Theo de Raadt Responds to Linux Licensing Issues

bsdphx writes "While Theo may have a reputation of being "difficult" in some circles, this response to the recent relicensing controversy is thoughtful and well penned. Through this whole process I've learned some new things about both GPL and BSD licensing, and especially about combining the two."

Compiz/Beryl

[by Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the same thing happened with the Compiz/Beryl farce.

The Beryl developers took the BSD code and GPL'd it without the original authors permission. The exact same reasons of 'evil companies' will steal BSD code was given, but the 'evil' Beryl developers were the only ones taking but not giving back.

People should learn that even though this is open source they still have to respect other peoples rights.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[audi100quattro (869429)]

They made their rights clear when they licensed it under the BSD license. If you want others to share code, make it mandatory and use the GPL. If you just want credit for what you've written, you're still getting it with dual-licensed code. Oh, wait, you want to be able to use the changes as well under the original license? I'm sorry. Don't license it under the BSD license and expect someone else more comfortable with the GPL to make large changes and not use the GPL. The GPL is just more honest and upfront, and it's the GPL's fault?

Re:

[51mon (566265)]

The point of the GPL is it allows GPL code to be mixed in.

Once that happens the code can't be distributed under the BSD license anymore.

Hypocrisy doesn't enter into it, it is likely that dual licensed code will end up under the GPL only when used in the Linux kernel. This doesn't necessarily prevent authors contributing their changes back to BSD, but it may require them to remove any GPL only code that is in the mix.

Since the code clearly can't be used under the BSD license if GPL code is subsequently inclu

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[Dun Malg (230075)]

So nothing is morally wrong with sharing modified BSD code with other GPL coders, but not with the BSD coders who made it possible?

If BSD-license-using coders find it "immoral" for people to use their code under other, more restrictive license schemes, then why are they using the BSD license? Hasn't Theo de Brat long boasted that the BSD license is superior for exactly this reason, the true freedom to do what you like with the code? Releasing under the BSD license and complaining about BSD code getting "GPL'd" is the height of absurdity. The BSD coders don't get to use the code when it's expanded and the resulting app is sold in the traditional business, and they're fine with that. It's like what they say about freedom of speech: the price is that you can't silence people you disagree with.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[by Anonymous Coward]

You're right, but that situation is BETTER. Theo pointed something very obvious out that you're missing:

Many businesses give back to BSD.

No GPL code will ever go back to BSD.

GPL'ing BSD code is a slap in the face that says "We will never, ever, give back. Period."

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[notthe9 (800486)]

Nothing denies use of the code by the BSD originators. They can use the code just as much as anyone else. It's not that the other 6 billion people get preferential treatment, it's just that the BSD originators also have to comply by the GPL if they want to distribute the modified code.

Is it fair to make them play by your rules? It sort of sucks, I guess. It's not all that unfair or anything: they chose to let you do so.

Re:

[Crayon Kid (700279)]

There's nothing legally wrong with slapping a GPL on modified BSD code, but doing so, you consciously deny any direct use of your modifications by the BSD originators.

Read my lips: you wanted it that way. The BSD license allows for this and you knew it (I know you knew it because the commercial world has been taking BSD code and not giving back for years). You knew it and did nothing about it. What's more, you boasted about how great the license is. And now, somehow, you don't like BSD code being GPL'd. Al

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[by Anonymous Coward]

It's about PERSPECTIVE, dude. I don't know if you're being facetious, but things are relative. Just like in OO programming, if two objects are effectively identical in behavior and interface, they are interchangeable.

From a BSD coder standpoint, the GPL IS no different from a proprietary license. Well, there is one difference. It's a white box instead of a black box. I can go in and see how it works and come up with my own algorithms. I could do it with a the black box as well, but it takes longer. But the reason why its no different is because as a BSD coder, I am no more able to use the GPL code DIRECTLY in my work as I am with a company that has locked it up.

And that is PERFECTLY FINE. GPL or proprietary, someone has found a use for BSD code and it moves on. Directly or indirectly, EVERYONE benefits. But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?

Re:

[Dun Malg (230075)]

...And that is PERFECTLY FINE. GPL or proprietary, someone has found a use for BSD code and it moves on. Directly or indirectly, EVERYONE benefits. But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?

