In case you don't follow -current commits, http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=117579052530442&w=2 bcw(4) is gone
if someone is still reading the thread... 1. marcus makes mistake 2. michael tells the world 3. theo plays theater 1. it's not rocket science not to commit gpl licensed code into the public cvs tree under a bsd license and let it sit there for months. esp. with the openbsd kind of draconian license audits. it's not rocket science, and thus it's hard for linux people to believe it was not intentional, but again, its obviousness is the proof it couldn't have been intentional. pray, who wouldn't have noticed the gpl code in there? 2. let's stop for a moment, and think why michael would make a mistake like this, again, it's not rocket science, it was a mistake. let's play the associations game. i say "openbsd developer" you say the first three things that come into your mind. ready? go. mine were: "theo", "arrogant", and "difficult". now let me state publicly after my fair share of flame wars on misc@ that i do not believe on any day, that all openbsd devs are like this. not even the majority. maybe no one is like that these days... but the thing is, that these are some of the attributes openbsd got associated with in the past, a stigma. so i wouldn't be surprised if michael just skipped the first step of the rules of engagement and called in the heavy artillery right away. it's not that far fetched, do you work in big company? the first thing you learn is to cc: all the managers if you want to get something done for real. so he did. at this point there could have been a nice and easy solution if markus just explained publicly what he did. 3. theo's repeated (to the point of "shut up, already!", which he uses so frequently) cries for empathy, downplaying marcus's mistake and at the same time enlarging michael's is the most postmodern literature i have read this year. it's absurd. imagine theo with tears in his eyes calling for empathy because one of his developers has made a mistake and he's still managing to insult people in the process! just brilliant. ...
lalalala
Is it funny? Fuck off!!! lalalala
it is not funny but all this GPL discussion and speculations will not bring it back. reyk
Marcus Glocker, mglocker@openbsd.org, knows a big deal about wireless LANs. He has been involved in many of our wirelesss driver, he has also written applications for wireless applications like rtunes. He wrote the nostromo webserver. He is certainly the person who knows how to write original code. When it comes to bcw, a piece of hardware for that no documentation exists, he decided to use the docs the linux folks have. He began a rewrite of a bcw driver, inspired by the work of the linux folks. His driver was not working yet, to give him a headstart, he used some code of the linux folks with the clear intent to replace it with his own. Just to make sure this shit works. To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs. The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus, claiming license violations. Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver from the OpenBSD cvs tree. Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users. Thank you, Linux BCW developers!
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:29:52 +0200, "Marc Balmer" <mbalmer@openbsd.org> When I read Michael Buesch's original e-mail, I figured this out. He was probably just using it for testing purposes. I do not call myself a programmer. I just know enough scripting to get A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository of code for anyone to use. So no code was released hence no <AntiLinuxRant> Forget it. I was annoyed by the "GPL" Nazis and was going to write a long diatribe, but what's the point. I would either be preaching to the choir or just ignored as another one of those people who "just don't get it". </AntiLinuxRant>
actually, although the above is clearly meant in the sense if irony. I take it literally and agree with it. didn't cry a single tear about the adaptec shit either. my laptop has some silly 3com softmodem, which is not supported and I don't care that much. yes it would be more convenient to have it working but I still have enough serial (not even pcmcia) modems to carry around in case I need a modem which work better anyway. in the whole thread on gmane there is the sentence "I am going to take my toys and go home" is an immature, childish response to an adult problem. in this case I don't think so. why the fuck should I buy some trash from nvidia, adaptec, broadcom and spend have people spending lifeblood on doing the work of those when I can get stuff from amd,lsi,ralink ? public market is not a democratic republic. the only vote there is the vote of the feet. so people, don't buy and don't use trash dispose it properly and there will be less trash on the market. ( the sentece wasn't meant or used in this way in ther original thread, but the above is what came to my mind when I read it. in the original meaning it was referring to the deletion of the driver from the tree. I don't see this childish though. If we play we play for fun and not for profit. when the fun is gone there is no reason to keep playing unless one draws pleasure from the pain or fun is not the reason to play. ) apart from that Michael Buesch obviously doesn't have the balls to admit when he's wrong. like theo said, one pm would've been enough. I can understand that and why he didn't do that and sent out the mail to many, obviously he believed there was theft there and looking at the situation he had some reason to believe that. but at least later on he could've admitted that it was the wrong thing to do, that what he saw was not somebody intentionally stealing something from them but somebody putting things where they don't belong without realising and considering the consequeces of hi...
