It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about

installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms

are quickly eroding away.  The rights and recognition of one of our

own developers (reyk@) have been molested, and all we've done as a

community is to participate in useless flames and blog postings.

Theo has thrown himself, once again, against the spears of the Linux

community and their legal vultures in order to protect our software

freedoms.  How many of us can say we've done our part to defend truly

Free Software?
You don't have to be a lawyer or OpenBSD developer to make a

difference.  Email the SFLC and FSF and remind them that Free

Software consists of more than the almighty penguin.  OpenBSD is

arguably the most Free and Open operating system available anywhere.

The SFLC and FSF need to remember that they were created to protect

victims, not thieves.
Your donations are important for keeping the servers running, but

your voice is necessary for keeping our freedom alive.
Contacts:
Eben Moglen - moglen@softwarefreedom.org

Lawrence Lessig - lessig_from_web@pobox.com

Bradley M. Kuhn - bkuhn@softwarefreedom.org

Matt Norwood - norwood@softwarefreedom.org
---

Jason Dixon

DixonGroup Consulting

http://www.dixongroup.net

Just today, I was reading about a bug in OpenBSD's dhcpd. Nothing much

wrong with that, anyone can make a mistake. A short while later I came

across the message that some VMware thingy also had the same problem,

because they derived their dhcpd from OpenBSD's code base (or probably

just included it, I didn't check nor care).
I'd like to summarize:
 * OpenBSD publishes some pieces of software under the BSD license.
   case 1: Linux takes some of it and publishes it under the GPL:

           Big war ahead!
   case 2: Company XY takes some of it and publishes it under their own

           license (binary only etc.): Everyone's happy... no?
Maybe some of you can explain why attribution (the only thing the BSD

license really demands) is not enough in the first of these two cases,

or what the problem really is. It's imho a very easy question to tell

which one out of ("Company X", "GPL") protects my freedoms better...

And I also dimly remember that some popular Linux project clamoured for

the removal of (undocumented) binary-only stuff from their release even

earlier than OpenBSD 3.9 came out.
This kind of proceedings is generally wrong-headed and a bane for the

OpenBSD project in general. Unless you start going after all commercial

users of OpenBSD, like eg. VMware, you are simply destroying that

credibility and respect you have worked to earn over the years.
Best,

--Toni++

This has allready been discussed.

VMWare are not allowed to put it under any new licence as you said,

they are allowed to provide a binary only with the licence intact. The

Linux people _CHANGED_ the licence and now they changed it back and

they can use it.

Stop the old trolling about commercial companies just stealing, in

several cases they do give back!
BR

dunceor

On 10/11/07, Toni Mueller <openbsd-misc@oeko.net> wrote:
shut up, troll. This exact argument has been reiterated over and over on

lkml, slashdot and also here. It has been refuted and _any one_ who can

read and type three words into a web search can find the discussions for

years to come. If you have read these, and you still post this then no

answer in the world will make you change your mind.
So, you made you statement, you got your attention, now go back playing.
--knitti

Hi Jason,
I admire your intentions but there are a few things which you need to

understand a bit better. First off, I do not know Lawrence Lessig or

his involvement, so I do not understand how he made your list.
On the other hand, Eben Moglen is arrogant and unscrupulous. His stated

goal is to steal as much software as possible and put it under the GPL

even when doing so is illegal. If you give him a valid and sound

argument why the "legal advice" he has given is obviously illegal, the

very most you will get from him is a facetious reply asking where you

are licensed to practice law. -I know this from experience because it

is the exact reply I got from him after emailing him this:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118901954525700&w=2
Whether they realize it or not, the other two clowns on your list,

Bradley M. Kuhn and Matt Norwood (as well as Richard Fontana and Karen

Sandler who also signed off on it) are really nothing than expendable

cannon fodder for the FSF war against reality. Eben being crafty and

cowardly, he decided not to put his name on the list of FSF lawyers

signing off on the code theft. Since anyone could easily complain to

the Bar Association about lawyers giving out bogus legal advice, and

possibly cause them to be disbarred, cowardly Eben is letting others

take the fall.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2

Signed-Off-By: Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn@softwarefreedom.org>

Signed-Off-By: Matt Norwood <norwood@softwarefreedom.org>

Signed-Off-By: Richard Fontana <fontana@softwarefreedom.org>

Signed-Off-By: Karen Sandler <karen@softwarefreedom.org>
Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took some GPL

code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that cases

was just as illegal, just as immoral and just as wrong but it was

corrected when it was discovered in one of the dev branches of cvs.
In the case of Ryek's code, the reverse is true but instead of admitting

the mistake...
[ message continues ]

