This is a lot more relevant than much of the ongoing discussion, so perhaps people could take a moment to read it over. ----- Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter <reyk@xxxxxxxxxxx> ----- From: Reyk Floeter <reyk@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:23:04 +0200 To: misc@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing Hi! I just returned from vacation where I was offline for about two weeks. So I totally missed the incidence and all the surrounding discussion. I'm just digging through many many mails in my inbox from OpenBSD users and developers, Linux people, GNU/freesoftware people, misc *BSD people, and obviously from some trolls. I don't want to restart the discussion but I just want to say and repeat a few words: - I will not release or agree to release my code under either the GPL or any kind of a "dual"-license. - The ISC-style license must remain including the copyright notice and even the warranty term. - Thanks to the OpenBSD community and especially to Theo de Raadt for entering into it and for defending my rights as the author of the controversial code. - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important things? I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has been solved in the linux tree. But PLEASE DON'T SPAM ME with any other mails about this, even if you want to help/support me, I will talk to the relevant people in private. Thanks! reyk On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 07:40:52PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > [bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don't flood him] > > I stopped making public statements in the recent controversy because > Eben Moglen started working behind the scenes to 'improve' what Linux > people are doing wrong with licensing, and he asked me to give him > pause, so his team could work. Honestly, I was greatly troubled by > the situation, because even people like Alan Cox were giving other > Linux developers advice to ... break the law. And furthermore, there > are even greater potential risks for how the various communities > interact. > > For the record -- I was right and the Linux developers cannot change > the licenses in any of those ways proposed in those diffs, or that > conversation (http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157). > > It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author, > because it is a legal document. If there are multiple owners/authors, > they must all agree. A person who receives the file under two > licenses can use the file in either way.... but if they distribute > the file (modified or unmodified!), they must distribute it with the > existing license intact, because the licenses we all use have > statements which say that the license may not be removed. > > It may seem that the licenses let one _distribute_ it under either > license, but this interpretation of the license is false -- it is > still illegal to break up, cut up, or modify someone else's legal > document, and, it cannot be replaced by another license because it may > not be removed. Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual > licensed, every time it is distributed. > > Now I've been nice enough to give Eben and his team a few days time to > communicate inside the Linux community, to convince them that what > they have proposed/discussed is wrong at a legal level. I think that > Eben also agrees with me that there are grave concerns about how this > leads to problems at the ethical and community levels (at some level, > a ethos is needed for Linux developers to work with *BSD developers). > And there are possibilities that similar issues could loom in the > larger open source communities who are writing applications. > > Eben has thus far chosen not to make a public statement, but since > time is running out on people's memory, I am making one. Also, I feel > that a lot of Linux "relicencing" meme-talkin' trolls basically have > attacked me very unfairly again, so I am not going to wait for Eben to > say something public about this. > > In http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/183, Alan Cox managed to summarize > what Jiri Slaby and Luis Rodriguez were trying to do by proposing a > modification of a Dual Licenced file without the consent of all the > authors. Alan asks "So whats the problem ?". Well, Alan, I must > caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law. > > I will attempt to describe in simple terms, based on what I have been > taught, how one must handle such licenses: > > - If you receive dual licensed code, you may not delete the license > you don't like and then distribute it. It has to stay, because you > may not edit someone's else's license -- which is a three-part legal > document (For instance: Copyright notice, BSD, followed by GPL). > > - If you receive ISC or BSD licensed code, you may not delete the > license. Same principle, since the notice says so. It's the law. > Really. > > - If you add "large pieces of originality" to the code which are valid > for copyright protection on their own, you may choose to put a different > and seperate (must be non-conflicting...) license at the top of the file > above the existing license. > > (Warning: things become less clear as to what the combination of > licenses mean, though -- there are ethical traps, too). > > - If you wish for everyone to remain friends, you should give code back. > > That means (at some ethical or friendliness level) you probably do > not want to put a GPL at the top of a BSD or ISC file, because you > would be telling the people who wrote the BSD or ISC file: > > "Thanks for what you wrote, but this is a one-way street, you give > us code, and we take it, we give you you nothing back. screw off." > > In either case, I think a valuable lessons has been taught us here in > the BSD world -- there are many many GPL loving people who are going > to try to find any way to not give back and share (I will mention one > name: Luis Rodriguez has been a fanatic pushing us for dual licensed, > and I feel he is to blame for this particular problem). Many of those > same people have been saying for years that BSD code can be stolen, > and that is why people should GPL their code. > > Well, the lesson they have really taught us is that they consider the > GPL their best tool to take from us! > > GPL fans said the great problem we would face is that companies would > take our BSD code, modify it, and not give back. Nope -- the great > problem we face is that people would wrap the GPL around our code, and > lock us out in the same way that these supposed companies would lock > us out. Just like the Linux community, we have many companies giving > us code back, all the time. But once the code is GPL'd, we cannot get > it back. > > Ironic. > > I hope some people in the GPL community will give that some thought. > Your license may benefit you, but you could lose friends you need. > The GPL users have an opportunity to 'develop community', to keep an > ethic of sharing alive. > > If the Linux developers wrap GPL's around things we worked very hard > on, it will definately not be viewed as community development. > > Thank you for thinking about this. > > [I ask that one person make sure that one copy of this ends up on the > linux kernel mailing list] ----- End forwarded message ----- - 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
