[beck@bofh.cns.ualberta.ca: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.]

----- Forwarded message from Bob Beck [off-list ref] -----

From: Bob Beck <redacted>
To: misc-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org
Subject: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on bofh.cns.ualberta.ca
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.1.8
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:22:43 -0600
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14

 [ A copy of this is going to the linux kernel mailing list, regarding the
recent license modifications to reyk's files]

Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old 
with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:

/*      $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $  */
/*      $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $        */
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.

   Of course you do! because some of reyk's work used some of Sam's
work, and unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems
to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not
*removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors.
That's the point. He's not saying he wrote this piece, and he's not
*changing* the conditions under which Sam distributed the code in the
first place. However what scares me more is the seeming willingness to
make the authors of a derivative work appear to be the primary authors
of something, and a willingness to change an authors copyright
statement (on reyk's code) without his permission. 

   I have always immensely respected the GPL - it has very noble
goals, they are very appropriate in some cases, they don't happen to
be mine, but that's fine, I don't release my code under it - but
that's fine, it's my choice.  Just like many smart people who I know
and respect do their work in GPL land, and this is great too. However,
when it comes time to be looking at someone else's work above all we
have to respect the various authors choice of how they want their hard
work shared with the community. 

  To me, this seems like a portion of the Linux community seems to be
wanting to make their own rules, chosing to rewrite a license at any
time they choose without the original author's agreement. This appalls
and scares me. Why? not only does it show a huge lack of respect for
someone who has worked very hard to produce something the whole
community can use, but seriously undermines software freedom as a
whole. This is a slippery slope. If one community starts modifying the
others licenses for no purpose other than zealotry, I see only two
consequences:

   1) a hugh rift of mistrust between the developers of both camps,
meaning no cooperating to make the world a better place.

   2) A weakening of the respect for licensing on all sides of the
community, which weakens the credibility of both BSD *AND* the GPL
license when tested from the outside. Frankly, this scares the hell
out of me and dismays me. 

   I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads
inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and
the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from
Theo, and he's a great target to bash, and start thinking about what
you are doing to free software as a whole. I think you are on the
verge of doing irreparable damage that will seriously weaken the
ability for all of our projects to move forward, and protect our
rights as code authors in the future.

	-Bob


----- End forwarded message -----

On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:41:12PM -0600, Bob Beck wrote:

----- Forwarded message from Bob Beck [off-list ref] -----

From: Bob Beck <redacted>
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: I respect the GPL immensely, really I do - but I believe this type of action weakens us all.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on bofh.cns.ualberta.ca
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=no version=3.1.8
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:22:43 -0600
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14

 [ A copy of this is going to the linux kernel mailing list, regarding the
recent license modifications to reyk's files]

quoted

Oh, and if you look at the OpenBSD CVS you see versions 4 months old 
with dozens of contributions by Reyk and with:

/*      $OpenBSD: ath.c,v 1.63 2007/05/09 16:41:14 reyk Exp $  */
/*      $NetBSD: ath.c,v 1.37 2004/08/18 21:59:39 dyoung Exp $        */
/*-
* Copyright (c) 2002-2004 Sam Leffler, Errno Consulting
* All rights reserved.

   Of course you do! because some of reyk's work used some of Sam's
work, and unlike what it seems a portion of the Linux community seems
to be willing to do in their Zealotry for the GPL, reyk is not
*removing and modifying* the licenses granted by the original authors.
That's the point. He's not saying he wrote this piece, and he's not
*changing* the conditions under which Sam distributed the code in the
first place. However what scares me more is the seeming willingness to
make the authors of a derivative work appear to be the primary authors
of something, and a willingness to change an authors copyright
statement (on reyk's code) without his permission. 
...

You miss the whole point of dual licencing:

Sam has stated in the licence that the code can be distributed under the 
terms of the BSD licence, or alternatively it can be distributed under 
the terms of the GPLv2.

Noone removed Sam's licence.

Sam has offered a choice, and if you choose one of the two offered 
licences when distributing his code that complies with what he stated
in his copyright notice.

IANAL, but if reyk contributed to dual licenced code keeping the file 
dual licenced it's hard to argue that he did not make the changes he 
made available dual licenced.

   I seriously hope that saner more mature and forward thinking heads
inside the Linux community will stop bashing the things that Theo and
the rest of our community is saying just because it's coming from
Theo, and he's a great target to bash, and start thinking about what
you are doing to free software as a whole. I think you are on the
verge of doing irreparable damage that will seriously weaken the
ability for all of our projects to move forward, and protect our
rights as code authors in the future.

The funny thing is that it seems Jiri's patch contained copyright 
violations - and the parts of his patch Theo attacks are the parts
that are OK...

	-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