OH COME FREAKING ON!!!!  Can you guys DROP it already?  There was NO

VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!!  The patch that

Jesper submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!!  Nobody

needs to argue/flame/spam about anything because there is no change

in the code.
My god this has been said 30 times by 30 different people at this

point.  I swear it feels like talking to a wall.
EXHIBIT #1:
EXHIBIT #2:
EXHIBIT #3:
CONCLUSION:

You guys are spamming our mailing list for NO GOOD REASON!!!!  Can we

*please* get back to actual useful development now?
Cheers,

Kyle Moffett

I do happen to agree with one of Jason Dixon's original arguments:

this and the related discussions on this list are an utter waste of

time and resources. (Of course, this means I'm going to contribute to

the waste a little more.)
Theo made his arguments. There have been some conversations between

him and other involved persons, some of which hasn't been made public.

Theo's points, and the counterpoints, have been argued to death.

Continuing to argue them will not convince any of the people involved

that they are wrong. This has become a religious argument.
There can be only one of two resolutions.
Either the involved Linux developers, or somebody in a leadership role

in Linux development, will take some action to resolve the problem

(and maybe they already have), or, unfortunately, the licensing issue

will eventually find its way into a German court of law, where it

belongs.
Continuing to argue and re-argue the various points here, and feeding

the troll in the Atheros thread, will not help either of those

resolutions. In all likelihood, it will lead to more bad blood between

the various groups of developers, and maybe even prevent an amicable

resolution.
If you're not a German IP lawyer, or someone centrally involved with

this, then you probably can't do anything to help.
Thanks,
- Random OpenBSD enthusiast of no importance at all.

You are wrong.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2

http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making

completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous

statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly

misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?
jcr

There's no need to CC all those FSF people on this as I'm sure

they're plenty busy with other things, have lots of people to dispel

FUD for them, and certainly don't need the excess email in their

inboxes.
Well you seem to have CCed the linux kernel mailing list, so I am

talking about the linux kernel sources, not stuff hosted on

madwifi.org or other places as I have no knowledge or control over

what those maintainers accept or do not accept.  If you aren't

talking about the Linux kernel itself then you should get your  
I see these very out-of-date URLs showing people making changes to

some already-problematic licenses in various files in some other non-

linux-kernel repository.  Please note that the Linux kernel does

*NOT* contain an atheros driver right now!  Therefore this doesn't

seem to be the patch posted to LKML I was talking about:
Original patch:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/157
Responses:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/28/304

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/171

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/29/69
The "madwifi" site is not a linux-kernel branch at *all*.  The stuff

that gets imported there is totally under the control of the madwifi

people and if you want to gripe about copyright *they* are the people

you should be griping to.  It's like complaining to the OpenBSD

developers about copyright issues in some code that NetBSD developers

commit to their repository; it just plain doesn't make sense.
For starters, I seem to have plenty of references to "the facts" as

cited above.  You even deleted 3 major references from the email you

were *replying* to!
Secondly, what the HELL is with you guys and the personal

attacks?!?!?  You said I am "hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual

liar"???  You very carefully snipped out the 3 examples I gave where

people were describing how the Linux kernel did the right thing both

legally and ethically so you could make those claims?  Seriously, if

you really want to know what went on ...
[ message continues ]

You are right and I apologize. I've received plenty of personal attacks

from your group, and failed to hold my temper when dealing with you.
You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a

lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that

be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux

kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros, the GNU

project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the

outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you

are all one large project working together.
When some part of your project is indulging in code theft, it makes all

of you look bad, regardless if it's upstream, downstream, sidestream or

otherwise. When linux/gpl developers and linux/gpl lawyers refuse to

take a stance against code theft, you look like one big happy family

doing everything you can to put as much code as possible under your

preferred license regardless if it's illegal or immoral.
I knew darn well that I wouldn't be winning any new friends in the

linux/gpl/gnu camp by voicing an unpopular opinion to your project, but

after being ignored, you too would want to find the people on the other

side with the spine to stand up and say code theft is wrong.
Would you stand by quietly, tolerate being ignored, and accept delay

tactics of unethical lawyers if the roles were reverse?
Would you be willing to be called every untoward name in the book by

voicing your dissenting opinions clearly and loudly?
I have.
jcr

Lumping the FSF, the SFLC, and Linux Kernel developrs all in the

same boat is not fundimentally

    different from claiming that there is no difference between OpenBSD,

NetBSD, FreeBSD, Dragonfly,

    and on and on and on.
    Spend some time on LKML.  There are enormous cultural and viewpoint

differences just there.