They are sharing, under a license that they find philosophically compatible. When you say "why can't [they] share with BSD coders", what you're actually saying is "why can't the GPL folks just accept that the BSD license is the way they should license their code?" That's a fundamentally different issue.

Re:Compiz/Beryl

[zotz (3951)]

"But IF you are going to share anyway (note the big 'if'), why can't you share with the BSD coders who made it possible?"

Is this an honest question? Isn't it obvious that the GPL folks will not do that because they cannot just share it with the BSD coders who made it possible. To share it with the BSD coders, they would also have to share it with the lock up coders. Something they are unwilling to do and hence their choice of the GPL and not the BSD in the first place. Do you see some third way I am not getting right now?

all the best,

drew

Just doesn't make sense

[by Anonymous Coward]

He says that you cannotmodify a file to remove a license without permission, but he fails to acknowledge that a dual licensed file gives you that permission with the other license. If the GPL gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the BSD license from that file. If the BSD license gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the GPL license from that file. So long as I comply with the remaining license, I have permission to distribute the result, as the remaining license is what gives me legal permission from the copyright holder.

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.

No, not ironic. Just dishonest. You say all along that taking without giving back is the ultimate freedom, you criticise the GPL for not allowing more of this, you allow it for proprietary software, but just as soon as GPL software does something you consider to be similar (even though the source is still out there, it's unusable to you), then you have a problem? You can't get the code back from proprietary software either, but you don't bitch and moan when proprietary software does it, in fact you criticise the GPL for not allowing it. This just looks like you have a problem with the GPL, hold it to a higher standard than everybody else, including yourself.

Re:

[pbf (98406)]

Your comment misses the point. What Theo claims (and he is right about it) is that by removing the BSD licence you don't contribute back to the BSD project that created the code you took. In other words you are doing just what you claim companies would be doing, because as soon as you put that under the GPL, the BSD project cannot use it anymore.

What he said is that this type of action is equal to not playing the community game as far as the BSD project is concerned. Your code maybe available for Linux, but

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[DaleGlass (1068434)]

*scratches head*

Your comment misses the point. What Theo claims (and he is right about it) is that by removing the BSD licence you don't contribute back to the BSD project that created the code you took. In other words you are doing just what you claim companies would be doing, because as soon as you put that under the GPL, the BSD project cannot use it anymore.

Right, but the BSD in fact gives you the permission to do this

What he said is that this type of action is equal to not playing the community game as far as the BSD project is concerned. Your code maybe available for Linux, but it is not available anymore for OpenBSD or other non-GPL project. In essence you are removing freedom on code you did not create. This is what is ironic.

Weirdest thing I've heard lately. This pretty much agrees with the GPL concept of "freedom" and seems to imply that BSD should be GPL licensed.

*head explodes*

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[roman_mir (125474)]

*scratches head*

        Your comment misses the point. What Theo claims (and he is right about it) is that by removing the BSD licence you don't contribute back to the BSD project that created the code you took. In other words you are doing just what you claim companies would be doing, because as soon as you put that under the GPL, the BSD project cannot use it anymore.

Right, but the BSD in fact gives you the permission to do this

- BSD does not let you remove the BSD license from the BSD code. Also NO license can supersede the copyright.

BSD allows you to use the code in your own project, your own project can be then redistributed with BSD code in it, however the BSD license cannot be removed from the BSD code. BSD code can be modified but the BSD license cannot be removed from the modified file either. It is not possible to add a new license to a BSD licensed file without permission of the original copyright holders.

However you can take BSD code, add it to your own project and distribute just the binaries of your project without giving any source code to anyone and it is not illegal under BSD. But BSD is a license and it cannot be legally removed from a licensed file.

Re:

[naapo (982524)]

It is not possible to add a new license to a BSD licensed file without permission of the original copyright holders.

Of course it is. You just cannot remove the BSD license from the original code you did not wrote. GPL and BSD are compatible in this sense; you can for example add a function to a BSD licensed file and put a note there that the said function is licensed under GPL. Also, you can add GPL-licensed files into BSD-licensed project (GPL specifically allows it, and BSD license does not forbid it). After that you cannot distribute the combined work without agreeing to both the BSD and GPL licenses; of course o

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

However you can take BSD code, add it to your own project and distribute just the binaries of your project without giving any source code to anyone and it is not illegal under BSD. But BSD is a license and it cannot be legally removed from a licensed file.

