OSNews

Are you sure? I think that in a dual licensed file you can't remove any license without the permision of the owners. The dual lincense really sucks.

Depending on the dual licensing scheme you may or may not remove part of the license.

In this case the correct solution would be to add a statement along these lines:

(C) YEAR John Doe

This file was received under a dual license allowing for choosing one of the two following licenses. One is a modified BSD-license and the other option is the GNU General Public License version 2. The second option was chosen and since YYYYMMDD this file is distributed under the GPL v.2

I don't think that is possible unless the licence that the redistributor chose explicitly allows removal of the other license. Otherwise the redistributor does not have the right to change the licensing terms.

It may be possible to create a new dual licensing scheme where it is possible, but with the existing BSD/GPL it is not. (Keep in mind that with a new licensing scheme, the terms of distribution would be different from both the BSD and the GPL, so reconsideration of license compatibilities would be necessary.)

What are you talking about?

My suggestion was not to remove the discarded license, but add a notice telling which license was chosen.

For this particular situation it goes like this:
The license chosen does not have to allow for removal of the other license, because the other license does not exist in any legal sense in the moment it is discarded. There is as such nothing that prevents removing the BSD-part (or the GPL-part), since it is not a legal document, unless it is chosen (in which case the other license is not a legal document). The license clearly allows for only one of the licenses and the copyright holder has told that the linux-devs were correct. This is because the code is licensed as BSD or GPL.

There is another kind of BSD/GPL dual license. That's the normal one where the BSD-code is sublicensed as GPL. In those situations it is a copyright violation to remove the BSD-license because it is licensed as BSD and GPL.

The "and" and "or" makes the difference.

Remember, just because a license text is present in a file does not mean that license is valid. Especially not when talking about optional dual licensing.

The FreeBSD-team removed the GPL-part and OpenBSD guys did not complain.

The code from Sam Leffner is not BSD-licensed NOR GPL-licensed. It is licensed under a license saying you can choose BSD or GPL. It explicitly allows for discarding one of the licenses (but not discarding both). One can then choose to distribute as BSD or GPL or under the original license, passing the option along. But one doesn't _have_ to do that. It's your own choice. It explicitly allows for choosing the license terms ýou want (from the two options).

Theo is simply wrong on this one.

If it was only on this one...

Obviously he's completely wrong (luckily for him and the OpenBSD project). Dual license means exactly what you say, and to make it clearer it should be put:

- Download this file under BSD lincese (insert download link)

- Download this file under GPL license (insert download link)

What bothers me most is that TdR is so concerned about people "stealing" their code. Well, the original (modified) BSD license says: "You can't use this code for your project and you don't have to contribute back your changes". The GPL says: "you can use this code for your project but you must contribute back the changes." If Theo wants the second option, he should choose the GPL as his license instead of using the BSD one and then start winning about people not contributing back. And if someone steals BSD code, it's not Linux (who releases Free code to reuse by anyone under the GPL), but proprietary vendors!

One last thing: the other parts of that driver that were not dual licensed are not BSD but ISC licensed. The ISC license is used by the OpenBSD project now for their new code (AFAIK). This license is *not* equal to the BSD one.

The ISC License has copyleft, though it's so poorly written that it's hard to know what the person who wrote it meant. I hate these "simple" licenses that don't explain anything and leave so much to be "guessed". OpenBSD should drop this license and decide if they want the "normal" BSD License (no copyleft, derivative works can be closed source) or the GPL (strong copyleft). Or if not explain clearly what they want people to do with their code and what they don't want people to do with their code.

EDIT:
I forgot to say why TdR is lucky to be wrong. If he was right and *both* licenses should be respected when you *distribute* the code, then the OpenBSD project would be illegal, since they would be distributing GPL'ed code without respecting the license.

Edited 2007-09-02 16:53

What a crap. You cannot use this code anymore in a BSD project. So it's indeed stolen code.

GPL'ed code is Free code. You can use it, modify it and redistribute it under certain terms. If you don't want to accept those terms it's your *choice* not to do so. Nobody's stealing anything here (specially because if you comply with the BSD license you're not stealing, you're just honoring the author's will).

Copyleft is no freedom at all

I respect your opinion, but as I said, TdR here is complaining as if what he really wants is a copyleft license. AND, as a matter of a fact, he (and the OpenBSD project) has chosen a copyleft license (the ISC license) for all their new code. The only problem is that this ISC license is so crappy that it's hard to know what it really means. Should you provide source code? Can you add further restrictions to the license or must it be redistributed *exactly* under those same terms? What about derivative works? Too many questions without answer...

the OpenBSD project) has chosen a copyleft license (the ISC license) for all their new code.

I read the incredibly short ISC license (it's a "1-clause" BSD) and don't understand your claim that it is copyleft. It says nothing about adding restrictions on the redistribution of derived works, which is the fundamental stipulation that makes a license copyleft.

