Author of OpenBSD's hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros devices, Reyk Floeter, sent a query to the Linux Kernel mailing list regarding the recent licensing debate surrounding the Linux "ath5k" driver, "I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I just returned from vacation." He continued:
"I'm very disappointed about this and I hope that it was a mistake, because it is very unfair and malicious against me and the OpenBSD community. I invested a lot of time to write the code and to make it work with as many chipsets as possible. And during the last years, the OpenBSD community helped to test and to improve the driver. I always liked the idea to port it to other operating systems, but now somebody harmed these efforts by violating the license."
Reyk explained that he has cooperated with developers porting his free Atheros driver from OpenBSD to other operating systems, "because it is a clear sign against hardware companies attacking the free software 'community' by releasing binary-only driver objects instead of free code or hardware documentation." He explained that he had worked with the developers who ported his driver to Linux as "OpenHAL", "we exchanged ideas, bug fixes, and small code snippets. They sent me some bug reports and I also looked at their changes and reported some functional problems. This was possible because they kept the license in place." Finally he expressed concern that this would no longer be possible if the license was changed, "somebody wants to cancel any options to cooperate by locking me out with a prepended GPL and an invalid copyright on top of it."
He then summarized his concerns:
"Please let me know if it is planned to release my code with any other license than the attached one. I also strongly disagree with the concept of adding a new copyright and/or a GPL license on top of it - it is still a derived work and a few stylistic changes, some code shuffling, and some bug fixes don't allow to change the copyright. I invested a lot of time and work to implement "OpenHAL" and it was much more than just porting it. Please remember, it was a very hard task to make it happen without any support from Atheros :(."
When it was suggested that the relicensed code did not exist in any repositories, Luis R. Rodriguez replied, "well that is not accurate. Please give us a few we are working on verifying some information for you." He also suggested that there were plans to release the "ath5k" code using a modified and/or extended license, "apologies for this taking so long. It'll all be sorted out soon."
From: Reyk Floeter [email blocked] Subject: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:18:23 +0200 Hello! I'm the author of the free hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros devices in OpenBSD, also known as "OpenHAL". I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I just returned from vacation. I'm very disappointed about this and I hope that it was a mistake, because it is very unfair and malicious against me and the OpenBSD community. I invested a lot of time to write the code and to make it work with as many chipsets as possible. And during the last years, the OpenBSD community helped to test and to improve the driver. I always liked the idea to port it to other operating systems, but now somebody harmed these efforts by violating the license. Some time ago, I got repeated requests to change the license of the code to GPL or to dual-license it but I always rejected these requests. I clearly explained my reasons against dual-licensing in the past. It needed some time, but it had seemed to me that the involved people had finally accepted my decision. I do like to idea to port the free Atheros driver to other operating systems in addition to OpenBSD, because it is a clear sign against hardware companies attacking the free software "community" by releasing binary-only driver objects instead of free code or hardware documentation. I used to cooperate with the people working on the madwifi port of "OpenHAL"; we exchanged ideas, bug fixes, and small code snippets. They sent me some bug reports and I also looked at their changes and reported some functional problems. This was possible because they kept the license in place. But now the Linux code is almost ready and somebody wants to cancel any options to cooperate by locking me out with a prepended GPL and an invalid copyright on top of it. I hope that this was not caused by the same people. Nevertheless, I'm cross-posting this mail to some lists and people because I don't know the responsible persons. I have too many mails about this issue in my inbox and it's very hard to filter out the useful information. Could you please give me some feedback about the latest state? Please reply in private, I'm not subscribed to any of the Linux lists and I'm rather interested in facts than in the usual trolling. - Has this issue been fixed? - Is there any repository available with the "ath5k" code using a modified/"extended" license? I don't know how to find the relevant bits in the various Linux git repositories. Sorry, I don't get the structure of it. Are there any