RE: GPL weasels and the atheros stink


Letting aside the legality of that change, why would such a change
be needed ? The licensing is perfectly clear: the file is available
under the ISC licence, OR the GPL licence. This doesn't cause any
problem for the linux kernel. The ISC licence is perfectly compatible
with the GPL (note to GPL trolls: this new licence does not have any
advertizing clause, which was the ONLY issue with the old licence). And
heck, they can use the code under the GPL licence. There is no
incompatibility
in there.

Your entire argument is based on the false assumption that these licenses
are compatible. They are not. You cannot put code that was offered under the
GPLv2 into code that is licensed under the dual license and distribute the
result.

The only possible issue is related to paranoia: if this file stays
dual-licenced, some of its code may escape from the GPL shrine, and
become available to the cuddly BSD people... but since their licence
doesn't protect anything, it could used by the Evil Empire of Microsoft,
or SCO, or whoever is the villain of the month.

That's not the problem. The problem is that if the file stays dual-licensed,
everyone working on that file in the Linux kernel will have to be careful
not to put any GPLv2-only code into it. That's just untenable. Any
consistent license is better than different files being under different
licenses such that you can't cut and paste code between files.

Let's extend the story a wee little bit. It seems that these days, some
parts of the opensource community have gotten confident enough that they
do not need the other part. We all know the situation is already fairly
disymetric. The GPL is less free than the ISC licence for instance (for
some definition of free), and practically, this makes it impossible to
add GPL code to an ISC project without putting the project under the Aegis
of the GPL licence. The reciprocal relationship does NOT hold. As you can
see in various places, it is quite possible to put BSD code inside a GPL
project without any issue (the FSF libiberty is a nice proof of that. And
heck, the glibc as well... Read carefully past the COPYING file, you'll
find numerous instances of BSD-like licences).

If you embed protectable elements from GPLv2-only code into any of those
files, they are no longer dual-licensed. You wind up creating traps and
complexity that makes the code much harder to maintain.

So, now, it's down to dirty fighting. Absorbing and `relicensing' and
evolving code. Have you all been bitten my RMS paranoia (that leads to
this `interesting GPLv3) ? Do you intend to keep grabbing BSD code and
putting it exclusively under the GPL ?

It is just impractical to maintain code in the Linux tree under any other
license. See some of my other posts where I discuss the nightmare of trying
to add new hooks to every filesystem if different filesystems are under
different licenses and so you can't cut/paste the implementation from one
file to another.

Do you really think he's going to keep his work under a
dual-licence, seeing
how a bunch of rabid linux zealots are all but intent on stealing his code
whenever they can.

Nice going, GPL fan-boys...

A dual-license is a compromise. One of the downsides is that you may force
large projects that are under one license or the other to fork the code. If
that bothers you, don't dual license.

DS


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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
    ... You have _read_ the licence, ... themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those ... This is why kernel modules can have their own, ... by the GPL. ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Artistic License (license to steal?) - Open Source copyrights
    ... as GPL. ... of what's actually in the licence you agree to by using the software. ... Although theoretically either license could be changed, ... labels Perl's artistic license as potentially viral," said Wall, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Picking a license
    ... he's not suggesting a permissive license instead.)" ... available under a GPL-compatible licence. ... people complain about how the GPL ... difficult for RMS to bully Python into relicensing. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Picking a license
    ... you shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next library" post. ... under a GPL-compatible licence." ... -- he wrote the license" which is basically what I've been saying all ... readline was the hook that sucked him into ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • [PATCH] change libata license from OSL+GPL to GPL
    ... - changes license of all code from OSL+GPL to plain ole GPL ... indicate your decision by deleting the provisions above and ...
    (Linux-Kernel)