I still think that's bizarre though. All this licensing stuff is just headache-inducing.

Re:

[roman_mir (125474)]

Well, if you want to provide your copyrighted code to others and want them to acknowledge you and follow the rules that you set for distribution of this code, then you'll have to get into those little details.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[NoMaster (142776)]

I read Theo's rant a couple of times ...

Your prejudice betrays you - if that was a rant, then it was the kindest, gentlest one in the whole history of public discussion.

Now, Theo has a (somewhat) well-deserved reputation for abrasiveness - he certainly doesn't suffer (people who he thinks prove themselves to be) fools gladly - but the more I read of the bsd-* lists, the more I kinda like the guy. He doesn't bite without reason, though you may be left wondering what that reason is...

Go read those posts again. He's not ranting, he's not raving, he's not flaming - he's stating fairly clearly why he thinks it's disappointing, in a sadly ironic way, that some people who ostensibly support a licence which forces freedom are taking advantage of a different one which merely hopes for it.

From a BSD licence POV, it's like "free software" is a community space with free open access and a right to use however you want - and the GPL is where somebody has come along and built a fence around part of it. Theo's saying that yeah, sure, it's allowed - but it's just sad that a part chooses to take advantage of the generosity and open nature of the whole...

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[grumbel (592662)]

I think it comes right from the BSD License itself:

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

Nowhere does the BSD license allow you to remove the BSD license from the code, in fact it states the exact opposite. Which of course is kind of a mess, since your modifications to a BSD covered file might be covered under a different license, thus effectively covering the whole file under that different license and making the BSD license kind of useless, but you still have to keep it in.

Shakespeare on license stripping

[epine (68316)]

I thought I might repurpose two paragraphs from Wikipedia, under the taking-is-giving license:

Shylock refuses Bassanio's offer, despite Bassanio increasing the repayment to 6000 ducats (twice the specified loan). He demands the pound of flesh from Antonio. The Duke, wishing to save Antonio but unwilling to set a dangerous legal precedent of nullifying a contract, refers the case to Balthasar, a young male "doctor of the law" who is actually Portia in disguise, with "his" lawyer's clerk, who is Nerissa in disguise. Portia asks Shylock to show mercy in a famous speech (The quality of mercy is not strained--IV,i,185), but Shylock refuses. Thus the court allows Shylock to extract the pound of flesh.

At the very moment Shylock is about to cut Antonio with his knife, Portia points out a flaw in the contract (see Quibble (plot device)). The bond only allows Shylock to remove the flesh, not blood, of Antonio. If Shylock were to shed any drop of Antonio's blood in doing so, his "lands and goods" will be forfeited under Venetian laws.

You can't strip a license without also taking the blood. With the license stripped, the code is rendered dead to the purpose under debate. See Quibble (I'm-smarter-than-you device).

Re:

[7-Vodka (195504)]

First of all, licenses aren't contracts.

Secondly, Alan cox wrote:

All a bit irrelevant anyway as Ath5K code (not the .h file) say:

* Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
* GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
* Software Foundation.

Which means there are two licenses to chose from, who gives a rat's ass if you void one since you can use the other.

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[Score Whore (32328)]

Then please explain this quote from alan cox:

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.

Re:

[Ozwald (83516)]

Wow, I can't believe I'm reading this. This is the equivalent of taking a GPL file, adding another license, then taking away the GPL because "the second license allows it". Of course if anybody did this, there would be 1000 posts in this thread instead of 100.

Okay, lets be clear:

1) Someone wrote some code for OpenBSD, and licensed it with the BSD license.
2) The code is now allowable to be in OpenBSD, Linux, Windows, Solaris, cruise missiles.
3) Now, someone *could* insert their code and license it with anyth

Re:Just doesn't make sense

[Jimithing DMB (29796)]

Theo is bringing up two independent points in his message. The first point is that choosing to use the code under the GPL license does not mean you are allowed to remove the notice that it may be used under the BSD license. The second point is that while you are allowed to license modifications under a different license you are encouraged to license them under the BSD license. The points are somewhat intertwined which is why he makes them together.

