"What is going on whenever someone changes code is that they make a 'derivative work'," began Theodore Ts'o. "Whether or not you can even make a derivative work, and under what terms the derivative work can be licensed, is strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD license says: 'redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met....' Note the 'with or without modification'. This is what allows people to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes." Regarding code that is GPL'd, he added, "it is not a relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work which is under the more restrictive copyright."
Disagreement continued as to whether or not the BSD license allows the addition of new copyrights on unmodified or minimally modified code. Another disagreement was over the continued existence of improperly licensed files in developer source code repository histories from when BSD licensed files had been changed to the GPL, a problem since fixed. Jeff Garzik explained:
"In a purely open development environment, even personal developer trees are made public. That's the way we _want_ development to occur. Out in public, with a full audit trail. Your implied ideal scenario is tantamount to guaranteeing that mistakes are never committed to a public repository anywhere. Mistakes will happen. Even legal mistakes. In public.
"What you are seeing is an example of mistakes that were caught in review, and corrected. That's how any scalable review process works... the developer reviews his own work. the team reviews the developer's work. the maintainer reviews the team's work. the next maintainer reviews. and so on, to the top."
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 16, 5:12 pm 2007 On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... > > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or > in one of the licenses. > > Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings. > > If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments > (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses > tested before court). Hannah, What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a "derivative work". Whether or not you can even make a derivative work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD license says: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met.... Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, proprietary copyright. So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work which is under the more restrictive copyright. Now, the original copyright can say that you aren't allowed to do this; for example, the GPL says that you are not allowed to add any restrictions on the copyright license of any derived works of GPL'ed code. This is why some BSD partisans claim that their license is "more free"; the BSD license allows people to add more restrictive copyright license terms on derived works. OK, what about dual licensed works? The specific wording of the dual licensing is that you can use *either* license. That means, you can treat code as if only using the BSD license applied, or only if the GPL license applied. That is, the end-user can redistribute if either the conditions required by the BSD license *or* the GPL license applied. But we've already shown that the BSD license allows the creation of a derived work with a more restrictive license --- such as the GPL. But don't take my word for it; the Software Freedom Law Center has issued advice, pro bono, written by lawyers about how this can be done. If you want, feel free get your own lawyers and ask them to provide formal legal advice. > A difference is, GPL requires it under every circumstance. BSD does not, > indeed. But how should one expect it from *OSS* people that even *they* > don't give back? Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as > closed-source companies? The problem with your argument is that BSD folks have claimed that the BSD license is morally superior --- "more free than the GPL" --- because you don't have to "give back" (or more formally, create a derivitive work with a copyright license more restrictive than the BSD). If that is true, it is the absolute height of hypocrisy to suddenly start complaining when code is restricted via an another open source license such as the GPL, but not complain when NetApp uses BSD code to make million and millions of dollars without giving anything of substantial value back. At least in the case of GPL'ed code you still can look at the changes and decide how and whether you to reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources to WAFL, and claim that they have "moral" duty to give the code back, and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office? - Ted -
From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 17, 8:55 am 2007 On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote: > > >The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt > > >who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... > > > > JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the > > dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden > > by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's > > *explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or > > in one of the licenses. > > > > Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings. > > > > If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments > > (and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses > > tested before court). > > Hannah, > > What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a > "derivative work". Whether or not you can even make a derivative > work, and under what terms the derivitive work can be licensed, is > strictly up to the license of the original. For example, the BSD > license says: > > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions > are met.... > > Note the "with or without modification". This is what allows people > to change BSD licensed code and redistribute said changes. The > conditions specified by the BSD license do not mention anything about > licening terms --- just that if you meet these three conditions, you > are allowed to redistribute them. So for example, this is what allows > Network Appliances to take BSD code, change it, and add a restrictive, > proprietary copyright. > > So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can > create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more > restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where > no one is allowed to get binary unless they are a NetApp customer, or > source only after signing an NDA), or a GPL license. It is not a > relicencing, per se, since the original version of the file is still > available under the original copyright; it is only the derived work > which is under the more restrictive copyright. > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the BSD license those not hinder them in any way. Now comes the funny part, as the BSD code in NetApp is available from public sources -- for example from OpenBSD -- it is actually not covered by the NDA. NDAs can only cover information that is not publicly available -- you can only forbit disclosure of information that is secret in the first place. Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their code just because the used some of my code. -- :wq Claudio -
