bcw(4) is gone

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
109 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

danno
I read the whole thread at gmane and I'm disgusted that a Linux
developer would turn on a BSD developer like that, but I'm not
surprised.

Theo makes the point that Buesch and Co. are treating Marcus like a
thief. They all deny it (claiming they want to help Marcus and the
situation), but then they show their true colors when Buesch himself
says-

"The way OpenBSD folks used our code was a complete lack of respect
for us. Fullstop."


That clearly exposes that Buesch thinks Marcus didn't make a 'mistake',
but did something on purpose... like a --thief--.


Buesch cc'd a large part of the community on his initial email, which
itself was rude. Why?

Because Buesch clearly thinks he and his driver are more important than
treating Marcus like a human being, and the chance to look important via
controversy just couldn't be resisted. This is Buesch's big moment! His
15 minutes of fame! And unfortunately, it worked.


That, to me, means Buesch is an asshole. He made more of a name for
himself in this bullshit fight then he would've for just being the
author of the GPL driver. He did it at the expense of Marcus, he did it
on purpose, and that is wrong. Plain and simple. 'Fullstop'.

Anyone that tries to handle an issue like Buesch has handled this one is
just trying to ham it up in the public spotlight. Theo rightly came to
Marcus' defense because that's Theo's job. Theo gains nothing from this
except the understanding amongst OBSD devs that anyone that develops for
OBSD won't be left in the cold when this shit happens. Kudos to you,
Theo.


danno

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Jacob Yocom-Piatt-2
In reply to this post by darren kirby
darren kirby wrote:

> This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD
> community.
>
> quoth the Steven Harms:
>  
>> There are two roads, the high and the low road.  I am not sure why an adult
>> (assuming) needs to be educated on this.
>>    
>
> High road? Is that how you would describe Theo's handling of this situation?
>
>  

i prefer to hear an impassioned person getting angry and making their
ENTIRE statement to the silly CNN
handful-of-carefully-selected-2-second-clips-on-repeat bullshit you
posted. if i took the time to clip out all the select parts of a series
of emails to make you sound especially bad, lo and behold, you'd sound
like an idiot.

the slow pan-in on osama bin laden photograph with ominous music
technique doesn't work here. talking crap about someone who has
obviously accomplished an order of magnitude more than you have by this
technique is the sort of yellow journalism that doesn't belong anywhere,
especially in canada.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

danno
In reply to this post by Douglas A. Tutty
I see the issue simply as a disingenuous effort by a Linux dev to shame
and OBSD dev for the purposes of self-promotion. And shamefully, and at
the expense of Marcus, it worked.

Marcus can't really go after Buesch the way a corporation could (and
would), and knowing this, Buesch seized the opportunity and ran it up
the flagpole.


'Inhuman' is not an outrageous term for him; unless, of course, it is
considered 'human' to take advantage of a situation the way Buesch did.
I


Danno

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Douglas Allan Tutty
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:15 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: bcw(4) is gone

On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:46:28AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:

> What you people seem to miss in the whole discussion here is that
Linux
> people contact vendors IN PRIVATE if they find GPL violations yet a
> valuable member of the open source community does not get the same
> courtesy.  Only bad things happen when one looks at Linux code.  This
is
> yet another example of it.  This also underscores once more that Linux
> as a community is dead.
>

This should have been handled in private in a respectful manner.  The
two parties could have quickly released an agreed statement of facts
that left the public clear that a mistake had been made in uploading
something to the cvs under the wrong licence.  My guess (I'm no lawyer)
is that if the GPL people started out with a public accusation like this
towards a corporation, then they would be facing a slander and lible
suit.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

bofh-6
In reply to this post by Marcus Watts
On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> specifications separately.

Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?!  Reading that gmane list, one of
the spec writing people said he would be happy to answer any questions
about the specs.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Matthew R. Dempsky
In reply to this post by Marcus Watts
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:15AM -0400, Marcus Watts wrote:
> It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> specifications separately.

They did: http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net and
http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Stefan Sperling
In reply to this post by bofh-6
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:30:35PM -0400, bofh wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> >specifications separately.
> Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?!

Yes they did: http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/

I've spent some time reading it today, for the occasion.

