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...)

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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.)

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.

[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.

[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: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: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: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.

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.

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: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.

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?

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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 ...

[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.

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.

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?

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: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.

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 .....

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.