[nycbug-talk] Linux driver violates BSD license

Ray Lai nycbug at cyth.net
Wed Aug 29 00:50:03 EDT 2007

Separating the two threads...

On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 12:22:49AM -0400, Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "rl" == Ray Lai <nycbug at cyth.net> writes:
>     rl> http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070829001634
>     rl> Here is a snippet of the relicensing diff:
> yeah but just ten lines down on the same web page it says ``may also
> be distributed under the GPLv2.''  So, they are right.  They _can_
> just strip the BSD license right out of it.  Good for Reyk in inviting
> them to.  If they were obligated to keep both licenses forever, it
> wouldn't be ``dual'' licensed.  It would be licensed under a third
> license that isn't internally consistent.

This is explained by Theo in the comments:

> > It was under a dual BSD/GPL license, so this is allowed, right?
> No. Some parts of the Atheros driver were authored by Sam Leffler,
> and are actually free software. He placed those bits under a 4-term
> BSD license, plus dual licensed it under the GPL. Still, that does
> not give anyone except Sam Leffler the right to change that text,
> on those files.
> The other files in the driver, written by Reyk, are the replacement
> for the HAL. This basically is the hidden register access code which
> Sam (basically employeed by Atheros) refused to release. This code
> was placed by Reyk under an ISC license, something our project
> prefers to use since it is so simple that even a grade 5 student
> cannot misunderstand what it says. It translates to "You can do
> anything, but not delete the text".
> Only Reyk could change that copyright notice, since he is the
> author.

More information about the talk mailing list