linux-kernel - Re: Policy on dual licensing?

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:  <slrnfis0mv.cms.lkml.only@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:30:15 +0000 (UTC)
From:	Remigiusz Modrzejewski <lkml.only@...net.org.pl>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject:  Re: Policy on dual licensing?

Theodore Tso wrote:
>> There are over four hundred C source files that mention BSD, but only 
>> a hundred of them is dual licensed. Of course not all mentions of BSD
>> mean the file is derived from it, as well as not each such licensed file
>> must use the acronym.  No matter what the scale really is, the problem
>> exists.
>
> First of all, just because it mentioned BSD doesn't necessarily mean
> that it came from BSD.  For example, I wrote the /dev/random driver
> spceifically from Linux, but dual licensed it because I wanted the BSD
> camps to pick it up.  Secondly, you're presupposing that it is a
> *problem*.  There are those who believe that there is nothing wrong,
> either morally, ethically, or legally, with taking BSD code, and not
> dual-licesing it when adding GPL-specific additions.  You are begging
> the question by just asserting that it is a _problem_.  Some people
> view the GPLv2 license as a feature, not a bug.  

All of my publicly released code is GPLv2. I just like it, but I don't
like the idea of taking someones else code and prohibiting him from
back-porting changes. On the other hand, you're probably just right,
I could've been decepted about the scale by the whining.

>>  However, this should minimize such cases 
>> and, hopefully, satisfy the claims about Linux maintainers not doing 
>> all that they could to make the world a better place.
>
> Actually, again, you're begging the question.  I have no doubt that
> people who write code under a BSD, CDDL, or GPL license all believe
> they are making the world a better place in their own way.  For you to
> say that Linux maintainers who don't try to get more drivers dual
> licensed === not making the world a better place is just as unfair as

This is not my claim. I've just got an idea how to prevent future flame
wars, bad press and other disturbances created by such claims. For me,
the idea looks quite good as it does not cost really much and is the
only thing that we can really do. If even this little additional strain
on the maintainers seems too much, considering the scale of the problem
really is minute, then just forget about the whole thing.

But, on the end of the day, the whole thing remains a problem in my
eyes. BSD folks have explicitly agreed companies/organisations to not
give back. These have divided into those who do give back, and those who
don't. Having Linux community in the second category feels not so good.
However, the fact that in most(?) cases it is not so is relaxing.

-- 
Remigiusz 'lRem' Modrzejewski
Contact: http://lrem.net/pages/view/about
Feel free to correct my English.

-
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/