Normally I wouldn't repeat undeadly stuff here on misc@, but I'm sure

many of you will want to know.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634
And if you do this kind of thing, it's worth letting the rest of the

world in on this:

http://digg.com/linux_unix/Lnux_Driver_Violated_BSD_License
--

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

I am currently having a discussion about dual licensing, and am a bit

confused. Is Reyk and others working on this drivers code dual

licensed (from the diff it doesn't seem like it is, since I see a BSD

3 Clause)? Also say I submit a patch for this driver, does that mean

this will have to be dual licensed also or can I choose if it is BSD 3

Clause or GPLv2?

Well, there are two parts to the Atheros driver.
Reyk's code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL.  So there is no

issue with Reyk's code.  He has explicitly stated that his code is not

dual-licenced.  The file have no GPL on them.  He's the author, he

said so.  None else can add a GPL to it.  (No matter how much Luis

begs and pleads and whines).
The other part of the driver was written by Sam Leffler.  Sam's code,

though, is dual-licenced with a 4-term BSD'ish license (it has only 3

terms, but the wrong term was deleted, and the attribution term was

actually strengthened -- read the license).  The GPL annotation in the

licenses says specifically --
 * Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the

 * GNU General Public License ("GPL") version 2 as published by the Free

 * Software Foundation.
Note that word "Alternatively".
That means "or".
That means that if anyone makes changes to that file and distributes it,

after their changes are in the file then EITHER license will apply.
Since it says "Alternatively" / "Or", we can simply take any of those

new changes UNDER THE LICENSE WE PREFER, and commit them to our file

which is NOT dual licensed.  If they want to use the GPL to restrict

our use -- that is us, the original authors, see -- they should work

on seperate files.
Note there are some files out there that don't use words like "or" or

"alternatively" when they mix licenses.  One must read what the

license says very carefully.  Trying to brush everything into the same

simple catagories will get you nowhere.
As a commentary, it seems as if many people have tired of the "make my

own license" game, and now are playing the "mix licenses in my own

way" game.  And the "interpret it in the way that is most beneficial

to me" game.
Simpler said, I don't know why they have to be such jerks.  Luis in

particular has been ragging on Reyk for years to dual license his

code, and won't take no for an answer.  It's already totally free code,

but ap...
[ message continues ]

BTW, since this is misc@openbsd.org, people might be interested to

know about the history of the licensing terms of ath(4) in OpenBSD.
OpenBSD's ath(4) consists of two parts:
1. a driver, copyrighted by Sam Leffler of FreeBSD
2. a HAL, copyrighted by Reyk Floeter of OpenBSD
What Theo explained above concerns the OpenHAL code.  OpenHAL is the

Linux name for madwifi driver connected with reyk's entirely free and

open source ath(4) HAL code.
Sam originally put a dual BSD/GPL licence onto his driver code.
Reyk always put a BSD-style licence onto his HAL code.
At the time OpenHAL was forked from OpenBSD, OpenBSD's ath(4)

_driver_, but _not the HAL_, was dual licensed.
As already mentioned, OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL, written by Reyk, was

_never_ dual licensed. See the history on

/sys/dev/ic/{ar52{10,11,12}{.c,{reg,var}.h},ar5xxx.{c,h}}.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/ic/#ar5210.c
Few months ago, Sam changed the licence of _his_ code to a 2-clause

BSD licence. Sam had every right to do so, because he was and is the

only copyright holder of that code, as the licence header of the

driver file indicates, in FreeBSD, OpenBSD etc.
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/dev/ath/if_ath.c#rev1.170

http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=freebsd&committer=sam
Reyk committed Sam's changes to OpenBSD the same day, so now,

OpenBSD's ath(4) is _entirely_ BSD-licensed, with no alternative

licensing available.
http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/ic/ath.c#rev1.64

http://www.freshbsd.org/2007/06/06?project=openbsd&committer=reyk
However, what Jiri Slaby does in his diff is simply outrageous. He

changes the licensing terms of the code _he does not own_ _at his own

will_. A clear copyright violation.
As I can see from that diff on LKML, Jiri Slaby doesn't even have his

name as the copyright holder in many of the ath5k files that he tries

to change the licensing terms of. In other files, he is not the only

author, ...
[ message continues ]