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 17, 9:34 am 2007 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their > copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported > BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal > departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the > BSD license those not hinder them in any way. Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are* putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications --- which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still allows you to see the source. > Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often > the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. > Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require > them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool > but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their > code just because the used some of my code. So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary license is better? - Ted -
From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 17, 3:23 pm 2007 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and > > especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their > > copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported > > BSD/ISC code. That would be against the law and I hope their leagal > > departement is smart enough to not do this mistake especially because the > > BSD license those not hinder them in any way. > > Yes, NDA doesn't have anything to do with license and copyrights, and > I never said that NetApp is modfying a copyright; but they *are* > putting a proprietary copyright license on their modifications --- > which is exactly what the Linux wireless developers had proposed to do > (modulo mistakes about removing copyright notices and attribution > which have already been acknowledged and fixed), except instead of > using a proprietary license which means you'll never see the WAFL > sources (at least without signing an NDA and acknowledging their > proprietary copyright license over their changes), it will be under a > GPL license with which you have philosophical differences, but still > allows you to see the source. > You assume a lot about what NetApp did. While they can use BSD licensed code in their system without any issue they can not slam a new copyright on that code unless the changes create a derivative work. If you just do an adaption of the code you have no right to add an additional copyright. You need to make substantial extensions to the original work. Now adapting code to make it run under linux is in my opinion not a substantial work. It can be compared to translate a book to a different language -- which neither allows you to assign copyright on the result. I very much doubt that WAFL is a simple adaption of UFS/FFS. So it should be clear that this work has it's own copyright. Maybe some parts of their code is using BSD work that they just adapted. On that code they can not add an additional copyright as the modifications are not substantial enough. > > Finally most companies know they benefit from open source and give often > > the code changes most likely bugfixes to this imported code back. > > Unlike most GPL people we're happy with that especially we do not require > > them to release any of their own code. Sure their WAFL file system is cool > > but even in my wildest dreams I would not require them to publish their > > code just because the used some of my code. > > So why are you complaining when people want to use some of your code > and put the combined work under a mixed BSD/GPL license? You can't > use WAFL; you can't use the GPL'ed enhancements. What's the > difference between those two cases? Somehow a mixed BSD/Proprietary > license is better? > Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil" companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright. -- :wq Claudio -
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 17, 4:43 pm 2007 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote: > Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely > modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code > and by doing that creating something new I would not say much. Number 1, some of the Linux wireless developers screwed up earlier versions. No denying that, the problems were pointed out during the patch reviewed problem, AND THEY WERE FIXED. Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the HAL --- if people would only take a look at http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/n... And yet, the BSD folks seem to continue to nurse the above mantra (which was true, but quickly corrected) combined with the "and the Linux folks aren't listening", which is manifestly not true. We might not agree with everything you are saying, and we might think you're being highly hypocritical, but we are listening. > All the comercial code I have ever seen did not do this stunt of adding a > new copyright and license to barely modified files. Perhaps the "evil" > companies have more ethics or better understanding of copyright. In the original BSD 4.3 code, if I recall correctly, /bin/true was 12 lines of AT&T copyright and the standard "this is proprietary non-published trade secret" legalease with the standard threats of bazillions and bazillions of damage due to AT&T's irreparable harm if the file was ever disclosed.... followed by "exit 0". :-) Personally, I find that issues of copyright are much more easily discussed if people keep a sense of balance and humor. - Ted -
From: Henning Brauer <henning@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 18, 5:00 am 2007 * Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> [2007-09-17 23:04]: > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > HAL if that is true and stays that way - excellenty! -- Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam -
