Igor Sobrado wrote:
There is definite value in sharing the ath5k HAL between OpenBSD and
Linux.
Of course. Sharing knowledge and efforts can only improve both the GPL
and BSD licensed code. It is important in all cases, but becomes
critical when support from manufacturers is limited or even
This has been pretty interesting for me to watch as I distribute my
isp driver under a dual license (at least the portions of it which are
common with the *BSD and Solaris ports) that is almost identical to
Sam's verbiage.
I'll admit that I hadn't thought about whether redistribution included
the
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> >Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> >they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> >for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL co
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes. T
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
> licensing terms concurrently.
No. E.g.:
If I don't agree to the GPL (or if I had violated it and therefore have lost
it's privileges), I MUST NOT redistribute it under the GPL because
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
WRT Atheros driver I'd probably leave the thing as is (i.e., BSD/GPL
= in fact BSD), unless something like 50+% of the code is rewritten -
it's mostly their hard work after all, isn't it? Not legal
requirement, though.
Yes. This deserves to be reinforced:
There is defi
IANAL, but:
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the GPL license itself and release a
> single-licensed BSD code if other parties want to do it?
Of course. If it wasn't legal, dual BSD/GPL would just b
> > Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
> > they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
> > for example does this for version selection.
>
> So, under a dual-licensed BSD/GPL code the latter license allows a
> developer to remove the G
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
>>> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
>>
>> Not strictly true. They can either ag
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was permission to do so.
There was permission to do so from Reyk Floeter? Really?
Your understanding isn't quite r
> So, a multi-licensed file remains multi-licensed except when all authors
> agree about a change in the licensing terms. And it is clear on the BSD
Not strictly true. They can either agree to a change and issue one or
they can convey to other parties the right to change the terms. The GPL
for
Igor Sobrado wrote:
When code is multi-licensed it must be distributed under *all* these
licensing terms concurrently. It is easy to understand. Removing (or
changing) the conditions that apply to the program from the source code
and documentation *without* an authorization from all the autho
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:20:27 +0200 (CEST)
Igor Sobrado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
> > the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
> > was permission to do so.
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
Reyk code was never dual licensed! His code is under truly free licensing
terms (BSD).
Jiri's patch touched both files containing BSD-only code by Reyk and
code Reyk contributed to leaving the
On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 01:20:27PM +0200, Igor Sobrado wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
>> You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
>> the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
>> was permission to do so.
>
> There was permissio
On Sep 1 2007 18:36, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
>When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
>them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
>is OK.
For companies it's ok, but for linux people it is not?
(1) You do not know how much of the modifications
> - 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.
You can shout this all you like but you would be wrong. You can remove
the licence if you have permission to do so. For the ath c files there
was per
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Indeed, it's upsetting that people like Luis Rodriguez push for the
lawyers to be involved to (fight?) an open source project. Why, may I
ask?
Is it not self-evident? Legal review is the sane course of action, when
legal issues are the bone of contention.
That
On 01/09/07, Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
> them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
> is OK.
>
> When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
> against changes moving
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> >As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
> >the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
> >reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
> >it, such that there
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:36:36PM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
> them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
> is OK.
>
> When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
> against chan
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAI
When companies have taken our wireless device drivers, many many of
them have given changes and fixes back. Some maybe didn't, but that
is OK.
When Linux took our changes back, they immediately locked the door
against changes moving back, by putting a GPL license on guard.
Why does our brother L
On 01/09/07, Luis R. Rodriguez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
> Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
> attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
> done privately.
Err...
I don't
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 07:29:39PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:1
>As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
>the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
>reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
>it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
>to OpenBSD, give
I urge developers to not bait into this and just leave this alone.
Those involved know what they are doing and have a strong team of
attorneys watching their backs. Any *necessary* discussions are be
done privately.
Luis
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAI
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 03:03:36PM -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> This will hopefull
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:51:49PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garz
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth t
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 05:27:03PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > > Th
On 01/09/07, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
> > > > l
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 10:54:57PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 09:30:52PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> If OpenBSD wants a world where code must be returned
OpenBSD does not want this.
OpenBSD wants a world where people do things because they are the
right thing to do.
OpenBSD lets you decide; it doesn't dictate.
someone poo-poos your d
On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 01:37:18PM -0400, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
> >
> > What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual lic
> 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,
Oh dear - Theo, go talk to a lawyer, or do a course on licencing.
The owner generally starts with the rights to control who performs acts
covered by copyri
On 01/09/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> > This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
>
> What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
Reyk's code was never dual licensed, so it's not like it even matters
to
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
What myth? The myth that Theo understands dual licensing?
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mo
This will hopefully help diminish certain myths about the code licensing.
C.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 31-Aug-2007 21:40
Subject: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[bcc'd to Eben Moglen so that people don
42 matches
Mail list logo
