Theo de Raadt On Relicensing BSD Code 613
iBSD writes "KernelTrap has an interesting article in which Theo de Raadt discusses the legal implications of the recent relicensing of OpenBSD's BSD-licensed Atheros driver under the GPL. De Raadt says, 'it has been like pulling teeth since (most) Linux wireless guys and the SFLC do not wish to admit fault. I think that the Linux wireless guys should really think hard about this problem, how they look, and the legal risks they place upon the future of their source code bodies.' He stressed that the theory that BSD code can simply be relicensed to the GPL without making significant changes to the code is false, adding, 'in their zeal to get the code under their own license, some of these Linux wireless developers have broken copyright law repeatedly. But to even get to the point where they broke copyright law, they had to bypass a whole series of ethical considerations too.'"
A couple more links: (Score:3, Informative)
here's the article on undeadly [undeadly.org] and and here's a synopsis from a misc post [marc.info] An excellent (and apparently sarcastic) quote:
didn't openbsd do the same thing in reverse? (Score:3, Informative)
Its been done for over 10 years (GPL grabs) ! (Score:3, Informative)
i once saw with utter shock that someone took code from Darin Adler nearly 10 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darin_Adler [wikipedia.org]
I noticed that I saw his stuff slapped with GPL viral license and then I compared to earlier nearly IDENTICAL source code files where he specifically went out of the way to put the GPL on it.
Darin wanted his code on this one utility module to be 100% free.
I guess the Linux camp has been doing this for over 10 years now. So immorality is nothing new.
Wasn't all the hard work of SCSI in BSD lifted ages and ages ago too?
So sad. I used to respect the GPl until I saw how the zealots will grab anything and call it their own and even claim copyright OWNERSHIP over code not alterred materially other than swapping out the legal license.
Re:Sure, but (Score:2, Informative)
This is just shit Theo (Score:4, Informative)
NO GNU/LINUX DISTROS CARRIED THE PATCH No GNU/Linux distros carried the patch.
Now, please, shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
A happy OpenBSD user.
Re:didn't openbsd do the same thing in reverse? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sure, but (Score:5, Informative)
Not really true. The issue is with software that is dual licensed - released under both BSD and GPL. The included license file says that the software may be distributed under either license at the users choice. The Linux developers chose to release it under the GPL, as they had every right to do. The problem is that they did not include the BSD license with their released code. Theo says that's a violation - they can not change the license in any way but must retain it exactly as the author released it. This leads to an absurd situation - both license, which are incompatible with one another, are simultaneously in effect. Note that the question of legality is orthogonal to the issue of the absurdity. Theo may very well be right, but so far I've seen no legal experts make the claim, nor have I seen Theo cite anything other than his own interpretation of the law to back up his claim.
I think the solution for coders who wish to release their code under both license is to provide two separate downloads - one with the BSD license, one with the GPL license - but that doesn't help here.
I believe that there was an issue with some code that was only BSD licensed being released under the GPL, and the kernel developers quickly acknowledged and corrected their error. What's left is the issue of dual licensed code, and this is a matter of legal interpretation, not disrespect of an author's intentions or intended copyright violation. The code being released under the GPL is modified code that was previously released under the GPL, so it's difficult to claim that the developers are violating the author's wishes by releasing their modifications of the original under the GPL.
Not quite right. (Score:5, Informative)
Certainly it is NOT okay to remove the copyright notices from BSD material, as long as there's something left in the file that's covered by the BSD license. So, don't do that. But you CAN take a BSD work, combine it with other works, and have the final result as essentially GPL'ed or proprietary. My FLOSS license slide [dwheeler.com] even helps you figure out when you can do that, and when you can't.
But that only covers the legal issues. If there's an existing project that releases something under an OSS license, it's usually better to continue to use their license than to fork off another project under a new license, especially if you're not making many changes. For a lot of reasons.
