you end up bearing the burden of managing an increasingly complex changeset across versions. This is extremely draining.

So I think you are mistaken as to whom the second class citizens really are in such a project. Note again, in the PostgreSQL world, those companies that do use the code in their proprietary products successfully give back everything they possibly can (meaning everything the community expresses an interest in making part of the core project). The community as a whole doesn't really want the proprietary bits in BizgressMPP, nor do they want the Oracle compat bits of EnterpriseDB. So everyone is just as happy to let them sell their products.

Re:So uh..

[eean]

It still is the biggest problem. We had a Linux InstallFest at my school. We maybe did one install - people are able to do that on their own these days. Really it should be renamed Linux Wireless ConfigFest or something.

My laptop is also Intel wireless (since I bought it with Linux in mind) and has no problem. My girlfriends though is Broadcom and doesn't work well with WPA at all.

What?

[jc42]

A legal dispute was settled amicably? Who'd of thunk such a thing was possible? Where were the lawyers when this was going on? Did someone take them off and get them drunk or something?

Re:What?

[LingNoi]

I believe there was an arm wrestle.

*BSD is Dying

[Anonymous Coward]

It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC recently confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Bzzzt.

[Chibi Merrow]

Incorrect. The GPL protects users, not authors. The argument being that since everyone uses software, if we protect the users we protect everybody. Or something like that.

Re:Bzzzt.

[MikeFM]

The author is a user. Prehaps the most important user as it's the authors job to give the rest of the users something worth using.

Re:Bzzzt.

[Chibi Merrow]

And yet the GPL doesn't give the author any power over his code he didn't already have when using it for personal use. It does, however, lead him to give away some of his rights in regard to the work when he distributes it. As I said, GPL doesn't protect authors, it protects users. Users know that they retain access to the source of whatever they're running and can work on it themselves or have anyone else they wish work on it. No vendor lock-in, no security through obscurity. None of this does anything to add value for or protect an author.

Software freedom vs. GPL

[yAm]

This comes about as GPL zealots decided that freedom isn't free enough. BSD freedom consists of Freedom: retain this license and this copyright. Follow those rules and you can do what ever you want.

Whatever. You. Want. Baby mulching machines included. http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sbin/ipf/Attic/ipf.c

The GPL is not free. Free+conditions is not free++, but free-- or, more accurately, (symbol: less than) free.

I appreciate the work done, but I don't care for the zealotry. You can't dictate freedom.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[Fordiman]

I wouldn't be surprised if this happened *minutes* after Theo 'left the room', as it were.

I don't say this for personal dislike of the guy; it's just that, when we're talking civil negotiation, De Raadt almost always, gets the "You're not helping" award.

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[MikeFM]

I do not entirely agree with you. While I do agree that competing with a free product can be a challenge, I think that the BSD license makes it easier. If the new product has enough value added and enough branding it can win. OS X is a good example of this. It absorbed a lot of free code and has stolen a good part of the commercial value of those free projects. Part of this is the failure of the BSD+Linux community to make a decent desktop offering but Apple has used the free code it absorbed to make a giant leap forward for itself without pulling the community that created much of that code along with it.

It's harder for small companies with less value added and less money to throw at branding to abuse open source projects but all that is doing is helping big companies keep small companies from challenging them. Hardly the idea behind open source.

Zealotry

[Anonymous Coward]

Read back your own post, pal.

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[mrsteveman1]

So your argument boils down to "Well......we don't want your changes anyway! so there!"

Yea, that works perfectly.

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[Lotunggim Ginsawat]

Apple does not do what you have described. What Apple has done is taking some BSD-licensed code then put their own proprietary shit (things that are not open in the first place) on top of it. When Apple makes changes to any BSD codes, they usually return the changes upstream. Just look at Webkit for an example.

Do you really think Apple will release codes that are closed-sourced in the first place? Apple has almost always released their changes back to the developers.

Wait a moment!

[koinu]

Of course you can take my BSD-license code and do what you want. But you cannot remove my license! Read the rules... These are not many, but READ THEM for God's sake! It's clearly written that you CANNOT REMOVE THE BSDL. You CANNOT REMOVE MY NAME from the license, if I put it inside.

Simply READ IT. The same is expected to people that have to bow to GPL. Or should I begin to ignore the GPL, too?

Re:Wait a moment!