I don't believe Michael's initial intention was to have this happen, but the nature of his first email made it almost guaranteed. For Marcus to delete the driver is absolutely understandable, and I imagine I would have done the same. It's very sad to see people supposedly on the same side fighting instead of helping each other. It's worth remembering that initial words on a topic have a lot to do with how it turns out in the end. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG dwchandler@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
and info why here, http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1558/
With apologies to everyone for off-color language... What a bunch of douches.
I think it is sad, and a horrible representation of GPL coders. Michael doesn't speak for all of us, and it is clear to anyone with common sense that the first thing you do is contact in private.
And this make it even worst: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38746 All good work and good faith to come with better end results is wrongfully drag into mud. I read all the thread and this makes me sick! It only makes me more sick with anything carrying GPL, Linux, and Broadcom names on it. Even the part of the discussion about relicensing code so that they can include it in their GPL because Linus refuse BSD code was a twisted angle to try to justify their actions. This makes me sick! I guess all the Microsoft of the world that can't compete on good, secure and clean code got an other win today as they can't beat the good guys at their own game, well no need let them destroy each others so we win anyway in the end. A great day for the Open Source community I tell you. This makes me so sick that I can't even come up with words to describe it properly, so I will not try! Where is the Open Community is going these days...
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:25:53 -0400, "Daniel Ouellet" They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make? Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well? They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?
Speaking as someone who has read more of the gnu.org and fsf.org Web sites and (probably) listened to Richard Stallman speeches than most of the OpenBSD user community: Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price. What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without allowing access to the source code. The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released under the GPL. (It is worth noting that even Richard Stallman himself understands that the GPL and LGPL are not always the best choices. One example of this: <http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/000005.html>) -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>
Sounds like 1984 newspeak to me. Greg
"I'm not kicking you in the balls, I'm just rapidly moving my foot in the general direciton of your crotch." However. This is an OpenBSD mailing list and we have our licenses pretty much figured out, so if you want to discuss GPL, please do it where someone actually cares. //art
Shawn K. Quinn wrote: Not exactly. The copyright owner can sell it for any price they want and doesn't have to give their code away in any way. They can also sell it as a binary+source. Their pick, full power to the original author. Now the moment that somebody else gets the code they can either: - sell it on in giving away source+binary - give it away to everybody they want What the non-copyright owner can't do though is share the binaries with others. When one shares the binary one also has to share the source and all the changes made. As long as the non-copyright owner keeps the source and keeps the binary they don't have to distribute either. The moment they sell/pass it on though, eg a linksys box, they must give it away. This portion limits "commercial usage" as anybody who wants to extend it to make it do what they want, taking just a simple basis and adding a load of options to it, they still have to provide also the source when they pass on the binary to the third party. For me that is unacceptable. I either give my code away for everybody to peruse or I keep it locked up in a closet. GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects. For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;) Tip for coders: Start a lousy little project that many people will like, then release it as GPL, then if lucky people will use it and give you patches, now you can sell it back to them ;) Okay, that stops at the moment you have other people's code in there which you can't That is simply dual-licensing, something different altogether ;) See above for a nasty trick there though. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL and generic copyright work. * Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company) * Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright violation. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
[set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it] Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code) and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text... PS: Please realize that some people want a different kind of freedom than that other people want, respect that: take your pick, go GPL or BSD, but don't try to force your religion on other people. You might end up getting Jehova's witnesses on your neck ;) Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
[correct the subject] ;) What you also said is actually fully irrelevant, since I'm correcting one phrase which has TWO incorrect things, one of them a copyright Please realize that I didn't raise that issue, *you* did. I merely focused on two quite simple technical details which you failed to understand: one of the GPL and another of copyright law. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Again, re-read what I wrote. Don't try to mingle my words as I never wrote that, it was in one sentence yes, but the rest of the sentences told a completely different story. Good that I PGP sign my messages so that it is clear that I didn't write what you think I wrote by stripping out the portions that also matter and that without those portions the message is not mine. Greets, Jeroen [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Now that the subject is accurate, it's more obvious than ever that this discussion doesn't belong here. Not only is it not relevant, but it's been discussed to death many times, in many places. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG dwchandler@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Clearly not to death and people here are seriously interested in pro and contra arguments. +++chefren p.s. GPLvX is BSD with DRM, GPLvX people try to rule after "giving" it away, new GPL versions are "needed" because the idea behind it is flawed, GPLvX people believe it can be fixed, BSD people know it's technically beyond repair since the first version.
