You do realise that this directly contradicts what you've just said about having to conform to both licenses at once?
I didn't say you had to conform to both licenses at once. I said both licenses are available for any recipient of the code. They are both there as an option for someone who desires to redistribute the code. The purpose of dual licenses is to allow people to pick the terms they prefer.
Theo is arguing that dual-licensing in general doesn't allow you to follow one license and strip out the other license.
Dual licensing doesn't allow you to strip one of the licenses. Consider Ghostscript. Consider qt. They are available under two licenses. If you pick the GPL in either case and include them in your program, someone who receives your program can take qt or ghostscript and distribute it under the other license even though they received it from you as part of your program.
People who download the linux kernel from kernel.org can take this driver and distribute it under the terms of the BSD license after removing any bits that may be exclusively GPLed (assuming there are any GPL only bits.) This will be a possibility with this particular version of the code forever.
What dual licenses say is how you can distribute and use the code. It doesn't say how the people receive the code can use and distribute it. They still have a choice. You can choose to impose on yourself the requirements of the GPL or you can impose on yourself the requirements of the BSD-style license. But the code itself has a license that says a particular person can distribute it under A or B. Every person who gets that code has that choice.
Consider qt from Trolltech. You distribute it with your app under an open source license. Someone who receives it from you can choose to distribute qt with the open source license or they can buy a commercial license from Trolltech and distribute it closed source. You can't stop them from doing that by changing the license to the terms you chose. You don't own the code so you don't have the right to make that kind of change.
Just because the BSD style licenses are less restrictive and considered "compatible" with the GPL doesn't mean that you can pretend they don't exist and remove them from code you didn't write even when dual licensed. It's an option for everybody not just you.
Now there's the question of your changes to the code. Those changes are yours and may or may not qualify for protection under copyright. If they don't qualify, for example all you did was add a '+ 1' to an expression involving ten terms, then your changes aren't protectable and you have absolutely zero say in how the aggregate work is licensed. If your changes are more substantial then you will be able to say "lines 1013 through 1165 of this file are distributed under the terms of the GPL. The rest of the file is available under the GPL or license B." But you can't take away the B option. It'd be interesting to know how much of the changes Jiri made to the driver are Linux glue and how much are actual improvements or additions. If it's just Linux glue then he probably has no real claim to controlling the licensing at all.
Except Microsoft doesn't run around preaching about freedom. Taking something and making trivial changes, ie. modifying it's interface, and needlessly changing the licensing is childish and petty.
Personally however I'd not bitch about the event in mailing lists. I'd just make sure that anyone who ever did an internet search of Jiri's name would get their number one hit a page detailing his copyright infringement.
Your pointing out that people are willing to engage in criminal conduct doesn't support the assertion that it's easy to create a false circumstance that you can use to blackmail someone. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, if you drop $20,000 into somebody's bank account they bank knows about it. They have the victim's entire transaction history going back years.
Can most everyone eventually be coerced? Sure. Can anyone be blackmailed by your trivialized schemes, no.
No, I am completely and 100% correct. The original situation described a woman being gang raped following being placed into front line combat situations. You're post is exactly why I added the parenthetical clarification that I was talking about the original situation involving a woman and not one of the many male rapes that do occur.
Alan is either an ignoramus or lazy? If he took the time to look at each of the files patched he would have noticed that some parts of that driver are not dual licensed or GPL, in particular the ones I mentioned specifically.
Explanation enough for you?
Everybody crying "dual license" "dual license" is like a five year old child who's mother told him to sit on the sofa or play video games, but not eat cookies. When his mother catches him sitting on the sofa eating cookies he says "but you told me to sit on the sofa."
People need to grow up and recognize that Jiri did something illegal here and stop arguing half the situation because some of the files he modified were dual licensed.
the code in question is dual licensed where the same code is licensed under BOTH the BSD AND the GPL...
Actually, no it wasn't dual license. At least if you are honest enough to mean that "the... code" is all of the code that Jiri stripped the license from. Reyk Floeter's code is not GPL. That would be ath5k_regdom.c, ath5k_regdom.h, and ath5k_hw.h from the patch.