From: Marco Peereboom <slash@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 18, 7:29 am 2007 Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would be good. On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:00:13AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> [2007-09-17 23:04]: > > Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which > > have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD > > license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the > > HAL > > if that is true and stays that way - excellenty! > > -- > Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org > BS Web Services, http://bsws.de > Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services > Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam > -
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 18, 8:56 am 2007 On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would > be good. It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_ _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so they should have their names listed in the headers. In other words, all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two lines: > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. - Ted P.S. And yes, before those two lines is: > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org> and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice. -
From: Marco Peereboom <slash@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 18, 1:15 pm 2007 On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote: > > Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would > > be good. > > It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which > Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the > *BSD zombies to start attacking without actually _checking_ _for_ > _themselves_ is whether or not Jiri and Nick did enough to work so > they should have their names listed in the headers. In other words, > all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two > lines: > > > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com> > > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> Its simple; this is illegal. Those two fruitcakes didn't do jack and can therefore not claim copyright. Would be the same as me taking the linux kernel and adding myself to each file. I am pretty sure some people would be up in arms about that. > > Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16 > years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD. I don't make the laws and I did not break any so you call it whatever you like. > > - Ted > > P.S. And yes, before those two lines is: > > > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org> So what? you don't get a cookie for abiding the law. > > and after those two lines is the BSD permission notice. Where it belongs. Again you don't get a cookie for doing what you are supposed to do. Just like you don't get a cookie for taking care of your kids; you're supposed to do that. -
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 17, 7:47 pm 2007 On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: > The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough > original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. > > I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. > > The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the > lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is > dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the > developers. OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off", and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about "theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri: > * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org> > * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com> > * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> > [snip rest of BSD license] It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not like anything won't be "given back". Whether or not they have made enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may differ from one jurisdiction to another --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later --- does it really make a difference? Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit than they deserve? Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is given proper credit, right? - Ted -
From: Can E. Acar <can.acar@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 18, 2:55 pm 2007 Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote: >> The only remaining issue is whether Nick & Jiri have enough >> original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright. >> >> I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri. >> >> The main reason of Theo's message, linked earlier, was the >> lack of response on this issue. It seems that the SFLC is >> dismissing this issue, and thus stalling its resolution by the >> developers. > > OK, so all of this flaming, and digging up of "licenses ripped off", > and chaff thrown up in the air, and moaning and bewailing about > "theft", is now down to these two lines regarding Nick and Jiri: Yes, quite an improvement, considering how it all started, dont you think? Pity it took so much pushing and dragging to get people to do the right thing. There is just one little step to go. It is can not be that hard, can it? >> * Copyright (c) 2004-2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org> >> * Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis <mickflemm@gmail.com> >> * Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> >> [snip rest of BSD license] > > It's under a BSD license; what material difference does those two > lines make, for goodness sake? It's under a BSD license, so it's not > like anything won't be "given back". As a programmer, you sure would know what difference any "two lines" would make on your program. When it comes to law, you seem to lose that intuition. > Whether or not they have made > enough for changes is really a question for the lawyers, and may > differ from one jurisdiction to another > --- but whether or not they have now, or maybe will not make until later --- Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except* these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they sure can add their names. What is so difficult to understand here? I have seen some academic papers, where the first author did all the work, the second author is the professor who funded the work, and the remaining five "authors" are just coming along for a ride. You know what the difference is? The original author *allows* them to put their names as authors. Here, you are adding names, and say "why not". It is both unethical