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

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: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.

Here we go again.

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

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!

Unless you judge that the disadvantages of doing what you recommend outweigh the advantages of using the more permissive license. In that case, then, using the permissive license and getting annoyed when people do something bad is exactly the right thing to do.

Why do you insist in seeing this in such absolute terms? Why do you insist in assuming that the people you're criticizing haven't thought about their alternatives carefully? Is it because it allows you the convenience of assuming that you're always right?

Re:Great. Can we move on now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut up you pedantic little prick.