Honestly, its time for the US population to stop thinking like Miss Carolina and just grow the fuck up. Nobody gives a shit if you're gay, lesbian, bi, or straight, or you cheated on your spouse, or you have debt, or you used illegal drugs, or you have a Britney Speares collection. Nobody. And the sooner the government makes this their official position, and sends a clear signal to the rest of society, the sooner blackmail for this sort of crap will no longer be possible.
Do people care or not care? You can't seem to make up your mind.
What a putz. You think banks don't have records of this stuff? Amazing how easy everyone is to frame for the purpose of blackmail, they just have to be swimming over their heads in debt.
Or you just have to have a vast amount of middle aged porn sitting around waiting for you to paste in your victims forty year old face. Of course they have
Or... Forget it. You seem to think that glossing over details means they aren't critical or difficult to surmount. Finally, look at it this way, they've been through the background check, the Man knows who they are so when you drop your $20,000 into their bank account you have to overcome both the lack of history of such deposits and also the fact that they already know enough about the victim to know almost off the bat that something fishy is going on.
Yeah, I hear that frequently in discussions about rape "it's worse than death" and it's always some guy making the claim about an experience he'll never have (that is, you'll never be a woman and go through a rape), but not too often from actual rape victims. You know why that is? Because it's not worse than death. They realize that they have a life to live and they are universally glad to have it. Any that don't have the option to end their lives and they rarely make that choice.
Actually, since it is a government job, and there are equal opportunity laws, if someone is the most qualified and wants the job, it IS a right.
Do you actually know what equal opportunity laws mean? They mean that you may not necessarily get the job just because you're most qualified. Secondly "most qualified" is a very ambiguous term. For example you might be the best rocket scientist in the world, but if you are a complete asshat and impossible to work with, you aren't the most qualified.
When I use Open Source apps, I do so knowing that there are many developers and hobbyists that have looked over the code, so I know that there aren't any glaring security flaws.
You know. That's amazing. It's the same attitude as everybody else. So tell me again who's auditing every line of code that is on your system? The only way you know that it's been audited is if you audit it. Anything else is just faith based security. My guess is that every single binary object on your system has at least one line of code that has only been eyeballed by the author of that line.
So all those years the FSF was distributing Sun OS binaries and HP/UX binaries, etc. they were making their products derived works of IBM and friends? So in reality FSF doesn't own GCC, or the binutils or any of that other crap because it is all derived works of various corporations? I don't think so. No more than a kernel module is a derived work of the Linux kernel even though it is written to specifically for the linux kernel. No more than writing a Windows device driver makes your driver a derivative of the Window's kernel. No more than writing a carbon application makes your software a derivative of MacOS X.
In previous generation kernels you might be able to make the argument that there is no API, but in the 2.6 kernels there is very clearly an API for kernel modules. This can be seen by the fact that you can build modules without needing the entire kernel tree around.
Courts have found that using header files, enumerated types, structs, etc. required for compatibility doesn't make your code a derived work.
In what universe is do you live? Sun bought their "equivalent to ownership" license from AT&T before Novell bought the rights to Unix. Novell can't litigate anything against Sun with regards to Unix and OpenSolaris. And thus they would have a hard time winning such a lawsuit, taking singular ownership of the OpenSolaris code base and then releasing any of it under a different license.
That's a surprisingly uninformed post you made there buddy. First, of all the open source licenses out there, the one that take the most childish attitude of "my ball, my rules" is the GPL. Compare the GPL with the other major licenses and it's the one that puts the most restrictions on people who would incorporate the code into their deliverables.
Secondly, Novell would have a really hard fucking time suing Sun over Unix because Sun didn't buy their license to unix from SCO. They bought it from AT&T way back. What they bought from SCO several years ago was licenses for additional drivers. Which wouldn't be under the rights Novell purchased from AT&T when they bought Unix.
Sun has built more core technologies and released more code open source than almost any other organization. You are disingenius with you claims of bad mouthing. The most recent spat comes from Linux people shitting on Sun and Sun responding. Eg. systrace and Andrew Morton's claims that Sun is fracturing the non-windows market. Hey Andrew here's a clue for you, Sun was shipping a non-windows product before Linus ever started work in Linux. If you can grasp that little fact it would make a lot more sense for you to say Linux is fragmenting the non-Windows market.