It seems to be lacking some details, e.g. the section describing
how to attach the backplane bridge of the chip [1] says to turn on the
clock crystal and links to a section called "Clock Control", but that
section is completely empty...

[1]
http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/Backplane#head-e793f6c6fc341200320958a2a3ad032
0af0bdc97

Now, someone writing a driver for that crazy chip would really like
to know how to turn on that bloody clock to get the chip up and running.

Apparently it's supposed to be the very first thing the driver should
do to init the chip btw. Weird that it does not seem to be documented
in the spec already. I hope I've just missed it, maybe it's documented
somewhere else and the link is just wrong?

> Reading that gmane list, one of
> the spec writing people said he would be happy to answer any questions
> about the specs.

I guess someone working only with that spec would end up
asking them quite a few questions indeed.

And as far as I can tell writing a driver for that chip is
a big task, even if there were full docs.

I can see why mglocker@ used their code to get going.
If only he hadn't committed it, oh well, shit happens :-|

--
stefan
http://stsp.in-berlin.de                                 PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Marcus Watts
In reply to this post by bofh-6
bofh <[hidden email]> writes:
> On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> > specifications separately.
>
> Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?!  Reading that gmane list, one of
> the spec writing people said he would be happy to answer any questions
> about the specs.

Cool!  My mistake --

http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20061121194620
        openbsd...  points to
http://bcm43xx.berlios.de/
http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/
        points to
http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/

I have seen other pieces of GPL code where the writers had
signed NDAs to get the necessary information.  I always
found that questionable.

                                -Marcus Watts

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

gklok
In reply to this post by Marcus Watts
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:15AM -0400, Marcus Watts wrote:
> Writes darren kirby <[hidden email]>:
> ...
> > From: Joseph Jezak:
> > >>As one of the reverse engineers, the reason for the openness of
> > >>writing the specification was to ensure that the Chinese Wall method
> > >>was maintained.

> > >>To date, I have not been contacted by any of the bcw programmers
> > >>regarding clarification of the specification, but I would welcome
> > >>any questions they might have.

> > So how were they not trying to work with the OpenBSD folks?

> In order for the OpenBSD folks to have worked this out, they would have
> had to go through function by function and ask for approval to use that
> function.  If refused, they would have had to devise a workaround that
> was sufficiently different as to qualify as "new and original" --
> without documentation.  The example function quoted sounded like it was
> actually a macro - probably a small enough chunk of code that there may
> not be any logical "new and original" alternative.  So, even if we stop
> here, we have a cumbersome process that (a) wastes a lot of time, and
> (b) is not guaranteed to result in anything that works.  But wait,
> there's worse!  The FSF contract standard generally requires a release
> *in writing*.  (See documents like "Legal Issues about Contributing
> Code to GNU").  Assuming the gnu bcw programmers are serious about
> protecting their interests (and they sure sound like they are), and
> assuming the openBSD folks are even willing to tolerate this level of
> nonsense, then to get the same level of protection each of these
> exceptions would then need a separate written release.  So, what we're
> talking about here is a momumental amount of work that is easily an
> order of magnitude more complicated than the actual driver, with no
> appreciable benefit to anybody except perhaps the lawyers drafting up
> all those releases.  No part of this process produces better code,
> and no part of this process produces a more secure operating system,
> so all this work we're talking about here is way out of scope for OpenBSD.

> There isn't really any alternative for Marcus Glocker here either.  Now
> that he's clearly seen the GPL code, it would be very difficult for him
> to produce any code for this hardware a clever lawyer couldn't argue
> was "derivative".  He's on the "dirty side" of the Chinese Wall now.
> Unless he wants to spend 90% of his time working out function by
> function copyright releases, the only real alternative he has is to
> delete his code & find something completely different of actual value
> to work on.
>
> I think the really valuable lesson out of all this is that this shows,
> for once & for all, that a GPL licensed driver is *not* an acceptable
> substitute for proper documentation released by the maker without undo
> intellectual or financial burden (ie, no NDA's, excessive licensing
> fees or restrictions.)

> It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> specifications separately.  I can understand why though; DMCA would
> make that a much more risky affair today than when the Phoenix folks
> pioneered the Chinese Wall approach.