    While the level of acrimony is several notches lower than here, they

are infinitely less monolithic.

    Presuming even that Linux Kernel developers speak with one voice

flies in the face of facts.

    Despite the fact that Linux uses the GPL, there is more ideological

common ground between OpenBSD and

    GNU/FSF/SFLC.  While there are distinct differences there are also

some strongly held shared principles.

    Linux development is most strongly characterized by pragmatism over

principle from the top down.

    To the extent that pragmatism is the defining principle.
    The primary offense here was the acts of a few - possibly one, Linux

developer.

    To my knowledge nothing done that Theo, Reyk or others on

OpenBSD-Misc are complaining about has

    found its way into any public linux source or repository. That was

not the case when the shoe was on the

    other foot.
    While some - including some important and influential people on

Linux lists have expressed oppinions

    that there is nothing wrong with changing Reyk's license, that is

not the same as having accepted or

    published infringing code.
    It was my understanding that the SFLC had made a specific legal

sugestion that I thought was legal but

    disengenuous, but that appears not to be the case. It appears the

SFLC is still working on the matter, so

    maligning them (or others) for an oppinion they have not issued is

pretty ethically challenged too.
    This whole legalistic who is stealing what from whom debate is

ludicrous anyway.

    Both Linux and OpenBSD developers are free to use each others work

as documentation for the hardware in question,

   ...
[ message continues ]

Am 16.09.2007 um 12:05 schrieb J.C. Roberts:
Can I ask a question here?  You're getting worked up over nothing.

Open Source doesn't

work without Open Hardware.  The level of the software is approaching a

good level to

  use for Open Hardware, IMO.  While it's your time to relax the

hardware hackers are at

turn now, don't you think?
Thanks.

Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process.
A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git
but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and

HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git

	(official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here)
Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are

actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly seen

by the changes being made over time.
So let's everybody calm down, ok?
Regards,
	Jeff

Jeff,
Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say

someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,

removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put

it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they

are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license

removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere.
You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not

been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or

whatever project?
No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal

getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart.
If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the

people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code,

then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it. 
Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all

of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the

GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a

criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven

to be guilty code theft.
After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the

horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux

source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other

than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this

point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now

stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now

missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on

the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they

now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their

assertion about the way you normally operate.
You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still

practical attack on the ...
[ message continues ]

Ok, suppose someone did (precisely) this.  Then the person to be upset

with would be the people who did this, not the people behind the

official repository.  Some folks seem to be unfortuntaely blaming the

people who run the official repository.  
Look, it's perhaps a little understandable that people in the *BSD

world might not understand that the Linux development community is

huge, and not understand that the people who work on madwifi.org, the

core kernel community, and the FSF, are distinct, and while they might

interact with each other, one part of the community can't dictate what

another part of the community does.  You wouldn't want us to conflate

all of the security faults of say, NetBSD with OpenBSD, just because

it came from a historically similar code base and "besides all you

*BSD folks are all the same --- if you don't want a bad reputation,

why don't you police yourselves"?  Would you not say this is

unreasonable?  If so, would you kindly not do the same thing to the

Linux community?
Secondly, it looks like people are getting worked up about two

different things, and in some cases it looks like the two things are

getting conflated.  The first thing is a screw-up about attribution

and removal of the BSD license text, and that is one where the SFLC

has already issued advice that this is bad ju-ju, and that the BSD

license text must remain intact.
The second case which seems to get people upset is that there are

people who are taking BSD code, and/or GPL/BSD dual licensed code, and

adding code additions/improvements/changes under a GPL-only license.

