Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Resolution of BSD-GPL Wireless Code Dispute?

Posted by kdawson on from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.

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.

3 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. This is a good debate to have... by Bamafan77 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    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.

    1. Re:This is a good debate to have... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      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.

  2. Yes, it seems like Theo is using the wrong license by Nursie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    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.