Re: Wasting our Freedom

Hi!

On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.

The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...

JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
dual-licensing *explicitly* allows relicensing, relicensing is forbidden
by copyright law. The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's
*explicitly* stated, either in the statement offering the alternative, or
in one of the licenses.

Neither GPL nor BSD/ISC allow relicensing in their well-known wordings.

If you think that's questionable, you should at least provide arguments
(and be ready to have your interpretation of the law and the licenses
tested before court).

[...]

Regarding ethics - if you use the BSD licence for your code you state in
the licence text that it's OK that I take your code and never give
anything back.

But the BSDl does not allow you to relicense the original code, even
while it allows you to license copyrightable additions/modifications
under different terms with few restrictions.

However, you say "regarding ethics" and just go back to the legal level.
Is it really ethical, if you consider both Linux and OpenBSD part of one
OSS "community", to share things only in one direction? To take the
reverse engineered HAL but to not allow OpenBSD to take some
modifications back?

[...]

Some people have the funny position of opposing the GPL which enforces
that you have to give back, but whining that people took their BSD
licenced code and don't give back.

A difference is, GPL requires it under every circumstance. BSD does not,
indeed. But how should one expect it from *OSS* people that even *they*
don't give back? Do you really want to put yourself on the same level as
closed-source companies?

[...]

Kind regards,

Hannah.
-
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: Wasting our Freedom
    ... these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel ... who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... ... Regarding ethics - if you use the BSD licence for your code you state in ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: CompareSoft ripping off GPL products?
    ... They are violating the terms of the Qt licence (unless they have come ... > Why can't they use the GPL version of the Qt licence? ... in the company yada yada yada) ergo it requires a Qt commercial licence. ... >>> The website also claims to have developers working on GPL code, ...
    (uk.comp.os.linux)
  • Re: Wasting our Freedom
    ... these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel ... who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal... ... The dual-licensing allows relicensing only if that's ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • Re: Need security advice from Admins at Software Development companies
    ... and see if you can come up with a licence that matches your use. ... engage in a dialog with the developers. ... > the T&Cs that you get to install it on ONE MACHINE. ... > machines... ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?
    ... Sorry about the placement of this posting but there has been something ... The distinction between BSD and GPL is one I also draw, ... Developers who want to write open source software under someone elses ... originally a commercial SGI product that they licence in various ways ...
    (alt.lang.asm)