People are interested in discussing a lot things but that doesn't mean those discussions belong on misc@. --- Lars Hansson
Hey, if you young folks still have all that typing power in your fingers, please bang on the code for BSD some more! -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. jwoehr@absolute-performance.com 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Or "finish" a few GPL projects. Or BSD projects. Or proactively audit some code. Or or or... There is lots of work that can be done to make the world better. Encouraging the various choirs to preach at each other is unlikely to change any minds, nor is it going to make the world better. Nick.
Just because you're still flogging a horse doesn't mean it's not dead. BSD v. GPL is easy to understand: If you want to give your code away for whatever purpose, use BSD. If you want to enforce your view of "correct" on anyone using your code, use GPL. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG dwchandler@stilyagin.com | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation
Why isn't there some zealot out there who recodes gpl stuff into
Because preaching takes much less energy than sitting for long hours at a computer and figuring out why a piece of code is refusing to work. I myself coded some GPL software and released it, the biggest one is 25% of the Links browser which is included in the OpenBSD packages. It's not clear to me what's better, GPL or BSD. I don't care. Personally I always choose GPL for software projects and GFDL for hardware projects. Due to law, hardware is de facto always released under a BSD style licence. I didn't have any problem with the fact that my hardware is under BSD. Neither had I problem with my software being released under GPL. CL<
This is gradually being done. But coding replacements for all that GPL code takes time (and talent). I'm drinking milk, and one day I'll be able to code well enough to add my poor skills to the talent pool doing
I think you are misinterpreting "commercial" to imply "proprietary". It does not: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial> -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>
Hi there, On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote: The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free" as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it "unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!". In my opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free", no matter what the possible actions are. This ain't the case with BSD code. /You/ may do as you like with the code, but this doesn't make the code "free", it just liberates your actions. BSD code is not "free" code as such. It just implies "free" actions. It's just a You don't have to accept GPL contributions to your own codebase if you want to dual license. Their code contributions, your choice. As easy as that. It's all about respect. Respect their copyright or drop it. Easy, simple, fair. In fact, GPL projects offer more incentives of contributing that BSD projects. Someone wanting to contribute to a BSD project has to give up all control of their contribution. Not everybody is willing to follow down that road. The GPL at least makes sure that nobody can legally exploit a contribution without making it available to the users so that they can profit too. This is a much more valuable incentive to participate. If you /really/ want to include GPL contributions in your codebase in dual licensing schemes, you'll have to ask for permission of the copyright owner of that contribution. This is the most natural thing in the world. This whole bcw(4) discussion turned out to be a "Those GNU/Linux/GPL fanatics don't allow us to be even more free than they claim to be!" cryout. The funny thing is that it comes down to an OpenBSD contributor who didn't respect the copyright of some other party by redistributing GPL code without the GPL license through a public CVS repository. It's amazing how a community that should actually take a defensive position in a matter like this switches into attack mode and makes ...
I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that the mailing list where you chose to air this opinion is for you, so could you please air your concerns somewhere where people actually care? Thank you. //art
Don't believe RMSs FUD. You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD licensed code is still there. Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree. Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and everyone to use. That is free. The code they added to it is not free, but the BSD licensed code is. The GPL is not about releasing free code, its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL should not be labeled "free" in the first place. Adam
Hi there, Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code, his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that. Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes make the free software work on the device in the first place, the software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore, then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed software. Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth, that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL. You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any devices that have been delivered with software based on free software and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty cle...