This is very clearly legal, just as it is clearly legal for NetApp to

take the entire BSD code base, add proprietary changes to run on their

hardware and to add a propietary, patent-encrusted WAFL filesystem,

and create a codebase which is no longer available to the BSD

development community.
The first case was clearly a legal foul, whereas the second case is

legally O.K (whether the GPL or NetApp propietary license...
[ message continues ]

But that isn't the situation being discussed. You've sent this mail to the

*LINUX* *KERNEL* ML, not the MadWifi ML. The patches in question were not

accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send mail

related to them.
*PLEASE* go do a Google search or check the MadWifi site for their discussion 
Yes, true, but you are attacking people who haven't done anything wrong. And

by your own words, Mr. Roberts, OpenBSD has violated peoples

copyrights: "Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took

some GPL code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that

cases was just as illegal,"
If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over

patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as

fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified)

times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD license.
And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the MadWifi

discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only people that accepted 
*WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" with the 
Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with faulty claims

just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 is a better license

than v3 and because Linux cannot, for numerous reasons, ever be released

under the GPLv3.
I repeat - Linux has *NOT* and will *NEVER* accept the patches in question. If

somebody else has, then go and yell at them about it. The developers here, on

the LINUX KERNEL MAILING LIST, have no control or authority (in general) over

projects such as MadWifi. If they have accepted the faulty patches - and said

patches are now part of their code-base, then go tell them about it and make

sure Theo gets the message.
DRH
--

Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.

Although it's true the code is not yet upstream...
Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is

sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm, 
Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant.  We want to make

sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make sure any

copyright problems are fixed.
On a side note:  "MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k

driver, the driver at issue here.  Some mistakes were made by Linux 
Amen.  100% agreed.
	Jeff

Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both

politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list

was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue

with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in

bad faith, the code in question is per se "intended" to become part of

the Linux kernel. The code has not been "accepted upstream" as you say

but that is still the intended goal.
Saying something like:

    "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU"
is quite similar to saying:

    "Windows != Microsoft"
In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are

certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often

considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under

the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You

are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common

language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though

it is pedantically incorrect to do so.
Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an

insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example.
There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their

hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers

are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their

continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair

minded and well thought than I will ever be.
With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the

GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free

thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go?
The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer.
As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel

mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's

a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you.
If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team

wer...
[ message continues ]

You could equally say that

  "OpenBSD != University of California, Berkeley"
was wrong since OpenBSD uses the licence of the UCB. [1]
Or that

  "OpenBSD != NetBSD"
was wrong since OpenBSD is just a spinoff of NetBSD, and for everyday

people all the *BSD operating systems are anyway the same.
Or that

  "OpenBSD != Linux kernel"
was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they

are both open source operating systems.
Or even that

  "OpenBSD != FSF"
was wrong.
In case you wonder about the latter, check at [2] whose project's

project leaders won the FSF's Award for the Advancement of Free Software

and whose project's project leader did not.
The FSF and the Linux kernel community have some relationship, but they

are quite distinct communities with different views on some things.
As an example, Linus Torvalds made clear some years ago that the kernel

is GPLv2 only and will stay GPLv2 forever. This makes it impossible to

move the kernel to the FSF's new GPLv3. If you have such differences in

mind it sounds ridiculous when people don't differentiate between the 
cu

Adrian
[1] I don't know the background of the 2-clause BSD licence, but at

    least for the 3-clause and 4-clause BSD licences this was true

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Award_for_the_Advancement_of_Free_Software
-- 
       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out

        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.

       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.

                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux?

I did, not once :-)

--

Krzysztof Halasa

On Sunday, 16 September 2007, J.C. Roberts wrote:
  Let's say

  someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,

  removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put

  it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they

  are older than the originals. 
  Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all

  of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the

  GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a

  criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven

  to be guilty code theft.
  After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the

  horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux

  source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other

  than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. 
None of this has happened.  What has happened is that people who do

not have full possession of the facts and have no legal expertise--

people whom from the very beginning we have been trying to help--have

made irresponsible charges and threatened lawsuits, thus slowing down

our efforts to help them.  It might be useful to recall the first

stage of this process, when OpenBSD developers were accused of

misappropriating Atheros code, and SFLC investigated and proved that

no such misappropriation had occurred?  Wild accusations about our

motives are even more silly than they are false.
We understand that attribution issues are critically important to free

software developers; we are accustomed to the strong feelings that are

involved in such situations.  In the fifteen years I have spent giving

free legal help to developers throughout the community, attribution

disputes have been, always, the most emotionally charged.
But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like

"theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea, because once some

people started using that language--thus ma...
[ message continues ]

Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations

which very simply reads: "steal and infect everything you possibly can

and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received."

http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/
As you do your imaginary "painstaking reconstruction" the whole world

can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed "spirit"

of your "steal-alike" license because you refuse to pass on the rights 
When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your

license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention 
Speaking of "Really Bad Ideas," you trained us. The only time we get any

form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more

abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in

your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push

your "free as in koolaid" political agenda there will be people like me

who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your

stalling tactics and your legal bullying.
I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell.
jcr

I don't thinl this helps openbsd or anyone else.   As Theo is already

working with the individuals involved, and hasn't asked for help, I

think rather than saying "I think you're going to suck", let's see

what happens.  Going ovewrboard isn't going to help anyone.
--

"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."