> -Marcus Watts
Part of this is nonsense and I dont mean to pick on you in particular
but I have seen it repeated a few times now and its getting annoying.

If licenses were as viral as some of you people imagine that one cannot
look at a source file copyrighted with a dumb license interpert what the
code does and create your own version parts of the LINUX KERNEL WOULD BE
 SUBJECT TO THE APSL and imagine the CDDL as well but I dont mess around
with sun hardware... Seriously you can go look at some of their recent
mac powerpc drivers and you can see plenty of references to where bits
of information were taken from darwin, they have done nothing wrong.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Marcus Watts
Gordon Willem Klok <[hidden email]> writes:

> Part of this is nonsense and I dont mean to pick on you in particular
> but I have seen it repeated a few times now and its getting annoying.
>
> If licenses were as viral as some of you people imagine that one cannot
> look at a source file copyrighted with a dumb license interpert what the
> code does and create your own version parts of the LINUX KERNEL WOULD BE
>  SUBJECT TO THE APSL and imagine the CDDL as well but I dont mess around
> with sun hardware... Seriously you can go look at some of their recent
> mac powerpc drivers and you can see plenty of references to where bits
> of information were taken from darwin, they have done nothing wrong.

You got me.  I'm not a lawyer.  But before you assume you're in the
free & clear, you might want to look at these:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----000-.html
        text of us statue defining derivative work.
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/fairusemusic.html
        fair use - "music sampling"
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/helpful.html
        pointers to more interesting copyright cases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.
        parody - fair use?
        4 grounds: purpose, nature, substantiality, effect on market
        case by case - no general rule.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/
        derivative works.
        "all or parts".
        4 part rule again.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi
        note last case - "same expression".
        also note in many cases, words like "probably not", "that
        depends", etc.  That means you're in a grey zone,
        which means you could be right, and you could
        still end up in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leading_legal_cases_in_copyright_law
        lots and lots of case law.
        some of them are even relevant, some is not.
http://www.low-life.fsnet.co.uk/copyright/
        copyright and sampling.  UK.
http://dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq4.php
        lots of stuff.  Note question 30:
        "new recording based on parts of other songs"
        "usually not legal".
        "may fall into the category of derivative work".

This isn't a black & white thing.  There's a lot of grey here, with
room for lots of expensive legal maneuvering, and you can definitely
find case law on both sides of the coin.  The biggest saving grace I
can see here is since the GPL folks aren't in fact a for-profit
concern, they can't really claim much in the way of monetary damages in
their market.  That *might* save you on ground #4.

One of the things I learned in constructing the above list is a lot has
happened with music sampling and copyright law in the past decade, and
questions that were formerly in the grey area might not be anymore.
All of this stuff is evolving rapidly.

When I've talked to lawyers in the past, they've been very clear
there's "probably safe" and "nearly certainly safe" - and there's a
choice you make.  They'll cheerfully tell you what's nearly certainly
safe, and urge you to take that, and it will very likely seem quite
unreasonable - especially after they say even that's not absolutely
safe.  Part of the judgement call you get to make very often is
what will the other guy actually decide to do, and why.

One of the many reasons I went into software development instead
of lawyering is that computers are a lot more straight-forward.

                                -Marcus Watts

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Darren S.
In reply to this post by Marcus Watts
On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think the really valuable lesson out of all this is that this shows,
> for once & for all, that a GPL licensed driver is *not* an acceptable
> substitute for proper documentation released by the maker without undo
> intellectual or financial burden (ie, no NDA's, excessive licensing
> fees or restrictions.)

Finally, a really meaningful point.

This whole affair has once again proved that the project's dedication
to getting a hardware vendor to reduce completely open specifications
and documentation, and not compromises around such, is truly the only
"safe" way to go.

Also proving all the more that the GPL is without a doubt an extremely
short-sighted and self-serving reference to software freedom. Poison,
both in the sense of software licensing and developer mindset.

DS

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

StrongBad
On Apr 6, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Darren Spruell wrote:

> This whole affair has once again proved that the project's dedication
> to getting a hardware vendor to reduce completely open specifications
> and documentation, and not compromises around such, is truly the only
> "safe" way to go.

That appears to be a fair conclusion.