[Zoolander]

But if it is dual licensed, as in this case, I can choose to use the code under the GPL. Then I'm allowed to remove the BSD license, since the GPL says nothing about that.
Isn't this what it all boils down to? I can't follow both licenses at the same time, since they are mutually exclusive.

I don't think it serves to call either side zealot

[Anonymous Coward]

Different motives drive each licensing format, so it's logical they sometimes conflict. It's precisely the name calling and the personal accusations that has hindered this process.

Assuming malicious intent before all possible chance of the issue being a genuine mistake or ignorance is dismissed is generally not conducive to sort out a conflict because you spend first an inordinate amount of time removing the emotions - it introduces bias just where it will get in the way.

One of the more interesting lessons on management is that if staff makes a mistake it is unlikely they have done so wilfully with the intention of harm. More likely is that the action was perfectly logical from their point of view and understanding of a process, so you have to identify where the problem sits to help them and prevent recurrence. Giving them flack for being "stupid" simply means it will happen again because you have not addressed the root causes (this doesn't mean that you can't end up working with some real oafs, but that's a matter of talking to HR and maybe do something about the salaries you pay - after all, you took them on :-).

A little dash of people skills would have prevented months of heated argument.

Most important user?

[Anonymous Coward]

No way. what's the point of software if nobody runs it? The END USER is the most important user of software. The developer is only needed while the product doesn't do what the user wants. When it gets there, there's no reason for the developer any more. If there aren't any users, then there is no need for a developer either.

The developer (as in the owner of the code, and NOT the person who wants to take the code of others) has all the power they require: they are allowed to use any license that they want to use. If that doesn't include the GPL, then the GPL is not used.

"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 36 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[Bill_the_Engineer]

To counter your PostreSQL example:

ArgoUML vs. Gentleware Poseidon UML

Poseidon has prospered by building on the ArgoUML code and increase its feature set. While ArgoUML has languished and has gone from an "award winning" application in 2003 to a basically a dead project now.

I attribute ArgoUML's lack of activity to the fact that few prospective contributers would want their work going to Poseidon's UML editor without Poseidon being obligated to return any contributions back.

I am convinced that if ArgoUML was GPL'ed that it would have progressed farther than is has now.

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[uglyduckling]

No company wants to compete with a Free product. Even one which is merely gratis is problematic (look where Netscape went). Since a proprietary product can only charge for their value adds, they don't get anything by taking the code continuously while never giving back.

You're right if you consider taking a large software application/package, adding some minor features and distributing as commercial software - most people would be very happy with the free offering and not bother with the commercial one.

Imagine if, e.g., GIMP were BSD-licensed. Microsoft takes the package, adds CMYK support and calls it MIMP, and sells it for 30 dollars. Because of the CMYK changes, the file format is slightly different from GIMP. The GIMP developers want to stay 'compatible' because now everyone is sending .xcfm files which can't be opened under Linux because MIMP is Windows-only. So the developers are now 'chasing' a near-equivalent superset of their own code, which a commercial enterprise is making money off.

GIMP still doesn't have CMYK-support but they're working hard on it. Every new feature or bugfix the GIMP developers code goes into the next MIMP release, but none of the MIMP bugfixes or features get handed back to GIMP, except by the 'kindness' of Microsoft. Imagine then that Microsoft gives away MIMP with Vista Home Premium and above as an extra to differentiate it from Home Basic - high market penetration, near-ubiquitous usage... how much developer time will GIMP attract now? What if MS released MIMP for Linux?

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am waiting for RMS to way in on how they are don't care about freedom.

Given that RMS have Theo an award for Free Software work, I think that's rather unlikely. But of course, facts should never stand in the way of some good slander against RMS, should they?

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[lisaparratt]

How can they steal that which is freely given away?

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What was MP3 coded under? All sorts of license. The code used in PowerDVD and Winamp are not under BSD license yet still the MP3 codec is a standard.

How can this happen? Because your assertion is bollocks.

BSD reference implementations *helped* DHCP standards but if there was no code implementation, then they would still have been standards.

Re:Why?

[smash]

This is of course why MP3 playback is supported in all distributions out of the box.

Oh fuck, wait a sec...