and illegal. > does it really make a > difference? Who gets hurt if someone gets they get a bit more credit > than they deserve? Certainly the most important thing is that Reyk is > given proper credit, right? As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask. If, at the beginning, Nick and Jiri, and others asked Reyk to be included in the Copyright for the adaptation work they did on the HAL. I do not believe he would have refused. I can not talk for him, but things would be have been resolved in a much nicer and positive way. Instead they chose to push Reyk for months to dual license his code, then attempted to change the whole license. Even now, when there is just a small issue left, people are still dragging and resisting. I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once such a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place) some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they are doing is wrong. Right from the start. I now see this is not how things work around here. Senior developers are either too busy or reluctant to get their hands dirty. In OpenBSD, (which, I accept is a much smaller community) when one developer does something wrong, the clue stick is there to be used by one of the more experienced developers. Which means, issues are resolved quickly and with much less pain. Can -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. -
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...> Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom Date: Sep 18, 3:37 pm 2007 Can E. Acar wrote: > As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the > copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask. Additional work went in, thus additional copyrights were added. > I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once > such a patch is suggested (let alone being committed to some public place) In a purely open development environment, even personal developer trees are made public. That's the way we _want_ development to occur. Out in public, with a full audit trail. Your implied ideal scenario is tantamount to guaranteeing that mistakes are never committed to a public repository anywhere. Mistakes will happen. Even legal mistakes. In public. > some senior/respected/responsible Linux person would tell them what they > are doing is wrong. Right from the start. What you are seeing is an example of mistakes that were caught in review, and corrected. That's how any scalable review process works... the developer reviews his own work. the team reviews the developer's work. the maintainer reviews the team's work. the next maintainer reviews. and so on, to the top. Jeff -
An example taking this further:
Let's take this a step further. Suppose an improperly attributed file made it into the public record somehow, say due to a court case. That file is now a permanent, indelible mark in the public record. Is it incorrectly licensed? Yes. Does it set the mistake in stone? Well, it sets evidence of the mistake in stone. It doesn't give anyone any rights though. It's merely a record.
Same is true for change tracking in a source code repository. It's not a sanctioned release with vetted legal information. It's evidence of the path taken to the current version, including mistakes made and mistakes corrected. It's an audit trail!
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
Whoa, try to tell that the
Whoa, try to tell that the rabid OpenBSD-zombie-trolls.
At odds with reality
this is pure idiocy. The derived work cannot have its copyright reassigned or the license changed by anyone but the copyright holder, except in the very specific case of dual licensing, where the copyright holder grants permission to relicense -- but not to reassign copyright.
When a BSD work is combined with GPL work, the entire work can then be distributed under the GPL, but that is only because the BSD license does not impose any restrictions that the GPL does not. This is the characteristic that is known as "GPL-compatibility". Distributing the combined work under the GPL does not suddenly cause the BSD-licensed component to become relicensed to GPL, or to become a derived work of the GPL code. It is still BSD-licensed.
It is only because of this notion of GPL-compatibility that BSD code can be distributed as a combined work with GPL code in the first place. Some people misunderstand GPL-compatibility and assume that because some code has a license compatible with the GPL, that means the code can be relicensed as GPL -- false. It means nothing more than distribution of that code in combination with a GPL work is not a violation of the GPL.
More restrictive *copyright*
Once more, with emphasis:
The reference to "more restrictive" referred to the copyright. The original file had one copyright holder. The derived work had multiple copyright holders. To do something with the original file (such as relicense it, for instance), you only need to ask one copyright holder. To do the same thing with the derived work, you have to get all the copyright holders to agree.
That is what's meant by "more restrictive" in this context. The original code under the original copyright is available under the original copyright holders' restrictions. Only the new code (with more copyright holders) is beholden to tighter restrictions, because more people have copyrights to the code, and therefore the final license for the combined work is the intersection of all copyright holders' wishes. Because that intersection is non-empty, the licenses are said to be compatible.
For instance, Linus cannot relicense the kernel under GPL 3 by himself. He needs to get all the copyright holders to agree, or replace the portions written by those who don't agree. Some have agreed ahead of time by submitting their work as "GPL 2 or later," but most went with the default license of "GPL 2 only." Sure, you can extract the "GPL 2 or later" bits and use them in a GPL 3-only app. You can't do the same with the whole of Linux though. It's very, very restrictive given the number of authors. If Linus had written it all himself, he could relicense it all day long with no restrictions. If he'd coauthored it with a couple other people, the bar is a little higher, but nowhere near where it is today with 1000s of contributors.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
This guy can't read properly or what?
Ummm, what's wrong with the guy who sent this email?
'redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met....
dot dot dot dot? Where's the rest!? He obviously skipped what the BSD license continues to say and clearly, clarify his mis-understanding or lack of basic reading comprehension.