If the phone has enough power to run even a stripped down version of OSX, it surely has enough to do a low-resolution low-bitrate H.264 encode job.
That is a ridiculous assumption. You can get "stripped down" linux running on microcontrollers but nobody think's it will replace even a basic computer.
You sound like a bible thumper who tries to tell potential believers that the only way to talk to god is through the preacher and the only way to be saved is to give the preacher money. Free software is about software, not about rent seekers.
Sure. He's not breaking any laws. But it's perfectly legitimate to judge him. To think less of him. Seriously, he's worth 11 billion dollars. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. If he's playing in the system then it's because he thinks it's ok. If he didn't think it was ok, he could take a billion dollars and setup a non-profit for the sole purpose of saying "We're watching you dirtbag politicians." It wouldn't change his standard of living in the least and he could be said to advance the ideals that the public face of his company claims to hold to (openness, access to information, do no evil.)
It is totally legitimate to look at Bryn and say "what a hypocritical putz." And in no way whatsoever is the system to blame.
He's not just one citizen, though. It has nothing to do with his net worth either. He's in charge of a company large enough that congress holds hearings and proposes bills that not only directly affect his company, but sometimes affect only his company. If 535 men were discussing whether to restrict what only you were doing or whether to help only your biggest competitors, you would be entitled to an audience with them too.
Wait, is this Jesus we're talking about or some businessman? I make latex products and latex related products (not really), and congress makes laws that affect my company all the time. There has never been a time when either the senate or the house have considered a law that would affect only Google. Never. You are talking out of your ass.
Or are his opinions about net neutrality and Chinese Internet censorship no more important than yours when congress discusses them?
Congress should never discuss Chinese Internet censorship, it's completely outside the scope of their duties. And his opinions on net neutrality are no more important or less important than anyone else's. He's not a king, lord, duke, pope, bishop, prince, or queen. He's just one of the founders of a company that has been convicted of copyright infringement. Woop dee do.
Wait. Tell me again about Mozilla Foundations $40 million a year revenue. Sounds like a company to me. They should butch up and compete instead of crying that somebody is coming in to force Mozilla of the game.
IBM would have no need to prove they delivered anything. They already have a settlement/agreement to make repayment. As such the school district has already admitted that they owe IBM $5 million. It's too late to start arguing that they never received the goods.
There's really only one reason there are so many zombies based on windows systems: there are a lot of windows systems.
Security issues or stupid users, it doesn't matter. Every OS has bugs, stupid users and stupid features. What it all comes down to which barrel you want to shoot into. The Windows barrel packed so tightly with fish that even the water was forced out long ago. The Mac OS barrel with a couple of guppies wiggling around down near the bottom. Or the everything else barrel which might have some unicellular pond scum lining the sides and bottom of the barrel.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't.
I didn't say you had to conform to both licenses at once. I said both licenses are available for any recipient of the code. They are both there as an option for someone who desires to redistribute the code. The purpose of dual licenses is to allow people to pick the terms they prefer.
Dual licensing doesn't allow you to strip one of the licenses. Consider Ghostscript. Consider qt. They are available under two licenses. If you pick the GPL in either case and include them in your program, someone who receives your program can take qt or ghostscript and distribute it under the other license even though they received it from you as part of your program.
People who download the linux kernel from kernel.org can take this driver and distribute it under the terms of the BSD license after removing any bits that may be exclusively GPLed (assuming there are any GPL only bits.) This will be a possibility with this particular version of the code forever.
What dual licenses say is how you can distribute and use the code. It doesn't say how the people receive the code can use and distribute it. They still have a choice. You can choose to impose on yourself the requirements of the GPL or you can impose on yourself the requirements of the BSD-style license. But the code itself has a license that says a particular person can distribute it under A or B. Every person who gets that code has that choice.
Consider qt from Trolltech. You distribute it with your app under an open source license. Someone who receives it from you can choose to distribute qt with the open source license or they can buy a commercial license from Trolltech and distribute it closed source. You can't stop them from doing that by changing the license to the terms you chose. You don't own the code so you don't have the right to make that kind of change.
Just because the BSD style licenses are less restrictive and considered "compatible" with the GPL doesn't mean that you can pretend they don't exist and remove them from code you didn't write even when dual licensed. It's an option for everybody not just you.