As for the first point, his argument is simply that the BSD license requires that it not be removed from the source file. It is a modified BSD so it no longer requires acknowledgement when advertising a product using the code which is the specific part that made it incompatible with the GPL. It does still require that the notice remain with the code. You will note if you look at a project such as Apple's xnu that the BSD copyright notice and license remain intact on BSD source files with the APSL added to it. Likewise, the Mach copyright notice and license remain intact on files that came from Mach. Similarly, I moved the region code from X11 into wxWidgets and you can clearly see in the source code (src/generic/regiong.cpp) that the X11 license remains intact. Did I have to do this? For X11 no because X11 only requires that the copyright stay in the source file and the license be part of the program's supporting documentation. Had it been BSD licensed I would have been forced to keep the BSD license in the source code. Regardless, I did it anyway as a gesture of good faith.

This brings us to the second point, that of giving back to the commons you took from. As you point out, the BSD license does not require it! Yet somehow, the BSD codebase continues to grow with contributions not only from individuals but also from companies. The reason for this is that people feel obligated to give back useful portions of their work to the commons despite not being legally obligated to do so. Theo's observation here is simply that many companies are contributing back to BSD but that individuals wanting to use the code for GPL projects are taking a hard-line stance that because BSD does not require it, they will not do it. He's also pointing out that it's gotten worse than that because it has become so prevalent to insert BSD code into a GPL program and license the modifications under only the GPL that several individuals now feel they can remove the BSD license and copyright notices as well.

In other words, modifying the BSD code and licensing the modifications under a different license is allowed by the license and therefore technically legal but considered wrong. Removing the BSD license is against the license and therefore illegal.

However...

[Junta (36770)]

The point is, the code from inception was organized by the developer as 'either GPL or BSD'. Anyone contributing code to that should recognize that. If someone choses to follow GPL, devs shouldn't get offended, they knew what they were getting into. If you don't want to play by the rules of a segment of a project, go away. Claiming that people cannot strip the BSD license on a redistribution is like saying because one of the licenses is GPL, you must always ship the source code. It's ok to dual-license

Re:

[brass1 (30288)]

The point is, the code from inception was organized by the developer as 'either GPL or BSD'. Anyone contributing code to that should recognize that. If someone choses to follow GPL, devs shouldn't get offended, they knew what they were getting into. If you don't want to play by the rules of a segment of a project, go away. Claiming that people cannot strip the BSD license on a redistribution is like saying because one of the licenses is GPL, you must always ship the source code.

But that's just the problem isn't it? It seems to me that the original authors intended to allow everyone who receives their work the option to license the work under either the BSD or the GPL license. If you strip one of the licenses out of the file aren't you specifically denying everyone the right to choose with license they want to use?

The intent of the original authors was for everyone to have the choice of license, not just the guy who submits the kernel patch.

different is as different does

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

The difference is that commercial entities which modify BSD code, compile it, and distribute binary-only distributions are not pretending to own the share and share alike happy friendly community open source high ground. The Linux community does try to own this high ground, really to the point where BSD gets no credit for having the less restrictive (more "open" and more "free") license. What Theo is saying is that if the Linux community wants to maintain its hold on this high ground, they should play fair with code they get from BSD, and share back with that project. Good in the world would be reduced if this turned into a war. Imagine BSD projects getting relicensed as a lever against Linux, say some sort of clause which prohibits dual licensing, and requires non-commercial entities to share code back to BSD. It could get uglier than that, but it probably won't, since the BSD camp has a long history of being the most open and free of free open source licenses, it's unlikely they would start using their license as a weapon at this point.

Re:

[BitZtream (692029)]

Except generally both of those licenses say they can not be removed. You can choose to use one of them, but in most cases the original work, which is part of your modification, must still remain available under both licenses. By removing one, you are in fact, breaking the rules.

Re:

[brass1 (30288)]

He says that you cannotmodify a file to remove a license without permission, but he fails to acknowledge that a dual licensed file gives you that permission with the other license. If the GPL gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the BSD license from that file. If the BSD license gives me permission to modify a file, then I can remove the GPL license from that file. So long as I comply with the remaining license, I have permission to distribute the result, as the remaining license is what gives me legal permission from the copyright holder.