As for what it means, here it is in all its glory, minus the copyright notice and standard disclaimer:

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or 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.

Seems (extremely) straightforward to me. According to Wikipedia (grain of salt advised), it's functionally the same as the 2-clause BSD because of language made redundant by the Berne Convention.

Obviously he's completely wrong (luckily for him and the OpenBSD project). Dual license means exactly what you say, and to make it clearer [...]

Actually, a document falling under multiple licences can give you the opportunity to select a licence when it's explicitly specified. While you can redistribute such document on the licence you accepted, it doesn't give you the right to rip the other licences unless you were given the right explicitly.

Like dylansmrjones suggested, specifying the licence you have chosen could be a solution.

Actually, a document falling under multiple licences can give you the opportunity to select a licence when it's explicitly specified.

This is not correct.

You can't distribute a file under two licenses. When you dual license a file you give the person who receives the file the option to choose *either* one or the other license.

Note that the GPL license doesn't allow you to distribute code under the BSD license, and so, if you were distributing a file under *both* licenses at the same time, you would be violating the GPL license and therefor it would be an illegal distribution.

Incorrect. It is possible to distribute a file under the combination of two or more licenses. There's quite a bit of code out there under the revised BSD-license AND the GPL license. This is perfectly legal.

There are two kinds of dual licensing.

1) A licensing scheme where you can choose one of the licenses and discard the other one. That's what we usually consider dual licensing.

2) A combination of two licenses. Like taking a MIT-licensed file and sublicensing it under the GPL. There's quite a bit of that in GPL'ed projects. This is possible ONLY when the licenses are compatible. The revised BSD-license is compatible with GPL.

BSD asks for one simple thing : include the copyright license when using the source. This notice grants everyone the right to use the code under the same conditions :

"- * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
- * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer,
- * without modification."

This is exactly what the GPL-guy stripped out. By removing the notice, he not only violated the license under which he had received the code, but he *duped his users* by taking away from them a right explicitly granted to them by the author and placing on them the restriction of only having access to this code under the GPL.

You CAN include BSD code in GPL code, you CANNOT then strip out the BSD copyright because you think the GPL grants you this right, that's circular reasoning.

Edited 2007-09-02 18:18 UTC

That's true to the extent that BOTH licenses apply at the SAME time. This is not the case here, so your argumentation is moot.

BSD asks for one simple thing : include the copyright license when using the source. This notice grants everyone the right to use the code under the same conditions


Which is exactly why they should have NOT dual-licensed the code, if that was their purpose.

This is exactly what the GPL-guy stripped out. By removing the notice, he not only violated the license under which he had received the code

He didn't "violated" any license because the file was dual-licensed. He choosed one of the two licenses offered by the copyright owner

From your POV, if I choosed to use this code for a propietary product, I'd also be breaking the GPL!

In fact, from your POV nobody should dual-license code because it'll be illegal most of the times


you CANNOT then strip out the BSD copyright because you think the GPL grants you this right

You can if the code is dual-licensed. If the author didn't wanted this to happen, then he should just have NOT dual-licensed it, period.

I feel like i'm on slashdot here. Has *anyone* on this thread read the fine article ?

Theo de Raadt replied pointing out that there are two parts to the driver, one part written by Reyk Floeter, and another part written by Sam Leffler, "Reyk's code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. He has explicitly stated that his code is not dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He's the author, he said so. None else can add a GPL to it."

Reyk's code was licensed under the ISC-license and that part got fixed as soon as the OpenBSD team complained.

This is not about Reyk's code which is licensed under the ISC-license - and in the Linux kernel also sublicensed under the GPL - which is perfectly legal.

The error in removing the ISC-license was fixed within hours.

Why should we believe you? No one here's a lawyer, but Theo de Raadt has more on the line than OSnews comment score in regards to legalities like this. And one thing's for sure - wrong or right, there's nothing simple about this problem. While what he says about the totality of the author's rights is clear (it's the center of copyright law), dual-licencing is a gigantic mess that has (to the best of my knowledge) never been probed in the courts - which the only way to establish the 'right' view on it.

My own opinion? You can distribute it under either of them - but you STILL must obey both of them, which means keeping the legal notices intact (what's that the GPL said about passing on all your rights?).

"My own opinion? You can distribute it under either of them - but you STILL must obey both of them, which means keeping the legal notices intact (what's that the GPL said about passing on all your rights?)."

So do you believe the dual licensed files cannot be made closed-source? I'm sure the GPL folks are more than happy to leave in those precious BSD attribution clauses if it also means that dual licensed files can't become closed-source :-)

The copyright holder disagrees. Besides that - such a BOTH-licenses-at-the-same-time would be GPL-incompatible.