Now there's the question of your changes to the code. Those changes are yours and may or may not qualify for protection under copyright. If they don't qualify, for example all you did was add a '+ 1' to an expression involving ten terms, then your changes aren't protectable and you have absolutely zero say in how the aggregate work is licensed. If your changes are more substantial then you will be able to say "lines 1013 through 1165 of this file are distributed under the terms of the GPL. The rest of the file is available under the GPL or license B." But you can't take away the B option. It'd be interesting to know how much of the changes Jiri made to the driver are Linux glue and how much are actual improvements or additions. If it's just Linux glue then he probably has no real claim to controlling the licensing at all.
Except Microsoft doesn't run around preaching about freedom. Taking something and making trivial changes, ie. modifying it's interface, and needlessly changing the licensing is childish and petty.
Personally however I'd not bitch about the event in mailing lists. I'd just make sure that anyone who ever did an internet search of Jiri's name would get their number one hit a page detailing his copyright infringement.
Your pointing out that people are willing to engage in criminal conduct doesn't support the assertion that it's easy to create a false circumstance that you can use to blackmail someone. It doesn't matter where the money comes from, if you drop $20,000 into somebody's bank account they bank knows about it. They have the victim's entire transaction history going back years.
Can most everyone eventually be coerced? Sure. Can anyone be blackmailed by your trivialized schemes, no.
No, I am completely and 100% correct. The original situation described a woman being gang raped following being placed into front line combat situations. You're post is exactly why I added the parenthetical clarification that I was talking about the original situation involving a woman and not one of the many male rapes that do occur.
Alan is either an ignoramus or lazy? If he took the time to look at each of the files patched he would have noticed that some parts of that driver are not dual licensed or GPL, in particular the ones I mentioned specifically.
Explanation enough for you?
Everybody crying "dual license" "dual license" is like a five year old child who's mother told him to sit on the sofa or play video games, but not eat cookies. When his mother catches him sitting on the sofa eating cookies he says "but you told me to sit on the sofa."
People need to grow up and recognize that Jiri did something illegal here and stop arguing half the situation because some of the files he modified were dual licensed.
Actually, no it wasn't dual license. At least if you are honest enough to mean that "the
Do people care or not care? You can't seem to make up your mind.
What a putz. You think banks don't have records of this stuff? Amazing how easy everyone is to frame for the purpose of blackmail, they just have to be swimming over their heads in debt.
Or you just have to have a vast amount of middle aged porn sitting around waiting for you to paste in your victims forty year old face. Of course they have
Or... Forget it. You seem to think that glossing over details means they aren't critical or difficult to surmount. Finally, look at it this way, they've been through the background check, the Man knows who they are so when you drop your $20,000 into their bank account you have to overcome both the lack of history of such deposits and also the fact that they already know enough about the victim to know almost off the bat that something fishy is going on.
Yeah, I hear that frequently in discussions about rape "it's worse than death" and it's always some guy making the claim about an experience he'll never have (that is, you'll never be a woman and go through a rape), but not too often from actual rape victims. You know why that is? Because it's not worse than death. They realize that they have a life to live and they are universally glad to have it. Any that don't have the option to end their lives and they rarely make that choice.
Knucklehead.
Do you actually know what equal opportunity laws mean? They mean that you may not necessarily get the job just because you're most qualified. Secondly "most qualified" is a very ambiguous term. For example you might be the best rocket scientist in the world, but if you are a complete asshat and impossible to work with, you aren't the most qualified.
You know. That's amazing. It's the same attitude as everybody else. So tell me again who's auditing every line of code that is on your system? The only way you know that it's been audited is if you audit it. Anything else is just faith based security. My guess is that every single binary object on your system has at least one line of code that has only been eyeballed by the author of that line.
So all those years the FSF was distributing Sun OS binaries and HP/UX binaries, etc. they were making their products derived works of IBM and friends? So in reality FSF doesn't own GCC, or the binutils or any of that other crap because it is all derived works of various corporations? I don't think so. No more than a kernel module is a derived work of the Linux kernel even though it is written to specifically for the linux kernel. No more than writing a Windows device driver makes your driver a derivative of the Window's kernel. No more than writing a carbon application makes your software a derivative of MacOS X.