I'm sorry, but no. Let's put it terms of the GPL: If you remove one of the licensees in a dual-licesned source file, then you force every other person who receives that file (from your source tree) to accept the one license you left behind. You have, therefore, have denied the people who receive someone elses work from you a right you know the original author intended to convey to everyone. That's more than just dishonest, that's illegal.

Re:

[Score Whore (32328)]

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 und

Dual licensing interpretations

[Novus (182265)]

While I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that Theo is confused about what the dual licence in question actually says. I quote:

Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.

In other words, the author specifically allows you to distribute provided you meet all the requirements of the GPL and nothing else. Well, the GPL says that you have to license your work under the GPL (see section 2b), which they did. In other words, the wording of this dual licence allows the redistributor to choose one licence or the other and thus remove the dual licensing; Theo is wrong. Of course, Theo is right about removing the BSD licence from code.

Re:

[7-Vodka (195504)]

Not only this, but because it is clearly stated that you can use either license, if you use the GPL license you can most definitely strip out the BSD license completely (and vice versa) because the licenses don't protect each other.

Sorry Theo, but the author's wishes are there in black and white: use either license and toss out the other if you wish for distribution.

It's really not that hard to understand, if you want the BSD license to always be applicable to derrivatives, license under BSD only; If you

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[stony3k (709718)]

While it does appear that he could be wrong legally, he is quite right from an ethical perspective. There is a lot of great work being done by the BSD folks and it would be quite impolite to tell them, "Hey thanks for your code, but you won't get anything back from us". I think the right thing to do would be to continue to use the dual license for the work in question.

If you're very worried about your improvements being close-sourced, perhaps it would be better to write your driver from scratch, rather than cutting off one part of the community. A tiff between the BSD and GPL camps is the last thing we need.

Re:

[schon (31600)]

There is a lot of great work being done by the BSD folks and it would be quite impolite to tell them, "Hey thanks for your code, but you won't get anything back from us"

Considering that's the entire goddamned point of the BSD license, how on earth could such an attitude be considered unethical?

Long story short, Theo is a hypocrite.

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[stony3k (709718)]

The point is that the original code could have continued to be dual-licensed and then it would have helped both BSD and GPL camps. By removing the BSD license (which they may not have the rights to do - IANAL but maybe that can only be done by the original copyright holder), they have now cut off part of the community. That is not ethical, IMHO.

I'm generally a strong believer in the GPL, but in this case I find myself sympathizing with Theo. Also, even though the BSD license allows anyone to close the source, in general, the BSD developers like to have changes given back - they just don't like forcing people to give back improvements. It's like an honor system, and in this case they feel changing the license to GPL was dishonorable, especially since the Linux devs should have known better.

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

BSD people are happy to let closed source corporations take the code, give no source and make money off it, but not as a starting base for an open-source community (GPL meets OSI definition I think) that doesn't want closed source derivates? It's just another case of BSD developers going "Waaaaaaaaaa, you use our code like we licensed it" or "Waaaaaaaaaa, you're making a GPL project that'll be more successful than ours". It's not "being impolite" when you're doing exactly what the license asks of you, and w

Re:Dual licensing interpretations

[DaleGlass (1068434)]

For example, I could invite you around my house and say "If you're hungry, grab something from the fridge". While it would be 'legal' for you to empty the entire contents of my fridge in to the back of your car and drive off with all my food, it's not exactly ethical.

Exactly right! Except "grab something from the fridge" is very fuzzy, while the GPL and BSD are very specific about what exactly they mean, and have been debated to death. By now everybody understands exactly what the BSD means.

Now the lesson is this: If what you feel and what say do not match, then you're going to have problems, and they'll only be your fault.
If you say "Feel free to borrow my lawnmower whenever you need", and then your friend takes it right when you needed it, and that annoys you, whose fault is that? Your.
If you say "Feel free to take my source and do whatever you want with it", and then they do, and the conditions under which they license it annoys you, whose fault is that? Your.

The problem here is exactly this: Some people licensing software under the BSD do it trying to appear more altruistic than they actually are (not saying this is all of them though). In this case Theo seems to be demonstrating that what he thinks should happen with his code, and the terms he actually licensed it under differ.

