netdev - Re: 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: <3A831845-B630-42AD-B52F-DC9EA2060BAE@dixongroup.net>
Date:	Sat, 1 Sep 2007 20:36:24 -0400
From:	Jason Dixon <jason@...ongroup.net>
To:	bunk@...nel.org
Cc:	mureninc@...il.com, jeff@...zik.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	jirislaby@...il.com, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing

On Sep 1, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> OK, I begin to understand this, there seem to be three different types
> of files changed by Jiri's patch:
> 1. dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
> 2. previously dual licenced files with a too recent version used  
> planned
>    to make GPL-only
> 3. never dual licenced files planned to make GPL-only
>
> For files under 1. and 2. Reyk did contribute to dual licenced code
> without touching the licence, but I missed that there's also code  
> unter 3.
>
> So there is a problem, but not with the code under 1. (unless you plan
> to change the semantics of the word "alternatively"), the problem is
> with some headers under 2. plus the code under 3.

The BSD license plainly states:

"Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for  
any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies."

Once the grantor (Reyk) releases his code under that license, it must  
remain.  You are free to derive work and redistribute under your  
license, but the original copyright and license permission remains  
intact.  Many other entities (Microsoft, Apple, Sun, etc) have used  
BSD code and have no problem understanding this.  Why is this so  
difficult for the Linux brain share to absorb?

As a former Linux advocate and current OpenBSD user/developer, I'm  
appalled that fellow open-source developers would see fit to  
cavalierly disregard the rights of the original copyright holder.   
You wield the GPL when it suits you, and trample the courtesies of  
non-GPL developers just because you [think you] can.  As bad as  
Jiri's offense was, it pales to the impudence displayed by Alan Cox,  
one of the so-called defenders of free software.

Shame on you all.

---
Jason Dixon
DixonGroup Consulting
http://www.dixongroup.net

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html