I know this is going to get called flamebait...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but could someone explain this to me? The specific complaint that a Linux dev incorrectly removed a copyright attribution I understand - that was a screw-up, and they should have been called on it and they should have corrected the issue and apologized.
But I don't understand the rationale behind the larger complaint. How can you brag that your license is more free than the GPL (which it is) because it allows for relicensing (for example, as binary-only) and then complain about how others use that freedom? If your license allows for additional restrictions to be placed on modified versions of the work, what is the rationale for complaining when people do just that? How can you argue that this degree of freedom is better unless the GPL guys exercise it? How can you object to the share-and-share-alike requirements of the GPL, and complain when they don't return modifications under the BSD license? What kind of sense does this make?
Why is it OK for proprietary, closed-source applications to roll up BSD licensed code into projects that return nothing to the BSD community, but not OK for Linux devs to drop BSD code into GPL projects that return nothing to the BSD community?

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[LWATCDR]

From this interview with RMS http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html?page=2

RMS: This is what ensures that the users have the four freedoms. The BSD licenses do not ensure this, and thus not all users have these freedoms.

The BSD licenses (there were more than one of them) do not give more freedom. What they offer, to those who can take advantage of it, is power: power to deny others' freedom. That is not a good thing.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. BSD users hate linux because they hate FREEDOM.

Hypocrisy (noun)

[Lost Found]

BSD license fanboys ranting about how their license is the real free software license because it allows totaly freedom, calling the GPL licensors zealots, then loudly whining when the GPL license users exercise their freedom to take the BSD-licensed code and do with it as they like.

Re:Hypocrisy (noun)

[Anonymous Coward]

There's only one real restriction on BSD code - keep the original copyright on the original code. It looks like these GPL licensors didn't honour even that.

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[einhverfr]

I do not entirely agree with you. While I do agree that competing with a free product can be a challenge, I think that the BSD license makes it easier. If the new product has enough value added and enough branding it can win. OS X is a good example of this. It absorbed a lot of free code and has stolen a good part of the commercial value of those free projects. Part of this is the failure of the BSD+Linux community to make a decent desktop offering but Apple has used the free code it absorbed to make a giant leap forward for itself without pulling the community that created much of that code along with it. Are you telling me that OS X is aimed at the BSD/Linux crowd? Seriously? No. THey are competing with Windows ($$$).

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[einhverfr]

How active was ArgoUML before competition got hot?

My theory only works if you can maintain a pace of development for some time in the face of competition and you are willing to really try to compete. If you can't, you get screwed (but you get screwed anyway in this case).

How many times does this need to be pointed out?

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Theo said it was "unethical" for someone to take BSD code and license a modified version under the GPL. And the thing is, it clearly isn't. It clearly isn't because that's essentially what the BSD people said they were perfectly ok with - they licensed it under the BSD license because they didn't care whether or not it stayed open, [...]

When you license your work under the BSD license, you surrender your right to sue other people in certain, specified circumstances; you don't surrender your right to disagree in some of those circumstances, or your right to protest when you disagree. There is nothing inconsistent about disagreeing with somebody's use of your BSD licensed code. You have just decided beforehand to surrender the use of the courts to pursue most of those disagreements.

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[einhverfr]

GIMP still doesn't have CMYK-support but they're working hard on it. Every new feature or bugfix the GIMP developers code goes into the next MIMP release, but none of the MIMP bugfixes or features get handed back to GIMP, except by the 'kindness' of Microsoft. Imagine then that Microsoft gives away MIMP with Vista Home Premium and above as an extra to differentiate it from Home Basic - high market penetration, near-ubiquitous usage... how much developer time will GIMP attract now? What if MS released MIMP for Linux? And that is exactly where things get interesting. You see, as the GIMP team works on their CMYK support, this is going to touch a lot of the same code Microsoft is altering. This means that the complexity of maintaining the patches goes way up, increasing their costs.

You are also assuming that the GIMP changes are inferior to the MIMP changes. If this is the case, it is actually worse for Microsoft, and they are likely going to be forced to fork entirely (and cease using new GIMP enhancements), contribute their changes back, sacrifice features in order to cut costs, or get stuck with skyrocketing development costs. The BSD license is deceptive that way.

Odd *and* wrong

[Per Abrahamsen]

> It is odd that without the rants and people with agendas, this would have never been worked out.

Yes, it is odd because it is most likely wrong. Nothing wrong with people with agendas (don't we all have some agenda?). But the rants are only good for digging trenches, making it harder for both side to agree on a solution to the benefit of all.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[LWATCDR]

Ohhh...
I am so scared. Please just because you hate it when facts mess up your view of reality don't get all huffy.

Re:The BSD License provides other ways to deal wit

[einhverfr]

In these specific cases, there are strong technical reasons why the commercial components belong to niche markets.