Next time, he should write it properly rather than like a Linux developer who commits plagiarism! *cough*, Jiri, etc., *cough*: >=)
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: (note the 'source and binary form')
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. (note this whole paragraph).
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. (what do you know...!? it was somehow missed... dot dot dot dot....)
* Neither the name of the $ORGANIZATION nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
Before emailing nonsense, he could have had the intellect to at least take the 5 seconds to read it properly:
www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
What a moron... dot dot dot - it really can't be any clearer! It's stupid to be so stupid!
"Use the source, Luke!"
AFAICT, providing the source with the binaries is sufficient for giving the copyright notice, since it's part of the "other materials provided with the distribution."
Since the GPL requires you to make the source available when you distribute the binary, as long as you leave the copyright info in the source, you're covered. Just because someone only downloads part of the distribution (e.g. only grabs the binaries and doesn't grab the source) doesn't mean you didn't make it available to them as part of the distribution.
"You can lead a horse to water . . ."
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
Huh?
I'm not clear on what you mean or what the GPL has to do with the BSDL? Two completely different licenses - the BSD license is free'er than the GPL license you can say.
The BSD code can be put into binary-only form and no source or external copyright notice (which is 100% allowed and implied) but regardless of how it's done, the BSD notice has to always be included in the source or binary file(s) (visible or not) - the Linux people on the other hand removed this notice wrongfully thinking they can shove the restrictive GPL down everyone's throat, lock out the BSD people from their own work and them to top that off, take 100% credit for it all (which is now fixed though). That's what started it all...
GPL on the other hand works way differently in terms of COPYRIGHT notice than the BSD License.
Erm...
Then explain to me this part of the license that was quoted by the person I responded to: "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."
I was making the point that BSD license reproduction requirement for a binary redistribution of dual-licensed GPL/BSD code is satisfied by the GPL's source redistribution requirement as long as the message is in the source. No additional reproduction of the license is necessary elsewhere.
Nothing more, nothing less.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
-
Reproduced as in where it was originally, in other words, it cannot (should not) be removed. Nothing more, nothing less - I don't know of any other FOSS as free as anything that's BSD licensed. :-)
There's sometning even more free than BSD
Public domain. :-)
I'm free to take anything in the public domain and do anything I want with it. I don't have to worry about someone whining about licenses. Can't say that about BSD or GPL.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
>Public domain. :-) Public
>Public domain. :-)
Public domain isn't available in many countries, you have to mention the original author and you cannot sell your copyright. It's possible to grant certain rights, e.g. in Germany.
It's certainly possible to get pretty close, though
You can "hereby grant all parties to use this code for any purpose with no restrictions whatsoever." I imagine that's effectively equivalent to public domain.
Plus, I find it somewhat difficult to believe there isn't at least some notion of public domain. Who manages the copyrights on Wagner's works?
---
Edit: Berlin was a signatory to the Berne Convention as of 1908. According to Wikipedia:
So, there is a notion of a work without a copyright (Public Domain), and it's possible under the Berne Convention for an author to disclaim rights.
--
Program Intellivision and play Space Patrol!
Not available??
> Public domain isn't available in many countries [...] e.g. in Germany.
How would a German (or anyone else in one of these countries) go about publishing the works of Socrates, Aristotle, Euclid, then? Perform Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven? In fact, what happens after any copyright holder dies if copyright is non-transferrable? If the author neglects to give all rights away before their untimely demise (look at the tragedy of Sonny Bono for instance) what happens to their "IP"? It's buried with them forevermore? What if they have no heirs?
A quick Google search implies your statement is not true.
http://imslp.org/wiki/Public_domain believes that, among other things, in Germany:
This is great news
While this is certainly what I THOUGHT was true all along, recent postings made it seem like BSD was trying to pull a fast one. So... we all know now, that it is perfectly safe and acceptable to use BSD licensed code inside of GPL code and the resulting code base can fall under the GPL.
duh
There was never any doubt that you could use BSD code in GPL stuff. The thing that people seemed confused over is the fact that including BSD code in a GPL project doesn't relicense the BSD code to GPL. The BSD code is still under BSD licensing, while the rest is GPL.