-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.

Thanks for the detailed response.  There have also been some very

articulate and fact-oriented responses here from the OpenBSD Misc list

as well.
I will repeat and elaborate on what I wrote in my first response which I

gave the subject "Divide and conquer (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)"
Although there are some valid concerns regarding workflow between

projects of different licensing families,  keep in mind that
	1) a license (ie. GPL, BSD, or other) is simply another tool
	2) some outside FOSS would like nothing better than

	to divide FOSS up and set the factions against each other
Intentional trolls (agent provacateur) are part of the bag of tricks

available to the political groups that have much to gain by playing the

various FOSS projects off against each other.  Various political parties

and factions, not the least of which is MS, lose out if we use our time

effectively or if the general public start to understand and apply

principles that make for sound, secure, and interoperable systems.
Bickering with or harranging the FSF, OBSD, or any other project is less

useful than coding, documenting, debugging (even workflow debugging) or

teaching.  It plays right into MS' media strategy of "Saturate, Diffuse,

and Confuse" by filling up the communications channels with noise, thus

drowning or diluting the useful material and burning out the casual

observer.  One of the common tactics seen again and again, including in

this case, is the re-circulation of outdated and incorrect sources.
Some of the people doing the bickering may just be plainly and simply

less than knowledgeable and further handicapped by inability to express

themselves.  Others may just be 'tards easily goading into action by an

agent provacateur and, unless proven otherwise, should be treated as the

first group.
Regards,

-Lars

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/
As I said in a former email, this has several glaring problems.
As far as I understand, this is a public statement, even if it predates

the issue at hand.
Please fix it in a timely manner, or take it down for now.

Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the

above press release.
Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address,

there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply

outrageous!  Only after I (and possibly others) have complained to

SFLC did they append the release to give some really vague mention

that OpenHAL is based on OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL.
Eben, is this the work that you are doing in bringing the communities

together, by omitting such vital information as giving credit to the

people and projects who performed most of the work?  After all of

these mistakes, after ignoring the ethical side of the relicensing,

after failing to inform when relicensing is even legally an option,

are you seriously even surprised about the negative attention that

SFLC is getting now?  Taking a step aside, don't you agree it is

well-deserved?
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/156258
C.

It is a press release, and an old one at that.
    There is no particular obligation to be fair, complete, or credit

everyone with everything.

    It might have been politically wise - particularly as there are

mentions of Linux and other developers

    to include OpenBSD and Reyk. Of course before posting it they sould

have asked for individual

    critiques from every member of the FOSS community.
    What the SFLC is trying to do is assure that Reyk get's everything

his license requires, everytime

    his work is used or is the basis for a derivative work.

    That is not the same as assuring that he gets credit everytime

Atheros, Linux, or OpenHAL are mentioned.
    In the specific release you are pointing to, the issue the SFLC was

resolving was whether the Linux Atheros

    driver or OpenHAL infringed on Atheros copyrights - a completely

unrelated issue to the current dispute.
    While only Linux and the Linux wireless system maintainer are

mentioned, the SFLC basically cleared the OpenHAL

    project and probably by implication the BSD Atheros drivers from

copyright claims by Atheros.

    In essence rather than maligning Reyk they have agreed to defend his

work should Atheros ever raise a claim,

    They may not have named him or OpenBSD specifically, but they have

placed their impramatur on his work.
    While credit might have been nice too, the SFLC is basically saying

the OpenHAL reverse engineering work was

    well done and does not violate Atheros's copyrights.
    The SFLC did Reyk and the OpenBSD community a favor. They did it for

free.

    They did it at the request of Linux developers,

    and that is who they mentioned in their release.  
--

Dave Lynch 					  	    DLA Systems

Software Development:  				         Embedded Linux

717.627.3770 	       dhlii@dlasys.net 	  http://www.dlasys.net

fax: 1.253.369.9244 			           Cell: 1.717.587.7774

Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies to...
[ message continues ]

That's the wonderful thing about open development:  our mistakes, and

the corrections made to fix mistakes, are out in the open for all to

see.  And we wouldn't have it any other way.
	Jeff

Or rather, can everybody please just shitcan those perverted dipshits you

are replying to and get on with it? These people are here for one reason

only and that's to cause a stir -- however righteous they may feel about

themselves, they're nothing but dumb trolls.
Please stop feeding.
Rene.