1) Oracle does certain things which are arguably wrong as relate to NULL handling (even though they obey Codd's rules, they introduce semantic ambiguity into the db structure).

2) Oracle follows some standards in ways which the PostgreSQL community would rather not.

3) A master node in BizgressMPP is hardly a generally applicable piece of software. Over time, open source competitors may surface but they are not going to be part of hte PostgreSQL core distribution.

You have a point as relates to

[einhverfr]

projects maintained primarily by single organizations.

The other main application relates to reference implementations by large businesses.

However, my main point is that these change when the pace of development remains high for a period of time. In these cases, you either give back, fork, or pay through the nose. Viable open source projects need not fear the BSD license for this reason.

It's not horrible

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Isn't it horrible that reasonable people came together, worked things out, and decided on the best course of action?

It's not horrible. It's false. RTFA. Note who's said what, and who hasn't said what.

Actually, it is misunderstanding

[msimm]

Believing that the GPL license means open in the way you seem to understand it is not in the letter or the spirit of the GPL license. The GPL is an aggressive license. Somehow a lot of OSS people (...) seem to get the idea that open is open (is open is open, etc). That's not the case. If we just wanted to remove limits on software we'd be better off with a permissive license, like the BSD. But what we want is to insist the body of our work is open (which includes modification to original BSD work), now and for future generations. Legally. Forever. You miss that. BSD'ing code developed by GPL programmers would inherently go against the 'open' nature of our license. The only reason the BSD and the GPL are compatible is because the BSD *is* permissively open, it doesn't work both ways. Getting bent out of shape about the work the GPL community does without giving back is tantamount to disavowing the very spirit of your own license. Which is kind of funny and highly hypocritical. Take issue with Microsoft first or any other developer that uses BSD code in closed projects. Then anyone else who benefits from the code. Point fingers, name-call. But then ask yourself if you really want your work to be open. Because effectively the GPL community, like the BSD community, is doing very good work. Everyone benefits in some way, but it's not always going to be in code is it? If we gave that all back we'd be doing the very thing the GPL was created to protect against, giving code away that can then be kept from us.

We all chose licenses for a reason. The motivation for the BSD is pretty clear: credit where due and open. I respect that. But when I release code I've developed myself I want something more, I want to insist that my code be shared and modified and I feel so strongly that I'm willing to use a license to restrict anything else.

Ironically the solution to this sense of double standard some people have been voicing in the BSD community is a less permissive license. Something open, but that restricts derivative works and subsequent licensing. Which sounds a lot more like the GPL to me.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, am glad that this huge shitstorm over a minor licensing issue has been resolved amicably (or at least until Theo has his say...)

Huh? A GPL advocate BROKE COPYRIGHT LAW, by ignoring CLEAR TERMS in the BSD licence. Theo complained and rightfully so.

What Theo did was right and what the Linux guy did was wrong. Simple as that. Wanna "move on now"? That's real simple. Just shut the fuck up and stop trying to suggest that this is about Theo wanting to "have his say".

This shitfight was afterall not started by him.

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one good thing that comes out of this: collaboration between BSD and Linux developers on wireless drivers.

I think really what came out of this, is a minority of people who were not willing to honor a clear licence term, got legal advice that they must honor it by law.

I know there has been plenty of collaboration between GNU and BSD people over the years. This is just a case of a few grossly disrespectful people, who happened to be in the GNU side.

There are bad apples everywhere. Especially within the realm of something as religiously political as the software freedom movement.

Luis R. Rodriguez is essentially the nutter you see screaming about Jesus on the street corner, slapping the bible he wants everyone to accept. He would not take no for an answer, until he just out-and-out broke the law.

Having said that, I agree with the rest of what you said. I've been running OpenBSD for about 9 years and love it. I use Linux at work and on friends machines when I have to and I'm constantly amazed at how half finished and "bolted on" things feel. Wireless cards are network cards. It makes sense that you should be able to treat them as such.

Re:Yes, it seems like Theo is using the wrong lice

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to release your code to the public under a license specifically allowing reuse and extension without releasing the source for the extensions, then get annoyed when people do exactly that -

You're doing it wrong!

You clearly do not understand the story. This is all about attribution and keeping the licence intact. Which is specifically stitulated in the BSD licence as requirements.

BSDs old requirement

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, FSF's website (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/bsd.html) calls the old BSD license obnoxious because it couldn't be incorporated into GPL work.