other sources online except this diff on the linux kernel mailing list? - Are there any plans to release the "ath5k" code using a modified/"extended" license? Please let me know if it is planned to release my code with any other license than the attached one. I also strongly disagree with the concept of adding a new copyright and/or a GPL license on top of it - it is still a derived work and a few stylistic changes, some code shuffling, and some bug fixes don't allow to change the copyright. I invested a lot of time and work to implement "OpenHAL" and it was much more than just porting it. Please remember, it was a very hard task to make it happen without any support from Atheros :(. Please keep the following license and copyright notice in all affected files and any derived work: /* * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter [email blocked] * * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. * * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. */ Thanks! Reyk -- /* .vantronix|secure systems - (research & development) * reyk floeter - friendly known free software engineer * [email blocked] - http://team.vantronix.net/reyk/ */
From: Michael Buesch [email blocked] Subject: Re: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:35:33 +0200 On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Reyk Floeter wrote: > I'm the author of the free hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros > devices in OpenBSD, also known as "OpenHAL". > > I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state > of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I > just returned from vacation. > Could you please give me some feedback about the latest state? Please > reply in private, I'm not subscribed to any of the Linux lists and I'm > rather interested in facts than in the usual trolling. > > - Has this issue been fixed? It has never been applied to any repository. -> No issue and no copyright violation. > - Is there any repository available with the "ath5k" code using a > modified/"extended" license? No. > I don't know how to find the relevant bits in the various Linux git > repositories. Sorry, I don't get the structure of it. Are there any > other sources online except this diff on the linux kernel mailing > list? > > - Are there any plans to release the "ath5k" code using a > modified/"extended" license? No.
From: Luis R. Rodriguez [email blocked] Subject: Re: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:00:15 -0400 On 9/5/07, Michael Buesch [email blocked] wrote: > On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Reyk Floeter wrote: > > I'm the author of the free hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros > > devices in OpenBSD, also known as "OpenHAL". > > > > I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state > > of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I > > just returned from vacation. > > > Could you please give me some feedback about the latest state? Please > > reply in private, I'm not subscribed to any of the Linux lists and I'm > > rather interested in facts than in the usual trolling. > > > > - Has this issue been fixed? > > It has never been applied to any repository. > -> No issue and no copyright violation. > > > - Is there any repository available with the "ath5k" code using a > > modified/"extended" license? > > No. Well that is not accurate. Please give us a few we are working on verifying some information for you. > > I don't know how to find the relevant bits in the various Linux git > > repositories. Sorry, I don't get the structure of it. Are there any > > other sources online except this diff on the linux kernel mailing > > list? > > > > - Are there any plans to release the "ath5k" code using a > > modified/"extended" license? > > No. > Same here. Apologies for this taking so long. It'll all be sorted out soon. Luis
Who did put this "ath5k" driver into GPLv2 linux kernel?
Solution: remove ath5k driver and don't use Atheros hardware.
Linuxer/linuxian, don't buy hardware from Atheros manufacturer because its devices are only for BSD and had started a awful discussion of one specific manufacturer's device.
Remember, "ALL the drivers for Linux must to be GPLv2 licensed because of the virality of GPLv2 from Linus's kernel codebase", but there are violators of binary code drivers as the manufacturers's modems and graphics (nVidia and ATI).
"ALL the drivers for Linux
This is just wrong. You can easily (and legally) use a BSD licensed driver in Linux. Or one in the public domain (obviously, as you can do anything with it).
Now if you redistribute the Linux kernel including this driver, the source code of the driver must be available under GPL. (Although this is also somewhat disputed, why should an OpenBSD driver suddenly become derived work from Linux? But that is beside the point here.) Just because the driver must be available under terms of the GPL does not mean that it cannot be available under BSD terms, too.
> (Although this is also
> (Although this is also somewhat disputed, why should an OpenBSD driver
> suddenly become derived work from Linux? But that is beside the point here.)