The passage in the GPL about passing on all your rights does not mean you can pass on restrictions or add extra clauses. Such clauses would make the license GPL-incompatible.

That only applies in this specific case, what he says doesn't magically make that the precedent for dual-licensing (it doesn't even make it for this one, it just means he can selectively enforce/ change around the licences he's using).

In addition, the BSD licence is LESS restrictive than the GPL, and you (the distributor/ editor) aren't adding extra clauses, you're keeping the ones that are there, there. If you took something that was gpl and then added the bsd licence to the entire code, that's where you'd hit that block.

Fight a silly copyleft with a even sillier copyleft, how bright ...

"""
it all boils down to either being free to give up freedom, or being forced to be free...
"""

It all boils down to choosing the license for your code carefully.

Because, even in the most optimistic scenario, people are going to take you at your word, and follow the letter of the law. You can't release under a license that doesn't say what you mean, and expect people to know and follow whatever it was that you meant.

If you license under BSD, you need to be sure that is what you want. If you license under GPL, you need to be sure that is what you want.

It may make sense to start by erring on the restrictive side, since its easier for the author to grant new rights than to take away existing rights which have already been granted. In fact, he can't. Only by evolving the code and releasing the later versions under a different license can restrictions be added, in a practical sense. Unless, of course, you are the FSF, and have conned a lot of people into giving you the power to change the rules anytime you want. ;-)

Edited 2007-09-02 16:24

This concerns the KERNEL. I'm absolutely certain that this is not FSF.

This is nowhere near about the kernel, this is about licenses and issues regarding GPL and BSD licenses and as such it's pretty much ok to mention FSF in the discussion. Besides, it was a joke.

And please, that last line was pretty lame and very much off-topic.

"""

"""
No.

"""

"""

I do need someone to come in and clean this carpet.

"""

"""

No. My first lover left me for an older model, and then decided he'd rather be by himself, and then died. My second also left me for an older model, and then also died. My third found someone who was better for him, after much prodding from me, and is likely happier for it. I hope so, anyway.

None of the persons involved were named Richard. There was a Dennis, a Keith, a Charlie, a Doug, a Byron, and a... "what's his bucket?". There's only so much that one can take over a 22 year period. So I must be lashing out at anyone. Even Richard, who is not my type at all! ;-)

Actually, though, I was referring to the "or later" clause. Thanks for bringing up the copyright attribution issue, though. I'd forgotten about that. And it is a better example than what I was originally referring to. :-)

Edited 2007-09-02 17:00

Have you noticed how Theo keeps contradicting himself in his interpretion of the dual licensing scheme?

I hadn't but I'll certainly be looking out for it, now that you mention it.

Frankly, Theo was completely off my radar up until about 3 years ago. Beforehand, I didn't much interest myself with the affairs of the BSDs. Now, the guy seems to be everywhere.

I'm sure that, considering all the publicity he is generating, OpenBSD is getting allot more mind share. I only wish he could go about it in a less antagonistic manner.

Like Linus and his interface Nazis (aka Gnome developers) or his outburst about the experience toward BSD developers?
It would be rather nice to see how many licenses the Linux-crowd just erased in the kernel and relabeled them with the GPL. I don't think Theo has got a problem, it's a problem of this Linux-crowd, they don't understand licenses at all and they have not got any respectful behaviour against other *free projects*. You're "free" only if you're following Linux and the GPL, axe the other *free choices*.

"Like Linus and his interface Nazis (aka Gnome developers)."

WOW just WOW

Do a little Google on Linus and Gnome.

This really is Digg

Actually that was his recommendation from Eben Moglen, the former lead counsel for the Software Freedom Law Center.

Do you have a link to the recommendation from Eben Moglen? I can't find it anywhere.

FYI: That guy does a *lot* more work than he gets credit for. Most of the things he does is behind closed doors.

I don't doubt that. I was merely curious

Hence, a dual licensed file always remains dual licensed, every time it is distributed

What's the point of dual licensing it then at all?

It's only the file... The point of dual-licencing is to be able to mix said file with GPL-only stuff and distribute the resulting objects under GPL, or to mix it with BSD-like stuff and distribute the resulting objects under BSD licence.

But that particular file will remain dual-licenced. I.e., even if you distribute it under the terms of GPL, the licencee will still keep the right to re-distribute it under BSD. Again, only _that_ file.

Quentin Garnier.

No, the particular file will not remain dual-licensed.

It is not licensed as BSD and GPL. It is licensed with an option for YOU to choose one of the licenses, but not BOTH simultaneously. And those who receive the file from you, only receives it with the license you choose. They don't get the same option that you do, unless you decide to give them that option. However, you don't _have_ to give them that option.

That's also what the copyright holder (Sam Leffner) made _very_ clear.

