On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
BTW, I didn't say anything the last time, but the above mail is a load of
horse-shit. Theo is pointing fingers and making claims that anyone capable of
independent thought can see aren't related to reality.
Quoted in full (my comments are in the curly-braces):
I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a
bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they
liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone.
Here it is (with a few more changes)
{Okay, this starts off good. Theo is going to make sure people understand what
is going on and what has happened. Perhaps he has realized things are
different from when he claimed that people were being advised to break the
law.}
-----
starting premise:
you can already use the code as it is
steps taken:
1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
- get told no, repeatedly
{Alright - not a problem here. Happens all the time}
2. climb over ethical fence
{Off the deep end already, but lets keep going...}
3. remove his license
- get caught, look a bit stupid
{Caught? Well, yeah. Caught by the Linux Kernel developers before it became a
real problem. This has been fixed, although the code still hasn't been added
to the core Kernel tree - and the current iteration still hasn't been offered
for review}
4. wrap his license with your own
- get caught, look really stupid
{Not done, although this was, apparently, suggested by the SFLC. Nice FUD
there, Theo.}
5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
- get caught, look even more stupid
{Not done. Again, nice FUD there}
Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of
evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what
will happen next. We wait, to see what will happen.
{Theo, embrace reality. It'll solve all kinds of problems. It's a simple fact
that reality has split from Theo's view of things between numbers 3 and 4.
What has happened is that the licenses have been maintained and the two
people that have been working on it for the Linux kernel has added their own
copyrights - covering the code they have added. If someone outside the Linux
Kernel development team has followed the above path then there is no reason
to doubt that they have created problems for themselves.}
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the
year 2047.
{While there are ways to handle the situation that don't involve lawsuits I
don't think this is the best solution. I don't know what avenues that Reyk
and the OpenBSD community have already tried, but from what I've been told
all that's been done is a "private" message to the MadWifi people that they
are violating a copyright. The rest has been flames and FUD on the Linux
Kernel ML - which solves nothing and just creates problems. Maybe if the
OpenBSD community slammed the MadWifi mailing lists over this instead of the
Linux Kernel ML the problem there would go away...}
I believe the truth. All the facts I have are derived from the mail exchanges
I've witnessed. If you disagree with the facts as I understand them say so -
don't just say that I'm "making myself believe them". If I've made a mistake
in judging the facts from available evidence then let me know - and provide a
reference that shows where I made the mistake. (ie: a public e-mai, etc...)
Anyway...
The facts I stated could be shown from the LKML archives, but I believed you'd
have seen the same posts I have - almost all the relevant posts were in
threads that were CC'd to at least one of the OpenBSD ML's.
I dissected the logic presented and pointed out how *ALL* the arguments that
have been presented so far have been either handled - either by being shown
to be false or in the most logical (and legal) manner possible. But instead
of the most expected answer - that is, attacks on the core Linux Kernel
developers - ie: those that discuss development and exchange patches on LKML
stopping - Theo continues to stir up the trouble by claiming that *ALL* Linux
Kernel developers are making a concentrated attempt to "steal" code.
That is sheer and utter bullshit. I've finished a quick look through the
Atheros code in the git repo that Theo pointed out and don't see how
his "Just an Adaptation" argument works - there is more than enough new stuff
in all the files for those portions to qualify for a new copyright.
(although, truthfully, I think it should say "Portions Copyright xxx" and not
just a blanket statement - that *MIGHT* be what Theo is referring to...)
If the people working on the MadWifi project (the first two links in Theo
posted) have violated Reyk's copyright, then go after them. Flame their
mailing list(s) and bug them. And yes, I have been told that they
were "Privately Approached" - but that isn't what has been done here. You,
Theo and every other person that has spammed and flamed LKML over it don't
seem to understand one simple fact: MadWifi != Linux Kernel
As I've stated before - I don't use MadWifi, won't do a Linux install that
uses it and I make sure to tell everyone that asks about it not to use it.
Why? Well, for one I have never trusted it to be clear of problems like this
one and the other reason is - If it's so good, why haven't the developers
attempted to get it in the kernel?
Now, as I've said, I have only done a quick comparison of the "wireless-dev"
git tree and the Atheros code found in src/sys/dev/ic/ in the OpenBSD CVS
tree. So far I am still a bit unsure as to whether there is enough new code
to qualify for a copyright (the dozens of misc. changes and code reformatting
creates a lot of noise) but so far I'm pretty certain that the added stuff
does, in general, qualify. (IANAL and I'm not going to even guess what a
random court might think is "enough" - but my personal thought about "enough"
is more than 30 lines of code)
DRH
--
Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.
-
