Hi,

On Sat, 01.09.2007 at 00:42:25 -0600, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote:
quoted text
> > So true, the license You use can't be removed. But when You get the
> > dual-licensed software, when You start modifying it You arrange the licensing
> > deal on terms of either first or second or both licenses. You choose the
> > license You gain You rights from and after You accepted it, You can do
> > whatever You want copyright until the law and the license You accepted
> > prohibit. The license You didn't accept doesn't restrict You any way until
> > otherwise stated by the developper.
> 
> That is utterly false.

with all due respect, but this is utterly true, this being the raison
d'etre for dual- (or otherwise multi-) licensing *any* software in the
first place.

While I see what kind of a problem you are talking about, and it surely
is an undesirable problem to be sure, the sole reason why BSD can't
import back GPL'ed changes is that GPL'ed changes impose more
conditions than does the BSD license.

Or wrapped in a different way: Were you GPL'ing your code, you had
_absolutely_no_ (legal) problems importing back those changes. The GPL
ensures availability of source code (which is good!), but those are
exactly the strings you opted to not attach to your software with the
argument that this kind of force is "non-free". Now, this implies that
you consider the ability for a licensor to not give back code a freedom
which the Linux community has taken the liberty to make use of, so why
do you complain?

Honestly, this imho is an ugly side-effect of what you were preaching
all the years, but I cannot imagine that it is by evil intention. I
hope Eben finds a way to resolve the problem in a way that doesn't draw
the line between BSD on one and Linux on the other side. Imho, no-one
needs a dog-fight between these two groups, and I also hope that no-one
wants it, either, but I'm not so sure about that actually being the
case.

Weren't you complaining loudly about the absense of contributions from
large companies every year when you started a new rally for donations
(we donate, according to our feeble possibilities), and now you're
claiming that the Linux folks are doing even more evil than those
companies who not give back in any form, according to your statements,
do? Because they release source code, but you opt to stay too far away
to get it? They imho need to do it this way since it is essential for
the legal integrity of their system (as much as you chose to not use
such stuff for the very same reason).

Are you just this very moment saying that you want to enforce a viral
effect of the BSD license on Linux via covert action (you could, in
theory, have published, thus lessened/avoided this problem *much*
earlier)? Because this is what you arrive at, should enough lawyers
feel that you are right and the Linux-folks feel unable to remove the
BSD-derived code from their stuff.

I have a very hard time swallowing that, and even in the name of
"freedom"!

I also have trouble with you playing the "copyright law is the same,
everywhere" argument because this is really not true, and it's even a
moving target (though generally moving in the wrong direction).


And last, but not least, I'd like to paraphrase the old adage, that you
seem to have forgotten: "United we stand, divided we fall." There's a
variation that goes like this: "Two people quarreling makes the third
(bystander) happy."



Best,
--Toni++