Theo de Raadt Responds to Linux Licensing Issues 455
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."
GPL is about giving back to community (Score:2, Interesting)
"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."
I agree with Theo it would be somewhat rude to extend the driver with GPL-only additions, which is possible and seems to have been proposed. But still, I wouldn't exactly call publishing GPLd code to be "giving nothing back". At least you can see the code, and the community is free to use it within the GPL limitations.
GPL intends to be one-way (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dual licensing interpretations (Score:3, Interesting)
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 want GPL to be applicable to all derrivatives, license under GPL only. If you license under both and specifically state 'use either' then derrivatives can be either or both.
Licenses don't work that way. (Score:3, Interesting)
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 created a *dual licensed* work. There's no way around that.
If this was not true then (a) there wouldn't be any BSD, because this is what the USL violated that made them back down in the USL-CSRG case, and (b) Linux might also be in trouble, because in the aftermath of the USL-CSRG case a lot of old AT&T code was released, and that code was a hugely effective part of the smackdown laid on SCO in the SCO-Linux case.
Re:Can't we (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can't we (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Just doesn't make sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I still think that's bizarre though. All this licensing stuff is just headache-inducing.
Re:Compiz/Beryl (Score:0, Interesting)
I'm trying to work out what you're saying here. You start your comment with a slam at the GP, who clearly supports, in some form, the GPL, but then you say above that BSD coders are idiots who can't tell the difference between proprietary licenses that lock code away and free licenses that guarantee code openness.
Is your position that you hate everybody?
Re:However... (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
No. The correct version:
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 directly from them the option to license the work under either the BSD or the GPL license.
Consider the case of the code being included in proprietary software. Do the makers of that proprietary software have the requirement to provide the code? Of course not. So your idea that the original authors want third-parties to perpetuate the original terms is incorrect. In fact, it's completely against the spirit of the BSD license.
Software licenses like these grant the permission to redistribute according to particular terms. The idea that distributors must allow the same terms for the people that they distribute to is a concept specific to the GPL, not a blanket requirement of all copyright law as you seem to think from your other reply.
Shakespeare on license stripping (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:However... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Compiz/Beryl (Score:2, Interesting)
You do not have the right, however convenient, to use GPL code just because you want to. You have to follow the licensing terms. Those licensing terms were chosen by the author. You and Theo have to respect that.
Re:Compiz/Beryl (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Compiz/Beryl (Score:3, Interesting)
And why if Microsoft takes stuff and doesn't give back you don't mind, but if FSF takes stuff over and gives it back, only better protected against the real world, you throw a fit? What kind of logic is that?
Re:Compiz/Beryl (Score:5, Interesting)
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."
I am shocked by the selfishness and hypocracy (Score:2, Interesting)
It is truly shocking to see the attitudes of SOME within the GPL club.
This was SUPPOSED to be about FREEDOM. I started thinking that there was something else going on when I saw the debate over GPLv3. It seems that SOME in the GPL crowd are determined to steal the works of others and ram their preferences down other people's throats. This is like the difference between those of us who want unencrypted music and movies so we can use what we bought in any way we want, and those who oppose encryption because they want theft to be easier. SOME of us want full sources to software so we can run it on any machine we own and modify it to better suit our needs, but SOME seem to want source so that nobody can make a living writing code.
If GPL supporters will not respect the licenses of others, then nobody should respect the GPL and GPL supporters should not become symbols of hypocracy-writ-large by getting mad about it.
If you want others to share code, make it mandatory and use the GPL.
So much for freedom...apparently nobody is free to use another license. This attitude is part of what makes the GPL viral.
Because they offered THEIR users even more freedom than the GPL would. The BSD license not only lets people do what they want with the code, but it also imposes no extra burdens on the user, OTHER THAN THAT THEY NOT RE-LICENSE THE CODE SO THAT BSD USERS CANNOT USE IT. There is nothing in the BSD license that says "you are hereby licensed to remove this license from this code"
Read my lips: you wanted it that way. The BSD license allows for this and you knew it
Nope. The BSD license does NOT allow you to change the license. As for giving back code, well I guess the GPL people are not as nice as they want to be seen. Are you saying that the only reason you give back code is that the GPL MAKES you do it? Are you saying that, left to their own devices, the GPL programmers would never give back any code? So much for moral superiority.
To share it with the BSD coders, they would also have to share it with the lock up coders.
OK, then stop using BSD code. If you are unwilling to be tainted by the impure users of BSD code, then take it out of your system. Do not use it. BSD license users are not implying that you are immoral by using your license of choice, but some GPL people like to make the accusation against BSD license users. OK, go for it. Get all the BSD and MIT stuff out of your Linux build. Be pure-and-clean-as-the-GPL-driven-snow... and enjoy your command line. Personally, I will continue to use and support BOTH licenses and try not to abuse EITHER ONE. Again, I thought that GPL advocates were all about freedom and sharing, but I guess they only wanna share with PURE people who will never try to earn a living. We cannot ALL make a living going around lecturing and giving speeches. Some people actually need to MAKE things.
but he fails to acknowledge that a dual licensed file gives you that permission with the other license.
Dude, you are dangerous. Nobody with that attitude and that poor understanding of licenses is safe to employ in software development. That attitude will get you into serious legal trouble someday. You do not get to just pick and choose your license and delete the other license from the code. I THOUGHT that GPL advocates HATED that form of intellectual property abuse. Do you advocate removing other programmer's names from comments in code too?
A lot of people here seem to be missing the point
The GPL was supposed to be (among other things) about passing on to others the rights you had when you got the code. When you got the (dual licensed) code, it had BOTH licenses and you had the freedom to use it EITHER WAY, but when you strip the BSD license from it and the rights to use it as the BSD license allowed it to be used, you violated your own Prime Directive. What you then passed-on to