Two things caught my eye...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| DarrenR114 Apr 06, 2007 8:35 AM EDT |
Every story like this has at least two sides, and here is the other side of this story:
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070406104008 In that posting, I noticed reference to two things: 1. The BSD driver isn't even a functioning driver - it's a work in progress which was still being worked on (probably ended up in the CVS tree by mistake). And there already was a lot of original code that was NOT GPLed. It looks to me like the intent is to strip the GPL'ed code down to nothing but function stubs, because once all the functionality of the Linux driver is stripped down to nothing but stubs, then it's no longer GPL'ed - because you can't copyright methods and concepts. 2. This isn't the first time this has happened - only previously it has been the Linux developers stamping BSD code with the GPL license (the ATA/IDE driver was in NetBSD before it was in Linux.) The whole thing could have been handled in a lot less public manner to start with, and that's the part that's the biggest scandal for me. |
| Sachankara Apr 06, 2007 9:27 AM EDT |
1. Doesn't really matter whether it works or not. Developers should always abide the licenses; BSD devs are no exception. 2. BSD developers have chosen a license that allows "code theft". Linux developers have not. Thus Linux devs can take all they want from BSD. If BSD devs have a problem with that they can change their license to one that is GPL incompatible. ;) |
| DarrenR114 Apr 06, 2007 9:45 AM EDT |
@Sachankara, No one said anything about BSD devs being the exception - where was this response from you when Linux devs did the same thing to the BSD devs? BSD devs have NOT chosen a license that allows "code theft" - any argument otherwise is uneducated drivel. As I stated before - the biggest tragedy is the way the Linux devs went public immediately instead of trying to discretely get to the bottom of what happened. It's not like the GPL community doesn't have unclean hands in this sort of thing already. |
| jimf Apr 06, 2007 9:58 AM EDT |
> probably ended up in the CVS tree by mistake I'm sure that's a mistake that won't happen again soon. Whatever the 'intent', it does appear that BSD got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. The response of Theo seems to confirm that, as, he rants about how it should have been kept quiet. I'm sure he would have 'preferred' a back room settlement, but really, it only shows a valid concern for GPL. I sure as heck don't want to see Linux code funneled into MS or other proprietary enviorment. Public airing only insures that the BSD guys are put on notice. |
| DarrenR114 Apr 06, 2007 10:00 AM EDT |
So should the BSD devs have raised such a stink when the Linux devs did the exact same thing with the ATA/IDE driver - relicensing the BSD code without permission? |
| jimf Apr 06, 2007 10:12 AM EDT |
> BSD devs have raised such a stink Well, 'stink' is a cute way to mask it all, but yes, If it violated their license, it should have been reported and worked out 'publicly'. |
| bigg Apr 06, 2007 10:17 AM EDT |
One important difference is that accidentally relicensing BSD code doesn't have much of an effect on anything - there's nothing wrong with using BSD code in Linux, it is basically just labeled incorrectly. Nobody is restricted in any way. On the other hand, the use of GPL code in BSD is a serious problem, because the code itself is being used incorrectly. If it were simply a matter of putting the wrong license on some lines of code, I don't think it would be a big deal. If GPL code ends up in the hands of Adobe or Symantec, we have problems. |
| Abe Apr 06, 2007 11:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:The whole thing could have been handled in a lot less public manner to start with, and that's the part that's the biggest scandal for me. Let's see now, as I recall, someone made a big fuss about the GPL being drafted in a little less public manner. Now is suggesting that it is better to be more private? Is that hypocrisy or what? Quoting:BSD devs have NOT chosen a license that allows "code theft" - any argument otherwise is uneducated drivel. No drivel at all, MS stole the BSD TCP/IP stack and no one could do anything about it because it is allowed by the BSD license. Can we call this drivel? Not at all. Quoting:It's not like the GPL community doesn't have unclean hands in this sort of thing already. I am not sure what you mean by that, but can you cite an example? There is no doubt that many GPL developers used BSD code here and there, but they sure are conscious about it, they make sure they keep the copyright notices in the code. You seem to favor BSD license over GPL. Actually, it seems like you have a problem with GPLed code, why don't you just stick with BSD and stay away from any GPL software? You try your best to create a perception of how bad the GPL is, well, if you have a problem with it, just don't use it. Either you play with the rules or find a different game. It might be healthier for you. To tell you the truth, to me, you sound like you are debating for MS & Novell against GPL. |