--
Jack J. Woehr
Director of Development
Absolute Performance, Inc.
[hidden email]
303-443-7000 ext. 527

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Jon Simola
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling
On 4/6/07, Stefan Sperling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Yes they did: http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/
>
> I've spent some time reading it today, for the occasion.
>
> It seems to be lacking some details, e.g. the section describing
> how to attach the backplane bridge of the chip [1] says to turn on the
> clock crystal and links to a section called "Clock Control", but that
> section is completely empty...

It's a pain, I was constantly comparing the v4 specs at the URL you
mentioned above and the older v3 specs at
http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/ to try and figure out how to get
anything done. I am impressed beyond belief that the bcm43xx crew
managed to build a driver and/or reverse engineer that hardware.

--
Jon

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Alex de Joode-2
In reply to this post by Eric Furman-3
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:55:19AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
[..]

> You may be right, but then I would have made the same error as he did
> if I were in the same situation. Even though it is publicly accessible
> does not mean to me that it was *published*

In some jurisdictions it just means that.

> and there was certainly no insertion of a BSD license into the code used.
> A CVS is a repository of code under development, not finished products.

Not relevant in some jurisdictions.


--
Exit! Stage Left!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Shawn K. Quinn
In reply to this post by Eric Furman-3
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
> They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close
> it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make?
> Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well?
> They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom
> driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give
> a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?

Speaking as someone who has read more of the gnu.org and fsf.org Web
sites and (probably) listened to Richard Stallman speeches than most of
the OpenBSD user community:

Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
allowing access to the source code.

The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is
about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada
compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released under
the GPL.

(It is worth noting that even Richard Stallman himself understands that
the GPL and LGPL are not always the best choices. One example of this:
<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/000005.html>)

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Jeroen Massar
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
[..]
> Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
> GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
> What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
> allowing access to the source code.

Not exactly. The copyright owner can sell it for any price they want and
doesn't have to give their code away in any way. They can also sell it
as a binary+source. Their pick, full power to the original author.

Now the moment that somebody else gets the code they can either:
 - sell it on in giving away source+binary
 - give it away to everybody they want

What the non-copyright owner can't do though is share the binaries with
others. When one shares the binary one also has to share the source and
all the changes made. As long as the non-copyright owner keeps the
source and keeps the binary they don't have to distribute either. The
moment they sell/pass it on though, eg a linksys box, they must give it
away.

This portion limits "commercial usage" as anybody who wants to extend it
to make it do what they want, taking just a simple basis and adding a
load of options to it, they still have to provide also the source when
they pass on the binary to the third party.

For me that is unacceptable. I either give my code away for everybody to
 peruse or I keep it locked up in a closet.

GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to
you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.

For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)

Tip for coders: Start a lousy little project that many people will like,
then release it as GPL, then if lucky people will use it and give you
patches, now you can sell it back to them ;) Okay, that stops at the
moment you have other people's code in there which you can't
dual-license though, and that is the fun of GPL: you cripple yourself.

> The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is
> about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada
> compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released under
> the GPL.

That is simply dual-licensing, something different altogether ;)
See above for a nasty trick there though.

Greets,
 Jeroen

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Greg Thomas-3
In reply to this post by Shawn K. Quinn
On 4/9/07, Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [hidden email] wrote:
> > They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close
> > it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make?
> > Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well?
> > They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom
> > driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give
> > a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?
>
> Speaking as someone who has read more of the gnu.org and fsf.org Web
> sites and (probably) listened to Richard Stallman speeches than most of
> the OpenBSD user community:
>
> Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the
> GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.
> What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without
> allowing access to the source code.
>
> The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software.

Sounds like 1984 newspeak to me.

Greg

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Jessie D
In reply to this post by Darren S.
Darren Spruell <phatbuckett <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Also proving all the more that the GPL is without a doubt an extremely
> short-sighted and self-serving reference to software freedom. Poison,
> both in the sense of software licensing and developer mindset.

What does any of this have to do with the license?! It's *all* about copyright
infringement. Even if the original was licensed under BSD, you would still have
the same problem: you can't just take the code, strip the copyright attribution
and then distribute it as your own!

"Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer."

Sounds familiar?

So please, how is this a GPL issue again?

-
jd

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

polarapfel
In reply to this post by Jeroen Massar
Hi there,

On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
...

> GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the  
> code to
> you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
>
> For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)

The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"  
as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it  
"unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!". In my  
opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free",  
no matter what the possible actions are. This ain't the case with BSD  
code. /You/ may do as you like with the code, but this doesn't make  
the code "free", it just liberates your actions. BSD code is not  
"free" code as such. It just implies "free" actions. It's just a  
matter of perspective.

> Tip for coders: Start a lousy little project that many people will  
> like,
> then release it as GPL, then if lucky people will use it and give you
> patches, now you can sell it back to them ;) Okay, that stops at the
> moment you have other people's code in there which you can't
> dual-license though, and that is the fun of GPL: you cripple yourself.

You don't have to accept GPL contributions to your own codebase if  
you want to dual license. Their code contributions, your choice. As  
easy as that. It's all about respect. Respect their copyright or drop  
it. Easy, simple, fair. In fact, GPL projects offer more incentives  
of contributing that BSD projects. Someone wanting to contribute to a  
BSD project has to give up all control of their contribution. Not  
everybody is willing to follow down that road. The GPL at least makes  
sure that nobody can legally exploit a contribution without making it  
available to the users so that they can profit too. This is a much  
more valuable incentive to participate.

If you /really/ want to include GPL contributions in your codebase in  
dual licensing schemes, you'll have to ask for permission of the  
copyright owner of that contribution. This is the most natural thing  
in the world.

This whole bcw(4) discussion turned out to be a "Those GNU/Linux/GPL  
fanatics don't allow us to be even more free than they claim to be!"  
cryout. The funny thing is that it comes down to an OpenBSD  
contributor who didn't respect the copyright of some other party by  
redistributing GPL code without the GPL license through a public CVS  
repository. It's amazing how a community that should actually take a  
defensive position in a matter like this switches into attack mode  
and makes the violated party the culprit. The majority of the posts  
in this discussion, be it on undeadly, some other mailing list or  
here on [misc], reflect the mental pattern of six-year olds who  
cannot argue reasonably. I really have to admit that if these people  
represent the majority of the OpenBSD community, I am disgusted and  
most of all disappointed. But of course, it just may be so that  
decent people choose not to take part in these threads at all.

regards,
Tobias

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Shawn K. Quinn
In reply to this post by Jeroen Massar
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is
> > about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada
> > compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released
> > under the GPL.

> That is simply dual-licensing, something different altogether ;)

I think you are misinterpreting "commercial" to imply "proprietary". It
does not: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial>

--
Shawn K. Quinn <[hidden email]>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Jessie D
In reply to this post by Eric Furman-3
 <ericfurman <at> fastmail.net> writes:
> >
> > To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his
> > efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs.
>
> A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository
> of code for anyone to use.

Exactly.

> So no code was released hence no license violation. It doesn't take a genius.

Not sure what you mean by "released" (tagged? packaged? announced?) but
committing code to public CVS definitely equates to distribution. This is how
the Linux devels noticed the problem, this is how I got the code, this is how
anyone can *still* grab that code from CVS history. There's no way in hell one
can claim this is not distribution. If you still believe otherwise, try
committing your legally purchased MP3 collection to public CVS and see what
happens ;)

Copying and distribution of copyrighted materials is regulated by copyright law,
so yes, you do need a valid license to commit somebody else' code to public CVS.


>
> >
> > The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus,
> > claiming license violations.

You call Buesch's neutral email an attack?! You have got to be kidding, he's
merely presenting the facts.

> >
> > Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is
> > kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver
> > from the OpenBSD cvs tree.
> >
> > Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users.
> >
> > Thank you, Linux BCW developers!
> >
>
> <AntiLinuxRant>
> Forget it. I was annoyed by the "GPL" Nazis and was going to write
> a long diatribe, but what's the point. I would either be preaching to
> the choir or just ignored as another one of those people who "just
> don't get it".
> </AntiLinuxRant>

You people need to get your heads out of your arses and realize this has
absolutely nothing to do with Linux & GPL. Code under *any* license cannot be
stripped of copyright attribution and distributed as your own. If the original
driver was licensed under BSD, what Marcus did would still be a copyright *and*
license violation.

-
jd

123456