In previous generation kernels you might be able to make the argument that there is no API, but in the 2.6 kernels there is very clearly an API for kernel modules. This can be seen by the fact that you can build modules without needing the entire kernel tree around.
Courts have found that using header files, enumerated types, structs, etc. required for compatibility doesn't make your code a derived work.
In what universe is do you live? Sun bought their "equivalent to ownership" license from AT&T before Novell bought the rights to Unix. Novell can't litigate anything against Sun with regards to Unix and OpenSolaris. And thus they would have a hard time winning such a lawsuit, taking singular ownership of the OpenSolaris code base and then releasing any of it under a different license.
That's a surprisingly uninformed post you made there buddy. First, of all the open source licenses out there, the one that take the most childish attitude of "my ball, my rules" is the GPL. Compare the GPL with the other major licenses and it's the one that puts the most restrictions on people who would incorporate the code into their deliverables.
Secondly, Novell would have a really hard fucking time suing Sun over Unix because Sun didn't buy their license to unix from SCO. They bought it from AT&T way back. What they bought from SCO several years ago was licenses for additional drivers. Which wouldn't be under the rights Novell purchased from AT&T when they bought Unix.
Sun has built more core technologies and released more code open source than almost any other organization. You are disingenius with you claims of bad mouthing. The most recent spat comes from Linux people shitting on Sun and Sun responding. Eg. systrace and Andrew Morton's claims that Sun is fracturing the non-windows market. Hey Andrew here's a clue for you, Sun was shipping a non-windows product before Linus ever started work in Linux. If you can grasp that little fact it would make a lot more sense for you to say Linux is fragmenting the non-Windows market.
Yep. You are exactly right. Except you can't distribute your mix tape under that.
That is a ridiculous assumption. You can get "stripped down" linux running on microcontrollers but nobody think's it will replace even a basic computer.
You sound like a bible thumper who tries to tell potential believers that the only way to talk to god is through the preacher and the only way to be saved is to give the preacher money. Free software is about software, not about rent seekers.
Sure. He's not breaking any laws. But it's perfectly legitimate to judge him. To think less of him. Seriously, he's worth 11 billion dollars. He doesn't have to do anything he doesn't want to do. If he's playing in the system then it's because he thinks it's ok. If he didn't think it was ok, he could take a billion dollars and setup a non-profit for the sole purpose of saying "We're watching you dirtbag politicians." It wouldn't change his standard of living in the least and he could be said to advance the ideals that the public face of his company claims to hold to (openness, access to information, do no evil.)
It is totally legitimate to look at Bryn and say "what a hypocritical putz." And in no way whatsoever is the system to blame.
Wait, is this Jesus we're talking about or some businessman? I make latex products and latex related products (not really), and congress makes laws that affect my company all the time. There has never been a time when either the senate or the house have considered a law that would affect only Google. Never. You are talking out of your ass.
Congress should never discuss Chinese Internet censorship, it's completely outside the scope of their duties. And his opinions on net neutrality are no more important or less important than anyone else's. He's not a king, lord, duke, pope, bishop, prince, or queen. He's just one of the founders of a company that has been convicted of copyright infringement. Woop dee do.
Wait. Tell me again about Mozilla Foundations $40 million a year revenue. Sounds like a company to me. They should butch up and compete instead of crying that somebody is coming in to force Mozilla of the game.
Um. I suspect there's probably a defamation case to be made that you are going around callously telling the world that person X is dead.
Secondly, did you just admit to identity theft? Sounds like it.
IBM would have no need to prove they delivered anything. They already have a settlement/agreement to make repayment. As such the school district has already admitted that they owe IBM $5 million. It's too late to start arguing that they never received the goods.
There's really only one reason there are so many zombies based on windows systems: there are a lot of windows systems.
Security issues or stupid users, it doesn't matter. Every OS has bugs, stupid users and stupid features. What it all comes down to which barrel you want to shoot into. The Windows barrel packed so tightly with fish that even the water was forced out long ago. The Mac OS barrel with a couple of guppies wiggling around down near the bottom. Or the everything else barrel which might have some unicellular pond scum lining the sides and bottom of the barrel.