LWN's article "Relicensing: what's legal and what's right" [lwn.net] is worth a look.
Re:Still confused (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Confused (Score:5, Informative)
You can take BSD code and close it completely under a commercial license, why couldn't you use the GPL instead of a closed commercial license? Why is it unethical to use the GPL but not to use a totalitarian closed license?
Actually they cannot change the source code license. They are required by law to not alter the license. They just arent forced to re-release the source code. Should they decide to release the source code the code as taken from the BSD people is still BSD licensed and can be used under those terms.
Nobody has violated the spirit of the BSD license which is essentially "Here it is, take it and do what you want with it, even if that means incorporating it into a product that makes you millions of dollars and completely closing the software without sharing any modifications back.
He isnt saying they violated the spirit of the license, he is saying they violated the letter of the law by altering the copyright on code without permission or authorization and without making any changes substantial enough to count as derivative work. It doesnt matter if they are GPL people or a corporation that action is illegal and Theo is calling them out on it.
Re:Still confused (Score:2, Informative)
The code was under TWO licenses. GPL and BSD. Someone removed the BSD one because the codes said you can choose either one. Due to likely clarity and to prevent future legal problems (ie: to prevent people from assuming GPL code is under the BSD) they removed the BSD license text.
Re:A couple more links: (Score:5, Informative)
I recognize that writeup about the Atheros / Linux / SFLC story is a bit complex, so I wrote a very simple explanation to someone, and they liked it's clarity so much that they asked me to post it for everyone. Here it is (with a few more changes)
steps taken:-----
starting premise:
1. pester developer for a year to get it under another license.
2. climb over ethical fence
3. remove his license
4. wrap his license with your own
5. assert copyright under author's license, without original work
Right now the wireless linux developers -- aided by an entire team of evidently unskilled lawyers -- are at step 5, and we don't know what will happen next. We wait, to see what will happen.
Reyk can take them to court over this, but he must do it before the year 2047.
Re:irony (Score:1, Informative)
Re:irony (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but the BSD License SPECIFICALLY states that the copyright license/notice and diclaimers must be kept with any binary or source redistribution of the code.
Now the code in question was dual licensed, with "either" being the join, not "both", so they may theoretically be able to chuck the BSD license. However, straight BSD does not allow removal of the license like you suggest.
Oh, and the BSD License for the curious. Occasionally clause 3 and 4 can be removed, but clause 1, which is the relevant portion here, is always kept. BSD License [opensource.org]
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Added restrictions (Score:3, Informative)
The "correct" way for the Linux hackers would be to do the same, include the original dual license text, but make a clear notice that the derived work can only be redistributed under the GPL.
Re:BSD okay for Windows but not for Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
It also sounds obnoxious to take someone's code but to resubmit the changes and bug fixes under a more restrictive license--just as it would be obnoxious for a private company to submit bug fixes but to say "in order to distribute our changes you will have to license the code from us for a grand a year." But to my mind it's just that: obnoxious.
I think Theo is correct (Score:5, Informative)
1. Don't touch the license header unless you make substantive changes
2. If you make substantive changes, you may amend the license header to add your copyright (but not remove existing copyrights) under the same license
3. If you make substantive changes and insist on licensing those changes under a different (but compatible!) license to the original, you may add a new license header above the existing one with your copyright (without modifying the existing header)
The initial problem was that the original license header was replaced entirely, even though no substantial changes had been made. The original license header has now been restored, but there is still an issue with a new copyright declaration having been added in the absence of substantive changes.
Re:didn't openbsd do the same thing in reverse? (Score:5, Informative)
You can't be serious. Another fork of BSD? I mean there are only 4 widely recognised free forks out there, plus lots more that may not be open, not recognizable as BSD, or not significant...
Actually I have the feeling that you are a secret Linux agent, trying to splinter the forces of BSD. Yes, that would make sense.