Bullshit. Code will remain free. A newer version can be closed but code that has been published under the BSD/ISC license is free forever. Just like code published under the GPL license will remain un-free No it doesn't force anyone to do anything. People/companies CHOOSE to free up code because it's the shit these days. I can promise you that The only good use so for of the GPL is java. Sun gets to pretend to put "free" code out there and it is completely protected by the GPL. It will never take any patches from the community; it simply wants to retain full control. The joke is on GPL since it protects the companies it It is because you do not understand the definition of free. Let me quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com: * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc. * able to do something at will * exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc. * given without consideration of a return or reward * not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc. Those are some of the entries. The GPL is 100% NOT compatible with the word free. That's why people who can read call the GPL monkeys morons. GPL is as free as communism.
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500 Please add this to fortune! -- Massimo.run(); She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by wrong. -- Mae West
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200 [ ] -- you read about and understood what communism is (both of you) [X] -- I replied that late because I was busy laughing after Marco's post [X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)
[X] marco is a communist
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:08:44 +0200 no; if so, he's as good as communist as George W. Bush as president.
WTF! What the hell does GPL, communism or GWB have to do with OpenBSD? Let this thread die. -ME
/me agrees. This is a list about OpenBSD. Discussion about the GPL *may* have its place, but *please* don't interject politics into the discussion. I dislike the GPL, but calling it communism is useless.
Have you actually read that piece of text?? Have you tried submitting patches to them? You are just being prejudist. Please don't say things you "think", say things that are proven fact. *snip* Glenn
Is that a fact? Or just your opinion? I think it's a discussion that doesn't belong on this mailing list. //art
Phew, what a load of animosity. I really hope humanity still has a chance. Now, regarding the bcw issue, let's leave this thread to die. Mistakes are meant to be forgiven, and life to be lived forwards =) -- An OpenBSD user... and that's all you need to know =)
Any license at all is a release from the total copyright held by any The GPL 'gives' to the comunity in consideration of getting back Any licence short of releasing to public domain imposes _some_ restrictions. There are just fewer in BSD compared with GPLv2 and fewer in GPLv2 than in the proposed GPLv3. Doug.
Hi there, Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous. Tobias
I dunno, who does RMS think he is imposing his definition of free on me? --- Lars Hansson
No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free. The english language has had the word for a long time, and its meanings are quite clear. None of those meanings include being restricted. Its not a matter of perception or perspective, you can't just pretend words meaning other things and expect everyone to go along. GPL your code all you want, just stop claiming it has anything to do with freedom. Adam
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:15:36 -0400 1984. Newspeak. Slavery (GPL) is freedom. ;) timo
Then obviously your definition of what freedom means from the perspective of software developers and users doesn't agree with this community's. Why don't you carry on your views in a forum more appreciative of that opinion instead of trying to sell it here? http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html DS
Oh this *is* the best argument I have ever heard from a GPL ding dong. My perception of the word cat is no longer a furry animal that meows. I perceive a cat like most people perceive the color green when not color blind. bravo sir! Intellectual point made.
Unfuckingbelievable. Is there something in the GPL water that messes with its fans' brains and twists their realities??? Greg
The real hypocrisy is this: GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from stealing their freedom. These are the same people who have no problem giving up their freedoms (in the form of NDA's, closed-source kernel modules, etc) to the companies they're trying to fight. -- Jason Dixon DixonGroup Consulting http://www.dixongroup.net
True free software movement supporters will not sign an agreement not to help their neighbor such as an NDA. Some in the open source movement have no trouble accepting a binary only driver, or specifications under NDA, or what have you, for convenience. That's what open source is about: convenience, not freedom for its own sake. This is exactly why it is important to make a distinction between the free software movement and the open source movement and not lump the two together. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>
Exactly. And it's a distinction that must be made again and again and again.