The next person in the chain will definitely NOT receive the right to redistribute under the BSD if the first person chooses to distribute the file as GPL. The best solution would of course be to distribute with the same options the first person received it under, but the license explicitly allows for NOT doing that.

In reply to my own comment. I *DO* appreciate Theo's idealogical view and agree with him that this is tough on the BSD projects but if you have this strong idealogical view and choose to allow some others not to follow your ideals, I don't think he should be making an exception and be forceful just because Linux is big and successful.

Let Linux/GPL developers come to their own conclusions of what is fair just like you do with everyone else. Thats what this 'true freedom' mantra BSD license advocates tout is about isn't it?

Only the author can change the license, this is true in the USA and many other countries!

In a few of the files that the license was changed on, the guy on LKML that changed them was the author. The files that the author wasn't the sole copyright owner were the ones that he shouldn't have changed.

>Only the author can change the license

This is true for both of them.

The BSD expresses no sense of morality. It says simple, "do as thou wilt". That is not a moral statement -- it is a free-for-all. The GPL says, "share-and-share-alike". That IS a moral statement. Theo is completely talking out of his ass on this one. On the one hand, he seems to want to stay committed to the BSD (perhaps out of sheer inertia and pg-headedness) but on the other he is crying for the types of protection that the GPL ensures. Case closed -- he made the wrong ethical choice in terms of licensing -- he just isn't capable of admitting it. RMS was right all along.

Aren't you going a bit too far comparing GNU with crackpot dictator? Even the most rabid opponents of GNU would probably agree that at least GNU means well. You might not agree with their tactics, but you can't say their intentions are evil.

Hugo Chavez on the other hand is a populist dictator encouraging cronyism while riding the hydrocarbon wave. By being such an asshole, he is potentially depriving millions of people of sustained prosperity, democratic rights and an efficient government.

There really is no need to compare GNU with Chavez.

Hugo Chavez on the other hand is a populist dictator

This is OT, but...

Hugo Chavez is a president that has been elected just as democratically as any United States president.

May he become a dictator in the future? Sure, but for now he's a democratically elected president. You don't like that he's been reelected? Well, it's your problem. You don't like that he likes socialism? Fine, me neither, but socialist economies are not prohibited. You don't like the RCTV issue? Fine, me neither, but it was all legal. You don't like that he hates USA? Fine, but....


I wouldn't like to turn this into a flamewar, but fe. Bush has killed several civil rights, Chavez has not done anything like that. He's just a bad president that will get kicked in a future election.

When BSD-code is enhanced by someone who chooses to license that modification under the GPL, the intention is that it then cannot be closed. So naturally, a BSD-license is seen as undesirable. I can understand why that has happened in that wireless-driver case. A GPL-favouring author will not want to use a BSD-style licence, and the BSD license allows this.

"I've yet to see "FreeBSD people" speak up so again you're just spouting jibberish. I am speaking up as the author of the code that set the dual license in place. I have the definitive say and I have said that any of my code that is dual-licensed can be made gpl only."

--Sam Leffner

Indeed, but the Linux crowd, especially Adrian Bunk, doesn't get it. He is the author, he can allow or disallow it.

Thanks for the posting

Yes, Sam made it clear why he choose the dual license: he specifically wants to permit one set of developers to fork a GPL only branch of his code (note that this branch doesn't allow a closed-source only distribution), another a BSD only branch (this branch does), and a third branch to continue with dual licensed code (this branch also does). All this at the developers own discretion.

What Theo says is that all branches must continue to carry the dual license text. This would make any GPL-only branch impossible/superflous, since a dual license text would still allow closed-sourcing that branch. By insisting on always carrying the intire dual license text, Theo wants to keep all branches effectively BSD-only (since the GPL closed-source prohibitions are rendered moot by the dual license text).

The insidious thing about this is that Theo is trying to supplant the authors' wish (that a GPL-only branch that cannot be closed-sourced may be forked) with his own wish (that all brances are effectively BSD licensed), using some psuedo-legalese ("It's illegal to modify a license...") seems to have impressed a lot of his supporters on the OpenBSD journal (http://undeadly.org/).

Edited 2007-09-02 18:05

Except that Sam Leffner is saying the same as the Linux-devs.

The Linux devs says the license gives them the right to use the source code under the GPL only. And Sam Leffner says the license gives them the right to use the source code under the GPL only.

So Sam Leffner agrees with the linux-devs and disagrees with you and Theo.

That would be nice if he were the only only author here :

Theo de Raadt replied pointing out that there are two parts to the driver, one part written by Reyk Floeter, and another part written by Sam Leffler, "Reyk's code is *NOT* dual-licensed under the GPL. He has explicitly stated that his code is not dual-licenced. The file have no GPL on them. He's the author, he said so. None else can add a GPL to it."