Re:FOSS developers need to learn to be polite! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Still confused (Score:4, Informative)
Re:didn't openbsd do the same thing in reverse? (Score:3, Informative)
I think Theo has wayyyy overreacted. The only thing anybody did was strip a BSD copyright notice from a wireless driver that was partially dual-licensed and submit it to LKML as a patch. Whether this is immoral or not is not in question, at least in my mind. Whether this is illegal or not is for the lawyers to duke it out, if that's ever going to happen. What is known is that since the patch has not as of yet been included in an official Linux kernel, the 'Linux developers' didn't violate the law. If anyone did, it was only the patch submitter.
Re:Sure, but (Score:3, Informative)
I would like to point out that the they in question was in fact the author of the same code.
Re:Confused (Score:3, Informative)
The code in question is dual licensed: you can use it either under the BSD license or the GPL. It's your choice. In this case the person chose the GPL (and not BSD).
SIGH... You are right you can USE it under either license. But you must distribute the source as dual license unless all the authors allow you to relicense the code.
This is why Theo is harping so much on this because many people fail to understand this very basic concept in copyright law...
Re:didn't openbsd do the same thing in reverse? (Score:3, Informative)
You are confusing distros with forks.
A distro is a particular cocktail of a miriad of available packages. A fork is a parallel code development tree of a particular project or a set of projects.
Linux itself does have forks, maintained for mostly experimental purposes, such as the various private trees of various kernel developers.
Re:Confused (Score:4, Informative)
You're being disingenuous. In the context of this discussion we're talking about modification and redistribution. Neither the GPL or the BSD license say anything about mere use of a program.
On what basis do you do you say that
Remember that this is the law, and "but that's not what I meant!" counts for nothing; only what's written down matters. In this case, if I see "This code is dual-licensed A or B, your choice" then that's exactly what it means: on my derivative work I get to decide if I want to use A or B (or retain a dual license). If you mean "all derivative works must also be dual licensed" then say that.
Theo is not a copyright lawyer and it's clear that neither are you. (But then again, neither am I.)
Re:Sure, but (Score:3, Informative)
Neither the BSD license or the GPL license give you the right to grant licenses. The only person granting licenses on the code is the person who owns the code. Note this section of the GPL:
The recipient is receiving their license from the original licensor, not from you. When given an option you get to pick your distribution terms. But you don't get to establish new terms as you have no standing to do so. Saying the people who receive it from you can only use the GPL is imposing new terms. That's not a right you have.
Re:Still confused (Score:1, Informative)
Theo de Raadt vs. Richard Stallman grudge match! (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, Theo is younger and fitter, but Stallman has a katana [xkcd.com] in imitation of this xkcd cartoon [xkcd.com] :-).
A little lightening up would be good, frankly.
As noted in LWN [lwn.net], this kerfluffle seems to have been kicked off when "wireless developer Jiri Slaby posted a patch which stripped the ISC and BSD license notices from the source, replacing them with GPLv2 license text. It should be noted that this patch was not accepted into any repository anywhere and never became part of any exported Linux kernel tree. Nonetheless the BSD community exploded in a very public way. It is interesting to compare their public response to this posting with the sort of response they very loudly insisted was their due when they were found to have carried improperly relicensed GPL code in their repository for some time."
Re:Sure, but (Score:1, Informative)
My understanding is that the original author published it dual, and then the linux author stripped out the BSD references.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Legally the Linux guys are right. Ethically? (Score:3, Informative)
1.) In making any additions to the overall work that they wished, which would put the combined work under the GPL and
2.) Even if they didn't have #1, the work was dual-licensed with the GPL by a previous author before the BSD folks worked on it.
That said, was it the right thing to do? Maybe not. Having taken that work from BSD, the spirit of cooperation might have best been satisfied by making the result under BSD. However, so many of us hate to see folks take our work private in proprietary software that we resist using BSD licensing. So, I can't blame the developers for this one.
Bruce