linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070902013236.GF16016@stusta.de>
Date:	Sun, 2 Sep 2007 03:32:36 +0200
From:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, misc@...nbsd.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing

On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 06:02:26PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:
> >As a free software user and developer, the question I have is how come
> >the Linux community feels that they can take the BSD code that was
> >reverse-engineered at OpenBSD, and put a more restrictive licence onto
> >it, such that there will be no possibility of the changes going back
> >to OpenBSD, given that the main work on the code has happened at
> >OpenBSD? (Obviously, such a scenario it is permitted by the licence,
> >but my question is an ethical one -- after all, most components of
> >OpenHAL were specifically based on the OpenBSD's ath(4) HAL code.)
> >
> >You can see that Christoph Hellwig agrees with this ethical problem,
> >as in the message below.
> >
> >C.
> >
> >
> >>On 28/08/07, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:00:50PM -0400, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> > ath5k, license is GPLv2
> >> >
> >> > The files are available only under GPLv2 since now.
> >>
> >> Is this really a good idea?  Most of the reverse-engineering was
> >> done by the OpenBSD folks, and it would certainly be helpful to
> >> work together with them on new hardware revisions, etc..
> 
> I couldn't agree more. The point is, while we BSD license fans know and
> expect people from private industry to take our stuff and use it, at
> least private industry does not come to the table with "hey, let's
> cooperate" - we know who the corporate whores are, and we act accordingly. 
> 
> However, when a linux developer comes to us and say "hey lets cooperate"
> usually there is a thought of "this is a kindred spirit who understands
> what our mutual goals are and won't stab us in the back".  My concern
> is that this situation will change if this is not rectified. 
> 
> I think the community needs to decide, should cooperation be based on
> morals and trust, or does the Linux community need to be regarded with
> less trust than a Corporation, something to be avoided, as while
> corporations can be counted on to act without morals, the knife is up
> front and visible. They do not come to you with one hand of
> cooperation extended and a knife kept behind their back.

Theo explicitely accused Alan that telling people that it was OK to 
choose one licence for dual licenced code was "advising people to break 
the law".

I hope you agree when talking about "cooperation [...] based on morals 
and trust" that such accusations should either be proven correct or the 
moral position of the person who made such accusations becomes quiet 
weak.

>  -Bob 

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "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

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/