What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
17 Comments
- dwchandler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6> provided that the above copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
The notice was removed, which is not allowed. It was done intentionally.
All this talk about how this is just a random LKML posting is bunk. This was committed code, explicitly intending to remove the BSD licensing in an unlawful manner. Just because it hadn't gone all the way through yet does not change that.
As a counterpoint, the bcw driver was merely put in the repository for convenience. It wasn't linked in to build, and would never have been part of the OpenBSD kernel.
You can't have it both ways. This is hands down worse than bcw. It's intentional, unlawful, and it also shows disregard for the original author's work in producing a free and completely open driver, who had the utmost intention of sharing the code. - schestowitz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38746
Let's call it even. - qwuinc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I wonder if Theo is going to throw another tantrum now that the situation is reversed:
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/07/1618239
;-) - Sunnz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No really.
There are 2 parts of the driver, OpenBSD Reyk's part and the other part made by Sam.
Reyk's code is _not_ dual licensed and is _not_ GPL, himself have explicitly stated so.
Sam's code can be _ alternatively_ distributed under GPL, but not both BSD and GPL, it is not dual license neither. But Linux people can use it and distribute Sam's code under GPL if they choose to, but with Reyk's code, it can be distributed under BSD license ONLY. - crweb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Did you actually take a look at all the other patches and see if Reyk's code actually existed in those files. All i see in the license change patch is the license changing.
Did you actually do some research to see if Reyk's code is even still in the files, or are you just trying to start a flame? - has2k1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Does that mean you should strip the "i" right out of linux.
- cyberpope, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, I didn't read the article, but I think the i was the part that violated the BSD license. So Mr. Torvald decided to comply and remove it entirely.
- qwuinc, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I wonder if Theo is going to throw another tantrum now that the situation is reversed:
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/07/1618239
;-) - crweb, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Also, i want to add that this is just a post to the kernel mailing list. Not committed into the kernel source tree. Anybody can post anything they want to the ML
- qwuinc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0KernelTrap link: http://kerneltrap.org/Linux/Relicensing_Code
- nicm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Well, for me the strange thing is less that one ignorant person submitted these patches to the mailing list - ignorant people exist, mistakes happen - but more the responses from others... So far there are two rather limp responses, one from a person who surely should know better ("is this a good idea" indeed) and a fairly misleading post from a man who Theo de Raadt claims has past form at license misinterpretation and hassling OpenBSD developers (see http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118836617815218). Nobody on the list has pointed out the license says it can't be removed, nobody has asked the question your first post asked (is the code gone or what? and does that make a difference?), nobody jumped up to ask the author: did you look at this carefully? Now, maybe they are all busy not committing this kind of stuff, but surely someone pointed it out, either in public or to prompt the poster to clarify? I mean, there are Linux developers who have been shown to be hypersensitive about code licensing, so why no queries for this?
-- Nicholas. - qwuinc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0How is a diff sent to a mailing list "committed code"? Even more so than CVS-committed code is (even if it is "for convenience")? If I'm not badly mistaken, last commit that was accepted into the kernel from Jiri Slaby is from 2007-07-26.
I don't understand why people are trying to make such a big flamewar about these things. Obviously Slaby's "relicensing" mail raises an eyebrow or two, but this mud throwing from both the linux and bsd folks is not going to make anyone happy. - lowkey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Not a violation. The code was dual licensed and you are allowed to use either the BSD or GPLv2 license. So they elected to use GPLv2 and push that forward.
See more in this comment: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634&pid=69 - sirhomer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3This is inaccurate.
The BSD license obligations are as follows:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and 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.
The Linux people thus followed this obligation, and therefore, did not violate the BSD license. - logego, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Both licenses have their place. It's a shame that too often these guys can't work together and simply agree to fork the development after sharing the code (and their work). Then you can have the same code cross-licensed at the point of the fork. They can agree to do this any number of times. Both GPL Linux and BSD are outstanding systems whose goals are much more similar than they are different.
- kingtaco, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0OP is retarded and doesn't understand that the author can decide to relicense under whatever terms he chooses for new releases. it's quite common when code moves from bsd to linux that it's relicensed as BSD/GPL2. OP provides absolutely no evidence that the code was stolen or otherwise misused. burried for being a tard.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Uhh, the person who changed the license is the same person who wrote the original piece of software (Jiri Slaby). Since he's the copyright holder, he's allowed to do whatever he wants with the code, including relicensing to and from BSD at his will.
Buried as completely ridiculous. Do some real research before you start drumming up accusations.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is