If there's something you don't want to be done with your software, don't release it into the public domain or under the BSD.
If you don't actually want to have your project forked or built upon, don't release it under the GPL.
If you don't want to have friends suddenly show up at 3AM, then don't tell them they can do that just because you wanted to look polite.
If you offer to drive somebody somewhere, and that they actually accepted your invitation annoys you, then you shouldn't have done that.

IMO, trying to appear more polite and altruistic than you actually are is the cause of much annoyance in the world.

BSD license

[josephdrivein (924831)]

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."

It's not true: he can modify and distribute under BSD the original code that was released under BSD, he can't distribute as BSD whatever was added and licensed under GPL. So none is stealing his work, they are just licensing their intellectual work as they feel it's better.

Exactly as Theo did when he decided to use BSD license: he choose BSD for a number of reasons, one of these was apparently that he thought that this kind of behavior is acceptable, as BSD license allows it.

So, why doesn't he change openBSD's license to something that he actually likes?

RMS and TdR have something in common...

Licenses don't work that way.

[argent (18001)]

It's not true: he can modify and distribute under BSD the original code that was released under BSD, he can't distribute as BSD whatever was added and licensed under GPL. So none is stealing his work, they are just licensing their intellectual work as they feel it's better.

They can only do that if they are the copyright holders for the entire work.

If the work is licensed under the BDSL then he CAN NOT remove that fact by *relicensing* it under the GPL. In combining the GPL code with the BSDL code he has cre

Re:

[muuh-gnu (894733)]

>It's a bit like a good street artist contributing something to society to listen to and
>enjoy, with a friendly request to donate something if they like it.

No, its actually like a mad street artist demanding only his "friends" to pay (and getting mad if they dont), and letting all other pedestrians listen for free and bootleg and distribute his music.

GPL intends to be one-way

[Russ Nelson (33911)]

The intent of the GPL is to be a one-way trip. The idea is to create a large pool of identically-licensed code so that projects msy mix and match, borrow and steal from each other.

bullshit

[m2943 (1140797)]

It is illegal to modify a license unless you are the owner/author,
because it is a legal document.

It is not "illegal" if the license permits it. The license says:

Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the
GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free
Software Foundation.

Now, if someone makes the tiniest change to the code and only licenses their change under the GPLv2, then the entirety of the software can only be distributed under the GPLv2, which means that the portions of the BSD license simply are not applicable anymore.

The usual way of doing this would be not to alter the existing copyright notice, but to add a second copyright comment that says something like: "Portions of this code are copyrighted by John Smith and are licensed under the GPLv2. Please note that as a consequence, the entirety of this file may only be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2."

The effect is, however, the same: the file can only be distributed under the GPLv2, and the result is perhaps more confusing to users, which is why deleting the now inapplicable part of the original license is probably better.

The fundamental issue that this kind of dual-licensed BSD/GPLv2 code can be turned into GPLv2 code is unavoidable, however: that's the purpose and intent of dual licensing. Note that the reverse is also possible: someone can make additions to the code and only license those under the BSD license, killing the GPLv2 portion of the license.

(I won't even comment on Theo's use of terms like "illegal" and "breaking the law" other than to say that it's inflammatory bullshit.)

not ironic at all

[m2943 (1140797)]

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 don't see anything "ironic" about it at all. The ability to take BSD code and use it without being forced to give it back is what BSD licenses are all about. If GPL'ed projects find it preferable to fork, lock out, and not give back, that's no worse than if commercial companies do it--the reasons of a GPL project to do this are just as valid as those of the many commercial companies who do this.

Apparently, Theo wants to have his cake and eat it, too: on the one hand, he considers "locking out" a bad thing, on the other hand, he refuses to adopt licenses that prevent others from locking people out. He is merely hoping that "locking out" doesn't happen. Well, looks like he is wrong.

As for Theo's implication that open source developers have special obligations to be nice to each other and cooperate, all I can say is that he should think about starting with that at home. The endless criticisms and allegations of virality by members of the BSD community of the GPL license, as well as his own strong language and flames hardly motivate GPL developers to go beyond the minimally legally necessary requirements when dealing with BSD or BSD code. If Theo wants GPL developers to take into account his wishes, rather than just BSD's legal requirements, he needs to become a whole lot nicer first (or, better yet, just step down and let someone else take over).