Yeah, when I first heard about the GPL way back when I primarily used Linux I thought it was the coolest idea on the planet. After switching to OpenBSD for other reasons I finally realized that it was the most selfish idea on the planet. And that's not even getting into the hypocrisy of selling out to closed companies, those same evil companies that the GPL claims to be trying to protect us from. Greg
To ignore the possibility that it was an honest mistake is part of the problem. I won't claim to know what Marcus Glocker was thinking, but it seems quite plausible that he had every intention of removing the infringing code prior to making the bcw(4) work public, but in the excitement of some initial positive results, he simply forgot. Either way, he admitted that a mistake had been made. The reason (as I see it - again, I won't speak for anyone else) that the OpenBSD community came down so hard on the bcm43xx dev is due to the way he pursued the issue. There was absolutely no good reason to initially address the issue on a public mailing list and CC'd to a bunch of other people. If the initial mail had been sent privately to Marcus, then he could/would have removed the infringing code (or perhaps the entire driver temporarily). He could have then issued a public statement on *why* he did it (which would have satisfied the need to have it out in public that some of the code wasn't actually BSD licensed). Had it happened that way, everybody wins, and we don't have all of this fuss over it. RW
Hi there, That statement also is a matter of perspective. ;-) If you mean by "freedom", the liberty to do whatever you want, then BSD is freedom. If you mean by "freedom", the security that users have the same rights with the code tomorrow they already have today, even if numerous people contribute to the code, the GPL is freedom. GPL is a license that ensures code stays free in the sense of open for users. It doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. It's not you that's free, it's the code. That's what I ment with matter of perspective. You don't have to agree with this at all, but at least you have to understand and respect the idea and that other people contribute to this model. It's nothing that should be rejected like I Yes, that's exactly what I have been talking about on undeadly when that stupid "death of a driver" article was published to promote the myth. The reason why I'm bothering to participate in this discussion at all, is that many people claiming to take the "OpenBSD side" in this argument are actually no better than the bcm43xx devs when they had the idea to go public. This whole issue has been escalated primarily by OpenBSD folks, not the other way around. I'd say it's time to simply drop it. kind regards, Tobias W.
blah blah blah
What do you care if that's what they care about? Don't forget that the desire to keep proprietary vendors from forking and re-closing code was precisely and explicitly the reason the GPL was written; someone who values that is probably going to choose the GPL to release their work under. Complaining that Developer X chooses to use the GPL is as useless as complaining that Vendor Y chooses not to release source code at all. In both cases it's a license that is at odds with the purpose and principles of OpenBSD, and in both cases it's a violation of those authors' rights to copy their code in a manner they have not licensed you to. I'm not trying to come across as some sort of GPL cheerleader. I don't use it except when contracts stipulate it (and more do than you might think, given your "they can't make money" statement) and I think this situation is a good example of why the GPL bad for code trees with multiple authors (which is going to be any code tree of significant complexity that accepts patches). If one guy writes something and chooses to place it under the GPL, he can then relicense in a situation like this; if there end up being 40 authors of a module it's impractical to track every one of them down if they haven't handed their copyright over to a primary maintainer, especially if all you really know about somebody is their public key and email address 3 years ago when they committed last. But all those complaints don't mean anything at all: I wasn't an author for the Linux driver so I don't get a say in how the Linux driver is licensed. The people who did the work to write it get to decide under what terms it can be redistributed, and once they have decided that they have a responsibility to see it is enforced. They don't have to CC hundreds of people on their first mailing like this guy did, but then again they have a right to do so if they want to. Just like I have a right to think they're jerks for doing that. Weldon [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type ...
In the public, most people talking about "open source community" don't really care about open source or community at all -- they just want great software for cheap, and they aren't developers and don't contribute. At least that's my impression. Maybe i'm wrong. I hope i'm wrong. Sorry for the rant. Ciao, Kili, still slacking far too much -- Das ist ein "hiermeins dadeins" BALKEN -- Kay Freier zur philosophischen Frage, wie denn die Dinger heissen, die man im Supermarkt hinter seinen Krempel aufs Fliessband packt.
Typical of that rag. The author talks as if bcw was part of
a release, not some sort of development code. Apparently
GPL means "Go Piss in the Lake".
To the lawyers *sigh*. RSM and his pet toad Egon have discovered
the subtle joys, glories and honors of litigation, and this unwholesome
appetite is spreading to a world starved for respect and admiration.
All this once again shows that GPL is about free as in "free beer",
not "free" as in "free will", and the forced acceptance of some
sort of True Faith. What a waste. Barely worth talking about.
Probably has negative worth to talk about it.
If *BSD felt that way, we'd be auditing the Linux/GNU userland
looking for Regents code falsely GPLed. But what a stupid thing
to do.
<sarcasm> Anybody willing to sign an NDA with Mr Buesch and his
crew to use their spec? Are we now in the position of having to
reverse engineer a reverse-engineered Linux driver? Maybe OpenBSD
could put a "click to consent" shrink-wrap license/NDA/hold-harmless
on the CVS sites (like Sun had on jde) Maybe Marcus should have
released a sed script (acting on the Linux code) to grab the parts
temporarily needed for debugging/regression and "include"d them in
his source? That would pass the GPL, I think -- copyright would
only apply to the code output from sed and cpp, which would be
transient. </sarcasm>
"Here's a book! Don't read it! If you read it, forget it!"