In the case of Ryek's code, the reverse is true but instead of admitting

    the mistake and making the needed corrections, FSF has pulled out their

    lawyers in hopes of getting away with the theft.
You have jumped to a false conclusion.  The FSF is not involved in

this; Linux is not our project.  Linux developers firmly guard their

independence and don't often follow our advice.
This appears to be a dispute between OpenBSD developers and some Linux

developers I do not know.  I do not know what happened.  What the

OpenBSD developers say is unreliable, because they also make

statements about the FSF that I know are false.  To find out what

really happened, I would have to check on my own.  I could do that,

but I have no reason to do that work.  I am not inclined to do that

work to cater to demands from hostile people.
If the issue were about actions of the FSF or the GNU Project, I would

have a responsibility to check the facts and assure myself that we did

right.  But the FSF and the GNU Project are not involved, and nobody

in this dispute is disposed to follow my advice.  So I am not going to

give any.
I may write a general article about the ethics of applying the GNU GPL

to code released under lax permissive licenses, as I see it.  But if I

do, it won't come out soon; I will take time to think about it.

I think you may be letting your emotions carry you a long a little.

Not very conductive in a situation like this.  I've always viewed the

bsd as preserving the rights of the distributors, and the gpl as

preserving the rights of the distributees.
Really, I don't see what's the fuss with trying to pull stallman into

this fight.  It's not his fight, the kernel is not controlled by the

fsf, and in fact, Linus often has issues with stallman.  Should any

discussion about democracy pull in the ancient greeks as well?  These

red herring fights do not help any on the main topic, which is - some

kernel developers are going overboard in their zeal to gpl code,

including stealing other people's code.  And even the word stealing

may not be appropriate, depending on the intentions - if all we want

to do is browbeat them into submission, and cry uncle, that's a

perfectly fine word to use.  If we want to show them that they're

being silly, another word ought to be chosen.
--

"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."

-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.

This has everything to do with Stallman's FSF/SFLC lawyer cronies.

They're the ones giving faulty counsel to Linux developers.
---

Jason Dixon

DixonGroup Consulting

http://www.dixongroup.net

I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this.  People who

have spoken with him indicated to me that he is forthright about what

he wants (ie, GPL), and does not back down easily, unless you give him

a very good reason (ie, you better be damned convincing and have facts

on your side).  Much like Theo, actually.
As this is a matter of interpretation of law, I doubt if he would be involved.
I may be wrong.
--

"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."

-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.

I was welling to do so until he requested to be left out of it. Then it

was obvious that he endorse the action, why? As the writer of many

variation of the GPL licenses, he can't clam ignorance on the subject

and not capable to understand it. Or let me restate that. May be not

understand all possible aspect of the GPL as it's so long and

convoluted, may be, just may be, I could accept that.
But the very short, simple and clear BSD license. No way he can say he

doesn't understands it! Sorry I can't possibly buy that, even in my

wildest dream of stupidity. And I tried.
For him to not voice his objection to it, because of all his background

and what he is fighting for, can only mean he endorse it. Call that

judgment of characters if you want, or what ever you like it to be, 
He sure can understand just to well what the BSD license mean and sure

know just to well what is going on here. To all that said it's a bias

debate and that BSD lovers deform the fact and are lying, etc. What ever

your grasp or interest on the subject might be. I will not even use any

of it.
Fact #1

Richard Stallman founder of FSF:

http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html

No debate and can't be argue.
Fact #2

Work very closely with Eben Moglen to create SFLC

http://www.fsf.org/news/sflc-1.html

No debate and can't be argue.
Fact #3

Any way you want to look at it, looks like very much a Copyright

violation was committed, but then SFLC said it's OK. Front page:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/

No debate and can't be argue.
Fact #4

And publish a release to that effect

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal

No debate and can't be argue.
Fact 5.6.7

Then the Linux kernel imported the BSD license driver and changed the

copyright, three times so far on it, in different variation.

No debate and can't be argue.
Fact 8

Reyk Floeter maid it public and well known that he didn't want his code

to be release under GPL.

[ message continues ]