On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
of files changed by Jiri's patch:
1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used
planned
to make GPL-only
3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code
unter 3.
So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.
The BSD license plainly states:
"Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for
any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."
Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must
remain. You are free to derive work and redistribute under your
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains
intact. Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used
BSD code and have no problem understanding this. Why is this so
difficult for the Linux brain share to absorb?
As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm
appalled that fellow open-source developers would see fit to
cavalierly disregard the rights of the original copyright holder.
You wield the GPL when it suits you, and trample the courtesies of
non-GPL developers just because you [think you] can. As bad as
Jiri's offense was, it pales to the impudence displayed by Alan Cox,
one of the so-called defenders of free software.
Shame on you all.
---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