Because the new kernel, all bits included, is derived work from the older kernel.
not so simple
If a BSD driver were taken and ported to the Linux driver framework, that BSD driver does NOT become a derivative work of Linux, nor does Linux become a derivative work of that code. A binary release of Linux with various *BSD drivers compiled into it is a derivative of Linux, but the *BSD source itself never is because originally it was never part of Linux. When a corporation licenses technology from another party - let's say they got a super-transistor and put it into their super-radio - they can't turn around and say "aha! your super-transistor is a derivative work!".
I thought the Linux module wars ended years ago - if a driver is to be compiled into the kernel it MUST be GPLv2, but if it's a module then anything is acceptable. I see no reason why the *BSD code shouldn't remain exclusively under a BSD license - changing licenses sounds like programmers playing lawyer. Then again, there has been another push recently to eradicate non-GPL drivers (including modules) via the use of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL - maybe this is Module Wars 2?
I agree with not buying Atheros - there are many other chip manufacturers with free Linux drivers and some even have support from the manufacturers.
Not entirely.
You can use a BSD or MIT/X licensed driver or other piece of code in a GPLed project like Linux, as you say, and you can do the same with anything in the public domain.
When you distribute the resulting tree, the tree as a whole is covered by the GPL. However, the individual parts that are public domain, BSD, MIT/X, ISC, or whatever other permissive license, are still covered by their respective licenses. It's just that the combination of those BSD-licensed works with the GPL-licensed works creates a derived work that is, in its entirety, covered by the GPL.
The individual parts that are BSD licensed are still under their original license, and could be used in some other project under the BSD license; it's only when you make them part of a GPLed project that the GPL takes over.
I don't understand why all of this is so hard for people to understand.
BSD always BSD, not under GPL terms, however combined.
This following Linux Today link takes a theory which incorrectly assumes that if you are allowed to make a derivative of another's work, that you can relicense the whole derivative as you wish. Section 103 of (USC title 17) copyright law is clear that derivatives are a copyrighted work and so can have any license but such a license does not extend over the parts that are taken from the derived source.
See http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2007-09-04-024-26-OP-BD-L... for more details. One conclusion from that posting is:
-> ... thus, the BSD license continues to apply to the code from the original author/license as it gets hacked up. The new code (and organization of lines of code, files, etc) belongs to whomever else made it and is licensed as that other person wishes. BSD can't place restrictions on that new license (of the deriv/compil) except indirectly were it to have said something like "if such and such is not met then you can't derive from this BSD code." BSD doesn't say anything like this, however (the GPL does say something like that). We can license the derivation as GPL. The GPL won't apply to the component pieces, meaning that (for example) the GPL license can't force you to provide the [source for the BSD] components should you distribute a binary; however, if you do provide the source to the BSD portions, BSD requires that the BSD license (copyright notice, list of conditions, and disclaimer) be included.
For context for this conclusion: we have a hypothetical BSD licensed work that was just modified and the *derived work* (as per Section 103) might be licensed GPL:
The surprise to me was that I didn't realize that the piece of code (originally.. and still) licensed BSD would behave as BSD and be removed from any consideration/effect from a GPL license covering the derivative product. In fact, the GPL does not force the BSD portions of it to come with code because those portions can be a part of a GPL work but are not covered by the GPL in the sense of Section 103 ["The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work"].
People should look at Sections 106 and 103 of USC Title 17.
IANAL, so there may be some or many other parts of the law I don't know about or haven't read that invalidate my reasoning.
>> Just because the driver must be available under terms of the GPL does not mean that it cannot be available under BSD terms, too.
Only the person with copyright to license the code (the copyright owner only unless they allow someone else to relicense) can license something once or further. If BSD becomes a part of a GPL work, then the GPL does not extend to the BSD portions. Those portions will forever be only BSD (again, unless relicensed by the owner).
Public domain is giving away all rights so you can derive from it (even without any modifications at all) and license the derivative work as you want without having any problems (BSD is not public domain and does not allow the terms of the BSD to be changed, ie, relicensed). Others can reuse the public domain portions without any approval from you.