| jimf Apr 06, 2007 1:24 PM EDT |
The sore point for me is that Linux/GPL is one of the more open and 'Democratic' system in existence. BSD is pretty close to that too. The mere idea that a BSD leader should suggest that a licence issue be kept out out the public eye, reeks of cronyism and backroom deals, something that's we thought was confined to proprietary boardrooms. Linux & BSD are both far better off going through the Democratic, and unfortunately messy, public debate. |
| dcparris Apr 06, 2007 1:27 PM EDT |
Quoting:Let's see now, as I recall, someone made a big fuss about the GPL being drafted in a little less public manner. Now is suggesting that it is better to be more private? Is that hypocrisy or what? No, it's not. Actually, I prefer to see problems resolved privately, at least as a first step. Had Theo, et. al. balked at resolving the issue, it could easily have been taken public. Quoting:So should the BSD devs have raised such a stink when the Linux devs did the exact same thing with the ATA/IDE driver - relicensing the BSD code without permission? As I understand the BSD license, I can modify the code and re-license it under the GPL or any other license, including non-libre licenses. Or is there some prohibition against re-licensing BSD code under certain licenses? If driver was copied as-is and simply re-licensed, that would be different in my opinion, but there is still no harm done. You simply have a dual-licensed libre driver. That is not to excuse the act of re-licensing without first modifying the code, but simply an observation of the result. |
| jimf Apr 06, 2007 1:39 PM EDT |
> No, it's not. Actually, I prefer to see problems resolved privately, at least as a first step. Had Theo, et. al. balked at resolving the issue, it could easily have been taken public. Public or not, I do think the initial contact could have been better handled. |
| DarrenR114 Apr 06, 2007 2:17 PM EDT |
NO BSD CODE HAS EVER BEEN STOLEN OR MISAPPROPRIATED BY ANY AGENCY ...
How do I know this? BECAUSE THE SUBJECT CODE OF EVEN THE IP STACK THAT MS USED IS STILL AVAILABLE - SO IT WASN'T STOLEN. ANY CLAIM THAT BSD CODE HAS BEEN STOLEN IS UNEDUCATED DRIVEL - There - any questions? I *HATE* it when supposedly educated people use terms like 'stolen' when they obviously are thinking of 'infringement' ... two different things altogether - one is usually civil and the other is criminal. |
| pat Apr 06, 2007 2:21 PM EDT |
I see nothing wrong with the way this was handled. The fact is there was a clean room spec and instead of developing from the spec, the BSD person chose to relicense code. He got what he deserved. |
| pat Apr 06, 2007 2:51 PM EDT |
I should have added, ...the BSD person chose to relicense code without asking.". Should also add that Theo is blaming the victim. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 06, 2007 3:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:As I understand the BSD license, I can modify the code and re-license it under the GPL or any other license, including non-libre licenses. Sorry, but you understand wrong. You can include BSD licensed code in GPL and even proprietry works, but the bits of code you took are still licensed under the BSD. That's why you have to preserve copyright statements in the code you copy. It's also why Bigg is correct: BSD copied into GPL without adhering the BSD license means that there is some code "mislabeled" as GPL when it should have been BSD. Annoying? Yes. A violation? Yes. But no harm done because the GPL does not allow anything that is not possible in the BSD license. The other way is far more dangerous. In this specific case Broadcom (or anyone else) would have been able to grab the GPL code bits in the BSD driver from the repository anywhere between the commit and the discovery of infringement -- the exact situation that the GPL driver people wanted to avoid by choosing the GPL license instead of teh BSD license. |
| tuxchick Apr 06, 2007 4:53 PM EDT |
If anyone had any doubts whether Theo is a raving lunatic, this thread should settle it once and for all. The complete exchange is here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/... Thanks to Theo it became a news item, rather than a small, easily-resolved license dispute. |