This issue has been largely resolved, the current issue is the fact that people are claiming copyright on work that is not significant enough to merit such a claim.
>the current issue is the
>the current issue is the fact that people are claiming copyright on work that is not significant enough to merit such a claim.
The fact is, if it is the part which makes the drivers really free, then it IS essential! Furthermore the author lives in Germany and Germany copyright law is very different from northern American copyright law.
The two people in question
The two people in question are NOT claiming copyright over the entire work - however, they do have copyright over THEIR CHANGES to the work - because they have *NOT* transferred those rights to Reyk or any other entity. Therefore, their names *MUST* appear in the copyright notice! Otherwise, if someone comes along later, they may believe that Reyk is the only person with copyright - and this is simply not the case anymore!
complaining about patches in history?
blah blah blah blah...
>continued existence of improperly licensed files in developer source code repository histories
Why complain about that? In principle the repository should be immutable. If people have a habit of removing code without a request from the copyright owner or else a court order, how will version control information even be acceptable in court? The opponent's lawyer will say "you can't trust what's in their repository - they make evidence disappear at will".
DUH?
Let's be reasonable.
The BSD license has two goals:
1) Make sure the authors get CREDIT for their work
2) Make sure the authors won't get SUED if damages occur from use of their work.
GPL ensured those rights and as long as the names of the original authors are properly mentioned in the file, it's OK. (on the other hand, shouldn't Zippel be credited in the new Fair Scheduler?).
Now there is the other issue. Improvements being placed back in the OpenBSD driver. I believe the _fair_ thing is either:
1) For major changes, linux developers work on the OpenBSD codebase and then pull the changes into the linux tree.
2) For smaller changes, they work on the linux tree but then take the time to send patches to the OpenBSD tree.
That would be fair indeed.
Copyright law and licensing is not that hard to understand
I find it amazing there are so many varying views on how copyright law and licensing of copyrighted material works. It's really not that difficult to understand.
When you license code under the BSD, that original code will always be licensed under the BSD. I'm pretty sure that no court of law would agree that if you removed the copyright notice, that the license suddenly becomes void. The copyright notice shows intent, and if you try to disagree with that intent then copyright law says you have no rights to the code at all.
Normally, when you modify code you must get permission from the copyright holders of the original code before you can distribute the modified work. You'll either have to sign a contract which states the terms and conditions under which you can distribute the modified work, or if the original code came with a license you have to abide by the terms of that license.
So...the BSD license says that you can modify and redistribute the code provided the original copyright notice remains intact (among other terms). Note that the copyright notice applies to the ORIGINAL CODE only--the BSD license does not say that you have to license the modifications under the same terms. Also note that because the original copyright notice cannot be removed, anyone who received a copy of the modified code would be able to use the original code under the BSD terms (just as if they'd gotten a copy of the original code from another source). But the modified code might be licensed under different terms (or it may simply be "All Rights Reserved", the default).
So the point is that the original code is effectively licensed under the BSD forever. You may not be able to get hold of the original code from any given individual or company that chooses to distribute the original or modified work. But once you do get hold of it, the original code is available under BSD terms. This would be true even if someone distributed a modified work licensed under the GPL, or dual-licensed under the BSD and GPL. You can't negate the license attached to the original work unless that license explicitly says you can. The BSD license doesn't say you can (the fact that it says the copyright notice containing the BSD license must remain intact would be evidence that the intention is NOT to permit relicensing of the original code).
In summary, then, the BSD license permits a modified work AS A WHOLE to be distributed under any license. But the original code will always be available under BSD terms. That is why BSD code has found its way into proprietary products like Microsoft Windows, which is distributed under a very restrictive EULA; as well as found its way into GPL-licensed works. The BSD license is worded in such a way as to allow this, while not permitting the original code to be "co-opted" by the license that is applied to the modified work as a whole.
Yeech, does nobody in this discussion learn *any* copyright law?
To correct a *gross* inaccuracy in one of the above-quoted emails, a translation into another language *is* a derived work, and *does* get its own copyright. In fact, it's the *canonical* example of a derived work in the copyright law.