License of changes to ath5k/ath9k

License of changes to ath5k/ath9k

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

Just a friendly reminder:

For those of you who have not read yet what "Signed-off-by" means,
specially those who are new to contributing to the Linux kernel on
linux-wireless I'd like to encourage you to go and review it and
read what this means. You can find it under Documentation/SubmittingPatches,
on the: "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1"

Specifically the part that mentions how you right to submit it under
the same open source license indicated in the file. This is
particularly important for ath5k/ath9k as these drivers do have
some files licensed the 3-clause BSD license (only in ath5k) and ISC license
(ath9k is completely ISC). In the future we would like to point the BSD
community and even Solaris (yeah they seem interested in such a driver
it seems) toward ath5k and ath9k updates for the latest updates on INI file
updates, and hardare access routines so we want to remove any
legal ambiguity with respect for them to be able to copy+paste code
(even though that's not likely what they'll do exactly, but this should
help).

Technically speaking there are also some enhancements that can come our
way towards that we can use towards our Windows driver too but
realistically this has been minimal so far. If you could use GPL
licensed drivers under Windows that would remove all this silly
ISC/BSD licening preferences but the real reason to this e-mail is
more towards helping the BSD / Solaris community out. Realistically
speaking you cannot also expect all OSes to be license compatible,
at least at this point :).

We have been using the Changes-licensed-under tag [1] for ath5k development
but for ath9k we tend to ask developers individually if they are willing
submit their changes and any future ath9k changes under the ISC. We keep
this for our records just in case you haven't read the Singed-off-by.
I think it'd be easier too if we ensure developers really read that document
too and ensure they understand it and also understood why are are doing this.

We'll keep using the ath5k Changes-licensed-under tag until we get
advice from SFLC if we have done enough to ensure this is no longer
necessary. For ath9k, if we are not sure if you have read the
"Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" we may ping you with an e-mail
just to be sure.

While you're at it please subscribe to the wireless.kernel.org
SubmittingPatches page so you can get updates in case there are changes
there.

Ps. Please do not open any can of worms here, this is just informational.

[1] http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Documentation/SubmittingPatches#Changes-licensed-undertag

Thanks,

  Luis

Re: [ath5k-devel] License of changes to ath5k/ath9k

[Bob Copeland]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
> We'll keep using the ath5k Changes-licensed-under tag until we get
> advice from SFLC if we have done enough to ensure this is no longer
> necessary. For ath9k, if we are not sure if you have read the
> "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" we may ping you with an e-mail
> just to be sure.

I don't consider any of my changes significant enough to confer copyright,
so by my Signed-off-by, I agree that whatever license the file currently
has is alright by me.  Even if the changes were significant, the previous
holds.

However, if everyone + SFLC prefers that we strictly use
Changes-licensed-under even if we don't claim copyright, then I'll
happily add the tag generator script to a git commit hook :)

> Ps. Please do not open any can of worms here, this is just informational.

Sure.  I like the ath9k way, but really it doesn't matter that much.

-- 
Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com

Re: [ath5k-devel] License of changes to ath5k/ath9k

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 01:29:55PM -0800, Bob Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
> > We'll keep using the ath5k Changes-licensed-under tag until we get
> > advice from SFLC if we have done enough to ensure this is no longer
> > necessary. For ath9k, if we are not sure if you have read the
> > "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" we may ping you with an e-mail
> > just to be sure.
> 
> I don't consider any of my changes significant enough to confer copyright,
> so by my Signed-off-by, I agree that whatever license the file currently
> has is alright by me.  Even if the changes were significant, the previous
> holds.
> 
> However, if everyone + SFLC prefers that we strictly use
> Changes-licensed-under even if we don't claim copyright, then I'll
> happily add the tag generator script to a git commit hook :)

Sure, BTW I had created such a script a long time ago, the files just
need to be updated (so update them if you download this thingy):

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mcgrof/scripts/ath5k-license.pl.txt

Understood.