| Abe Apr 06, 2007 6:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:ANY CLAIM THAT BSD CODE HAS BEEN STOLEN IS UNEDUCATED DRIVEL OK, technically I agree with you but, how about they stole a copy? We call it stealing because they don't recognize, credit, or attribute the code to its original owner. Sounds better now! |
| Abe Apr 06, 2007 6:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:No, it's not. Actually, I prefer to see problems resolved privately, at least as a first step. I would say it depends on the issue. In general, problems might better be resolved in private 1st, but when it comes to GPL license issues, I say they should be discussed in the open for everyone not to have the wrong perception. May be to make it clear not to take the GPL lightly. |
| dcparris Apr 06, 2007 7:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:ANY CLAIM THAT BSD CODE HAS BEEN STOLEN IS UNEDUCATED DRIVEL I actually agree with this. In fact, Theo's claim that Michael called Marcus a "thief" is drivel as well. It's a false statement and ignores the fact that copyright infringement != theft. Quoting:I would say it depends on the issue. In general, problems might better be resolved in private 1st, but when it comes to GPL license issues, I say they should be discussed in the open for everyone not to have the wrong perception. May be to make it clear not to take the GPL lightly. I have reviewed this in more depth now. I would definitely keep my initial audience as small as possible. GLP Violations and the FSF have a policy of approaching folks quietly and in an amicable way - at least in the beginning. Michael might have opened the issue between Marcus and the other known developers involved initially, and then later posted the issue to the lists when he didn't get a satisfactory response. However, I certainly understand his concern to make other developers aware. Keeping things to those few mailing lists was not as public as it could have been. As TC suggests, it would likely have died a quiet death, unbeknownst to the majority of the community were it not for Theo's insistence on focusing on the manner of the notice, rather than the foul. |
| Abe Apr 07, 2007 7:25 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's a false statement and ignores the fact that copyright infringement != theft. In my opinion they are the same, it just happened that "copyright infringement" is the legal term and "theft" is the common term. We call it theft when some one takes (the property of another) without right or permission. Every one knows (or should know) that GPL software has owners, especially those developers who release Open Source code. |
| DarrenR114 Apr 07, 2007 7:47 AM EDT |
But NOTHING has been *TAKEN*, Abe - that's why it's NOT THEFT. It *really* IS that SIMPLE. used != taken used != stolen an *idea* may have been *used* in a way that was not in accordance with the originator's or owner's intent - but that still doesn't justify using legal terms that have different and very negative connotations. What you're doing is called 'libel'. |
| dcparris Apr 07, 2007 8:42 AM EDT |
O.k. Darren, there you go agreeing with me! Did you fall, bump your head? Forget to take your meds? ;-) Abe, you are kind of an oddity - some people I've run into in the FOSS community do consider copyright infringement to be a sort of "theft". Still, most people seem to acknowledge the difference. |
| Abe Apr 07, 2007 9:53 AM EDT |
Quoting:you are kind of an oddityAhmm, you mean unique, I like unique better. Quoting:it *really* IS that SIMPLE. Aah, now I see why you agree so much with Novell !!! OK Darren, I gave you enough hard time. I guess we are arguing about semantics. And since English is not my first language, I will give you that. You guys have a Happy Easter. |
| jezuch Apr 07, 2007 3:36 PM EDT |
Synchronicity, I say:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/04/is_c... BTW: copyright violation is about copying. Even the name "copyright" says it. Copying something is a tad different than taking without leaving the original in place... But that looks too much like a philosophical question and I'm an engineer ;) |
| tuxtom Apr 08, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
Attention!!! Your license for the use of the word "drivel" has expired. Please select an alternative from the following options: babble, balderdash, blather, bosh, bunk, bunkum, double-talk, gibberish, gobbledygook, hogwash, hooey, jabber, nonsense, poppycock, prating, rot, rubbish, stuff, tripe, twaddle Thank you. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!