Question: if the license of a derived work doesn't extend to the components that are licensed separately, what would make a license incompatible with the GPL? [ Ref http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html for sample licenses ]
Answer: I see a few scenarios.
One, if whatever you would do with GPL code, would somehow be prohibited for those portions of code licensed otherwise, then you obviously can't use it. Example is PHP License, Version 3.01 I think because it prohibits some things that you could do with GPL (like use PHP in the name of the product: in such a case, the GPL portions would be fine, but you would lose a license to the PHP portions meaning you couldn't use the software under all situatuions where you would use GPL). I still think you could mix the licenses but you would have to limit yourself to not violating either GPL or the other license at all times.
Two: the subcomponent specifically does not allow derivatives to be licensed GPL. Again, you could use a GPL deriv with such a subcomponent but you would lose license to the subcomponent immediately.
Three: it is a copyleft license (and is not GPL). Copyleft automatically means you are saying that a deriv work can't be GPL just like case two.
>> (Although this is also somewhat disputed, why should an OpenBSD driver suddenly become derived work from Linux? But that is beside the point here.)
My understanding of the above (copyright law sections mentioned) is that you generally can't relicense something (unless you were given permission by the copyright owner or someone that had permission (from the copyright owner) to give you permission gave you permission).
If something is created from scratch by someone then it can't be a derived work by definition (unless maybe s/he accidently happened to have reproduced some other copyrighted work in large part.. highly improbable for any nontrivial sized work and for smaller works probably OK).
At least that is what I think derived work means in this context. [See USC Title 17 Section 101]
>> A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
Some other noteworthy definitions: "Copyright owner" "created" "Copies"
There is another important point. At what point does using a product constitute building a derivative work? This is important because the right to use is distinct from the specific right to build a derivative work (in terms of the rights afforded by Title 17.. regardless of what any license wording states). A license may allow you to "use" without limit but only to have it become part of a derivative work under limited circumstances. Thus this distinction is important. Am I using it without having made a derivative work?
IANAL, not now, not in a past life, and likely not in a future life.
BTW, it seems to me that binary kernel modules are not a problem. Putting it together with the GPL kernel, even if this whole is considered a derivative work, does not generally (depending on the licensing of the blob) prevent the derivative work to be licensed GPL (as per Section 103.. remember the subparts can be licensed differently). Thus the kernel GPL license is not violated if the whole work is licensed GPL (yet a subcomponent will continue to be licensed differently than GPL).
take time to do more better
take time to do more better job ... life is a while !!!!
So if *they* have a problem
So if *they* have a problem with *their* GPL, maybe they should code the missing part themselves, instead of violating other peoples work.
Of course we don't need such discussions, but in the end it was useful, because:
-Linux crowd thinks of freedom == dictatorship
-Linux crowd does need some decades to mature
-if you're using Linux, you're certainly violating other peoples work
Got everything you need
Got everything you need under that bridge? If we can do anything to help, just say.
trolling
>-if you're using Linux, you're certainly violating other peoples work
Hmm... that sounds familiar - your name's not Darl or Baldmer is it?
BSD permit licence change.
BSD permit licence change. They choose it ! It's legal.
But at first glance, it look like counter productive from a practical point of view.
BSD does _not_ permit licence change.
Did you even try to read it once? It is not that complicated.
BSD does admit a license change, damnit!
I'm not the previous poster, but BSD code can indeed be relicensed and distributed under the GPL. You can keep the copyright notice of the original owner, remove the BSD license from the code, and distribute the result under the GPL... as long as you include a README file that says "This code was obtained under this license: [copyright and license text, verbatim]". Because the license text only tells you to reproduce it when you distribute your modified source. That does not mean that the BSD license will be applied to the modified source. The GPL, on the other hand, tells you to redistribute the modified work under the terms of the GPL. That's the difference that makes the GPL viral.