  Luis

Re: License of changes to ath5k/ath9k

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Luis Rodriguez wrote at 16:04 (EST) on Tuesday:

> We have been using the Changes-licensed-under tag [1] for ath5k
> development but for ath9k we tend to ask developers individually if
> they are willing submit their changes and any future ath9k changes
> under the ISC. We keep this for our records just in case you haven't
> read the Singed-off-by.  I think it'd be easier too if we ensure
> developers really read that document too and ensure they understand it
> and also understood why are are doing this.

> We'll keep using the ath5k Changes-licensed-under tag until we get
> advice from SFLC if we have done enough to ensure this is no longer
> necessary.

I should note that there's no specific magic to the
Changes-licensed-under tag; we developed with with Luis as a mechanism
and tool to do the the thing that mattered: Carefully catalog the fact
that each person who makes a change on an ISC-licensed codebase agrees
to keep the code under ISC license for later sharing with BSD folks.

There are probably a dozen methods you could use to do this job, and
really you should use whatever method works for the development team.
The only fundamental requirement is that it be rigorous, detailed and
complete.

Of course, if situations change and become more complicated, the Linux
Wireless team is welcome to contact me and Karen at the Software Freedom
Law Center for additional legal advice on this subject.

Bob Copeland wrote on at 16:28 (EST) on Tuesday:
> I don't consider any of my changes significant enough to confer
> copyright,

Most non-lawyers like myself are amazed to find how little it takes for
something to confer copyright.  If you did anything more than correct a
spelling error, it's always better to assume you have a copyright
interest in the work.  Sometimes, you'll be wrong, but more often than
not, it will turn out the thing that looked uncopyrightable actually
*is* copyrightable under the Draconian copyright laws that now exist in
most industrialized countries.

> However, if everyone + SFLC prefers that we strictly use
> Changes-licensed-under even if we don't claim copyright, then I'll
> happily add the tag generator script to a git commit hook :)

Yeah, exactly, it's an easy thing to do just to be sure.  The worst that
happens is that you didn't have copyright in the thing, and your consent
to the ISC licensing of the work wasn't actually needed, but you gave it
anyway.  (It's like saying: "I consent to you going to the store today".
You didn't need my consent, but it doesn't hurt that you have it.)  This
is far better than the alternative: that the consent was needed but it
wasn't given because it seemed the changes weren't copyrightable but
they actually were.


BTW, SFLC published a white paper on this issue that might be of interest:

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html
-- 
Bradley M. Kuhn, Policy Analyst and Technology Director
                 Software Freedom Law Center

Re: [ath5k-devel] License of changes to ath5k/ath9k

[Bob Copeland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 589 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
<lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
> Sure, BTW I had created such a script a long time ago, the files just
> need to be updated (so update them if you download this thingy):
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mcgrof/scripts/ath5k-license.pl.txt
>

Cool, that saved me some work.  I updated this so that the files are
now up-to-date, and it can be called directly from the commit-msg hook
(also handles existing Signed-off-by etc).  Feel free to take whatever
you like from my version.

-- 
Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com

[-- Attachment #2: ath5k-license.pl --]
[-- Type: application/x-perl, Size: 4104 bytes --]

Re: [ath5k-devel] License of changes to ath5k/ath9k

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

2008/11/26 Bob Copeland <me@bobcopeland.com>:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez
> <lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
>> Sure, BTW I had created such a script a long time ago, the files just
>> need to be updated (so update them if you download this thingy):
>>
>> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/mcgrof/scripts/ath5k-license.pl.txt
>>
>
> Cool, that saved me some work.  I updated this so that the files are
> now up-to-date, and it can be called directly from the commit-msg hook
> (also handles existing Signed-off-by etc).  Feel free to take whatever
> you like from my version.

I've updated the file with your stuff, thanks!

  Luis