Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
Are you adequate?
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.)
Are you adequate?
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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?
Are you adequate?
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.