(c) Woodchuck 2007. Some rights reserved, you guess which.
Maybe the whole thing is Mr Buesch's idea of some sort of protracted
April Fool's hoax.
Dave "I may hold the patent on the off-by-one bug."
--
Resistance is futile. You've already been GPLed.What's wrong? They protect their license. Period.
No one seems to dispute the right of copyright holders to protect their licence. That said, there are more ways than one to protect one's licence. It hardly seems unreasonable to privately contact the developer in question before going public, as seems to be the custom in many other suspected licence issues. Choosing to first send a private message would likely have remedied any issues, both quickly and with a lot less fallout. Too bad that that didn't happen. Rogier
First, this wouldn't happen cause I prefer the BSD license, but, if someone violates the copyright of my work, I'll take that guy down. In the most publicly and shameful way.
How does this militant attitude work alongside your preference for the BSD license? If another free software developer is violating your license, would you publicly shame someone who is probably working for similar reasons to yourself, or would you give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a private "do you know what you are doing?" email and try to work things out like gentlepeople? I know of at least one GPL project that violates the license (BSD) of some code that I wrote. If I ever cared to enforce that license then I would certainly be polite first. -d
A) If you really prefer BSD you wouldn't care about what people do with your code, the only reason why your name as an author is in the code is because without that anybody could claim "that's my code pay me", your name is there just to prevent other people put claims on it, not for your "honour". BSD is about maximum open-ness and making it impossible to violate copyright. B) If you don't have the decency to inquire before you do harm to people, even to a type like Saddam Houssein you are plain stupid asshole. The whole situation makes me think of the sneaky guy in this one: http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/12523/f0abd313/index.html +++chefren
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mistakes where made on both sides. This entire discussion is about how you handle problems and if you should remain friendly (or not) when such problems occur. Please keep the discussion friendly and on topic. Posting links to a movie of some guy making racist and other insulting comments while videotaping two people fighting DOES NOT HELP ANYONE. What are you trying to accomplish with this? Floor Terra iD8DBQFGFj+NUnW3VkBpTO4RAlK8AKCmZvX9CHj2BoVecskiQjgiD8Y8XgCg32Yw lhj1K0f6dV5+n10b6PYFV5Y= =vnTH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thats great! What would that accomplish? Software is developed by PEOPLE (plural), people dont work very well together when one of them is acting like a five year old. gwk
Isn't everybody in this discussion like a five year old? If you look at the thread it makes ping-pong-ping-pong from both sides. Neither the BSD side nor the BCW side is really really fair the hole time. Both sides are like rocks.. Why don't do a cut? Let Marcus and Michael work on this! s -- GnuPG: 5755FB64 Per aspera ad astra.
Heh. I think the person that's feeling the biggest burn right now is Michael Buesch because he realizes the mistake HE made is bigger that what happened with the licensing. -- Travers Buda
Did you read the full tread first before you wrote this? Did you look at the code in CVS, did you even see Marcus reply and why? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1573 I don't think you did! He sure did a hell of a huge amount of work that was his, and original for your own benefit, and the only mistakes he may have done was to try to work on it faster then he may should have and wrongly include temporary files to help in the process! Should he had finish his work in a later time and not try to make this available sooner to us, then nothing would have been said on this. In any case a simple private email to him directly would have been the decent human being things to do, but I guess you don't even get that do you? Just like I said before. Where the hell is the open community is going these days, I have no clue... Look to me it sure enjoy destroy itself for sure. I am lost for words!
Yes, and he was wrong. He shouldn't base his work in copylefted software (if he intend to release the result as non-copylefted). Licenses are licenses.
Yes, Marcus made a mistake. But not the mistake this GPL zealots seem to think (not knowing that copying GPL code is not allowed). He should have waited to commit his code to the public CVS until he had properly rewriten the GPL code... Marcus admitted he made a mistake and corrected it. I don't see the Linux guy admitting he made a big mistake in dealing with this issue. Cheers, Dries