Re:GPL is about giving back to community

[Zatacka (1136621)]

So what he's basically saying is that he'd like modifications to the code to remain in the open. They should create a license that makes sure that always happens! Oh wait...

Re:

[jadavis (473492)]

So what he's basically saying is that he'd like modifications to the code to remain in the open.

These are the points that I took away from his statements:

(1) That people were breaking the law, and encouraging others to break the law.
(2) He feels that building code on top of BSD code, and then licensing the improvements with GPL, is unethical. He didn't say it should be forbidden.

The first point is much more serious. If we do have high-up linux developers breaking the law and encouraging others to do so, the

GPL is about requiring derived code to be shared

[Gary W. Longsine (124661)]

The problem is that a file with the BSD license removed cannot be shared back with the BSD project, from whence it came in the discussion before us. Removing the BSD license makes the code less free, it binds it in the shackles of the GPL, so the code can flow only one way, out of BSD to GNU/Linux. All Theo is saying is give peace a chance.

Re:

[byolinux (535260)]

What is 'the Linux cause' out of interest?

Re:Can't we

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

The problem is that certain Linux developers don't want to 'just get along.' Driver support is an important issue for all Free operating systems. Projects like DRI have been really great for this. DRI drivers are licensed under the MIT license (as is the rest of X), which is about as permissive as you can get without going public domain; it's even more permissive than the BSDL. This has allowed the DRI drivers to be used on FreeBSD, and even on some more obscure and less UNIX-like operating systems (I believe Haiku has used some of their code, for example).

Many people within the Linux community seem to view hardware support as something that gives them a competitive advantage over other operating systems, a viewpoint, perhaps, that they learned from Microsoft. Because Linux has the most restrictive license of any non-proprietary kernel, they make it hard for others to use their work, but continue to benefit from the work of others. Porting a driver from OpenBSD (for example) to Linux requires changing the interface. The converse requires a complete reimplementation.

When Linux developers go to the trouble of reverse engineering a piece of hardware, no one is arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to pick their own license. The problem comes when an OpenBSD developer goes to this trouble, and the Linux team then decides that any changes they make to the driver will be licensed in such a way that they can't be ported upstream.

In much of the community, it is generally considered bad form to add more restrictions to someone else's work. I tend to prefer the 3-clause BSDL for my own work, but some code I am working on now is based on some work that was originally released under the MITL. If I slap a BSDL at the top, then no improvements I make can be used by the original project, or by anyone else basing their work off the same source. If I stripped the MITL and replaced it with the BSDL then, as Eben Moglen points out, this would be illegal. This is the equivalent of what a few people in the Linux community wanted to do. I could place the BSDL above the MITL, covering my changes and the complete work, but not any of the original code. This would be legal, but it would be incredibly impolite. The F/OSS community is a community, and if it wants to survive then a culture of respect for the opinions and work of others is important.

Re:Hmmm

[MysteriousPreacher (702266)]

Bullshit. Read this comment regarding vendors using SSH that Theo posted on one of the OpenSSH mailing lists.

These vendors include:

        Sun Apple IBM HP Cisco Netgear RedHat SuSe

        most operating system vendors except Microsoft

        nearly other major network equipment manufacturer

        (but many other vendors too)

These vendors have never given us even a dime. (To put it more
clearly, IBM loaned one developer a machine to make sure that OpenSSH
would run better on it, but they INSISTED on it being a loan instead
of just giving it to the developer).

http://marc.info/?l=openssh-unix-dev&m=11431622462 7520&w=2 [marc.info]

You can't get much direct than that. I suggest you visit the link and read the rest of his mail.

Re:

[Bananenrepublik (49759)]

The man doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut or how to be civil. It looks like (thankfully) people in the OpenBSD project are telling him to shut the fuck up and let them handle things:

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.

I'm surprised noone corrected you so far, given that Eben Moglen was the subjected of several /. stories already. Eben Moglen [wikipedia.org] is the FSF's lawyer. He's not associated with OpenBSD.

Or rather, he was the FSF's lawyer until the release of the GPLv3, which he co-wrote. Now he's the head of the Software Freedom Law Center, but he's still closely associated with the FSF and the GPL.