With "reproduce it" I guess
With "reproduce it" I guess you refer to the old 3- or 4-clause BSD licenses from UCB. If so, please have a closer look; that "must reproduce the above copyright ... in the documentation and/or other materials..." clause refers to binary redistributions. Looking at some random source with 3-clause BSD license, the first clause still reads "redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer."
For me this doesn't look like you can redistribute the sources with the license replaced by anything else. And please note that the preferred license for new code in OpenBSD is even much simpler.
That's not the way I read it
I read that clause as:
* On the one hand, if you distribute the source code you must replicate, as part of that source distribution, the text of this license and the copyright.
As far as I know, this does not prevent you from moving the license to another place, and putting the source code under a different license. Really, read it strictly:
It doesn't say that you can't put the license somewhere else or relicense the code. It simply requires you to retain, somehow, that text as part of the source distribution.
* On the other hand, if you make a binary distribution it's not enough to put the license text embedded in the binary somewhere, almost hidden. You must then copy the text to the program documentation or other materials.
Literally:
Everything else is reading too much into it, in my humble opinion, but I'm not a lawyer. However, notice that if you remove the license text from the source, relicense the source and put the license text in a separate README file as I explained in my previous post, you are complying with the terms of the license, again in my humble opinion.
That's not the way TO read it
Unless otherwise specified, ALL rights belong to the author.
This is how Copyright Law works.
If a license does not say explicitly that you can relicense, then you can not.
Licenses do not place restrictions. They give some of the rights to others, under the conditions of the license.
The MOST restrictive license is having NO license at all.
Sure
That's true, but it does not bring anything new to the discussion. The license is already giving you permission to do a lot of things, including redistribution, provided that some conditions are met. The discussion is: if I distribute the code under the GPL keeping a verbatim copy of the original license somewhere else in the same "package", am I complying with the conditions that the BSD license imposes? I think so, in the same way that a company can distribute the same code (modified or not) in binary form with a copy of the license text somewhere else, and they give you those binaries under a completely different license.
It not only brings something
It not only brings something new to the conversation, it completely invalidates what you just said. You just said:
"if I distribute the code under the GPL keeping a verbatim copy of the original license somewhere else in the same "package", am I complying with the conditions that the BSD license imposes?"
You missed the whole point of what the previous poster said. A license is NOT "conditions imposed", a license is "rights granted". You have zero rights except those that are explicitly stated in the license. So if you read what you just said "if I distribute the code under the GPL" and then explain to us where in the license it gives you permission to change the license?
Here's what you have permission to do: "Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software" provided you retain the BSD license. Even if we accept your nonsense about moving the BSD license to another file, none of the rights granted give you the right to CHANGE THE LICENSE. Distribution is not a change of copyright or license. It's just a right to distribute copies of the file.
Copyright law doesn't give you the right to change my licensing, just because I license you the right to distribute my work. That would be like if I gave you and only you, the right to distribute my work, and you took that to mean, distribute it with another license with your own terms, which state that anyone else can distribute it.
*** The right to distribute the software is not the right to relicense the software. ***
*** The right to modify the software is not the right to relicense the software. ***
Nowhere in the license does it say that you can take the BSD licensed code and change the license to GPL. Without that right expressly granted by the license, you have no right to do so, and that's copyright violation.
Even with this
>Nowhere in the license does it say that you can take the BSD licensed code and change the license to GPL. Without that right expressly granted by the license, you have no right to do so, and that's copyright violation.
Even with this permission it is not granted, because it violates copyright law. It says:
>The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material.The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.
So even if you take Public Domain work - you cannot apply more restrictions to preexisting material by deriving it. It's still Public Domain.
Yours is a common mistake, but IANAL.
IANAL, but here is how I would look at it.
The BSD license gives you certain rights, subject to certain restrictions. These include the rights to prepare derivative works, reproduce the software, etc. The restrictions include the fact that the license must remain on the code.
