----- Forwarded message from Bob Beck <[email protected]> -----
From: Bob Beck <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
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 -----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