The question you are asking is "can one change the license." Since you are not the copyright owner, any arrangement would be a sublicense (i.e. a licensing agreement between you and downstream distributors). Since sublicensing is not mentioned specifically, any such license would only be valid of implied. I don't believe sublicensing is allowed for the following reasons.
1) Unlike the case with patents, wrt copyright nonexclusive licenses are indivisible and hence not subject to implicit sublicensing rights as a general rule (with patents, I could give 2 manufacturers rights to build my invention and they would essentially have an implied right to grant patent use licenses to their customers).
2) I would argue that an implied sublicense provision in a nonexclusive would only apply if it was required to excersize the rights granted in the license. See the patent license example above. If the BSD License is read as being a direct grant of rights from the author to the recipient, then sublicensing is unnecessary and hence there is no implied right granted. Instead closed source derivations are allowed due to direct license granted by the author.
In this case, you can add your own content under any license, but you cannot reach in and change the license of work you have merely used with permission.
Again, IANAL, so if this matters discuss it with a real attourney who doesn't have an agenda relating to Free/Open Source Software.
Not replace
Obviously I can do exactly what the parent post suggests: I can do whatever I want with the code, including change the license, as long as I leave the old license in, and say something like "contains code under the following license". If you don't like that, don't use such a permissive license.
Freedom without restrictions is... anarchy.
No, it doesn't
Really, changing the license without the author's permission is illegal.
And in the code in question, it's even made explicit that you have to keep the license intact. For example, look at
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/ic/ar5212.c?rev=1.40&c...
Not BSD, not GPL, then what? It's problem of Reyk Floeter.
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
The minimal requirements of the words of Reyk Floter are 2:
1) Copyright Notice: Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter
2) Permission: Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose ...
Reyk Floeter doesn't said the list of conditions and the disclaimer.
Then it's a problem of Reyk Floeter distributing it without conditions and disclaimer. He only did put permission notice.
(permission notice != list of conditions).
It's not BSD license.
It's not GPLv2 license.
But it can be compatible to be embedded in linux's kernel that has the GPLv2 license.
In BSD license appears: THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY ``AS IS'' AND ANY ...
But Reyk Floeter has said "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ..."
Thanks Reyk Floeter, there is "NO Copyright holder"!!!
It's a problem of Reyk Floeter don't license correctly.
Or can be that Reyk Floeter want not license its software.
Reyk Floeter created confusion to the community.
Reyk Floeter has not said the "list of conditions and the following disclaimer" to anyone that has this source code.
* Who is the author? Is Reyk Floeter? The license doesn't say it!
* Who is the copyright holder? Is Reyk Floeter? The license doesn't say it!
* Who can to disclaim ALL to anyone? The author! But, who's the author? Go to the above question.
* I'm one person that copies, uses, modifies and distributes this source code. This source code doesn't provide me the list of conditions nand the disclaimer message.
What are you talking about ?
What are you talking about ?
Copyright is automatic
Copyright is granted automatically regardless of a notice or not. You can not say that there is no copyright holder. However the above poster is correct in that the minimum requirement laid out does not need even contain the 'as is' clause, only the above listed copyright notice.
It would appear to someone who is not a lawyer that the permissions granted include the permission to relicense the copyrighted work as long as the original copyright notice is preserved. Personally though knowing the intent of the author that this would be a trick on par with the Microsoft/Novell deal. Do we now use the letter of the law to defend if the case were reversed an immoral action?
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005,
There is no list of condition, just the notice. And I'm quite confident that the disclaimer can successfully be argued to be part of the notice.
Only as long as the notice does not contain any conditions. If they do (as in this case) the notice are the conditions, and there's no rule that they have to be in the format of a list.
The above licence is legally identical (or very very close) to the 3 clause BSD licence, the only difference is that it does not explicitly state what is granted (to both licensees and licenser) by the Berne convention.
As for those few countries not following the Berne convection, well, they probably don't give a shit about licences anyway.
Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter
Gee, I wonder what that means.
Reyk Floeter notice != BSD license.
Reyk Floeter notice:
--------------------
BSD license:
------------
Reyk Floeter notice != BSD license. You can compare both line by line.
The BSD license says "... provided that the following conditions are met: 3 conditions and the second condition says to reproduce the following disclaimer".
The Reyk Floeter notice says "provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies" <--- no conditions! no disclaimer! no license!
The Reyk Floeter notice, or is uncorrectly licensed, or want not to license.
As I mentioned elsewhere,
As I mentioned elsewhere, the licences are equivalent in what they allow a person to do with a code, exept the none-endorsement clause. Any other additions in the 3 clause BSD-licence are covered by international copyright law and thus superfluous in the licence text.
Notice != License.
I'm agree. Notice != License.
The authors can put the notices in the source codes with referred license.
But if the authors put weird notices without recognized license or unexistent license then the authors aren't putting licenses in the distribution.
The author MUST TO put the his new redacted license in the distribution, e.g., COPYING, GPL, BSD, LICENSE, .... for that the licensees can read the distribution's licenses.
In the Reyk Floeter, he invented his own notice referring to unexistent license hidden in the forest that he want to disclaim through his notice without license explicitly indicated.
It IS the license
Traditionally (since more than 20 years) in lot of software projects each source file has its own license on top. Just like the one Reyk used. Reyk is using a 3-clause BSD license here. Most newer OpenBSD code uses ISC license which is even more permissive. But none of them allow removing/changing the copyright notice and conditions.
The single file/project COPYING etc. Is a recently NEW convention used when ALL of the project has the same license. Mainly since GPL text is so long that people do not want to paste 10 pages of license text into every source file.
So, you do not know what you are talking about.
This is NOT something NEW to free software developers. Perhaps it is the first time you see something like this, but a lot of projects still use this licensing format.
You are just trying to find loopholes that do not exist.
Perhaps you do not want to accept that what Linux developers did was a mistake. Well, it was a mistake, it was wrong. Accept it and move on. Learn how licenses and copyrights work, and do not make the same mistakes again.
The above licence is legally
Sorry, I'd like to amend that by pointing out that the 3 clause BSD licence does also contain a non-endorsement clause, which I'm not sure is covered by the Berne convention.
There must be a solution...
There must be a solution...
We must not forget that BSD and Linux are both free software operating system, and are both lovers of free open source software.
Cooperating provides a mutual benefit for both parties.
There is a solution
There is a solution:
OpenBSD , Theo and all its developers should go to a lawyer that knows software litigations and tell him in a "human readable language" what they want, then have the lawyer translate that in "legalese" so they can actually put up a (one) clear licence text.
- Not a licence text and various "notes" from each contributor to the OpenBSD codes (I want vanilla ice cream - oh and Mikey wants one too with chocolate chips on top - No... I don't want chips, I want peanuts on it .. ) For that all contributors must know the body of the licence and agree with it... if they can live with each other.- So none of us will go like: it's with chocolate chips! No, it does not say that: it is with peanuts!
Asshats the whole lot of you...
With the exception of very few persons here, each and every one of you on BOTH sides of the conversation are acting like total asshats.
BSD/Not BSD it doesn't matter, for lack of a proper name, it is a license one way or another.
We have a copyright statement, clear and simple yes?
We have the author giving his "permission" for XY and or Z
We have the author setting the terms for the above permissions.
The disclaimer is simply CYA.
So would the LinuxFanBoys shut up and suck it up. "Someone" screwed up somewhere and hopefully it will get sorted out.
As for the OpenBSDFanBoys trying to piss everyone off, two responsible people have stepped up to help sort this mess out.
and for god sakes stop being asshats!
/*
* Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter [email blocked]
*
* Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
* purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
* copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
*
* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
* WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
* MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
* ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
* WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
* ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
* OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
*/