request for information about the "ath5k" licensing

request for information about the "ath5k" licensing

[Reyk Floeter]

Hello!

I'm the author of the free hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros
devices in OpenBSD, also known as "OpenHAL".

I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state
of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I
just returned from vacation.

I'm very disappointed about this and I hope that it was a mistake,
because it is very unfair and malicious against me and the OpenBSD
community. I invested a lot of time to write the code and to make it
work with as many chipsets as possible. And during the last years, the
OpenBSD community helped to test and to improve the driver. I always
liked the idea to port it to other operating systems, but now somebody
harmed these efforts by violating the license.

Some time ago, I got repeated requests to change the license of the
code to GPL or to dual-license it but I always rejected these
requests. I clearly explained my reasons against dual-licensing in the
past. It needed some time, but it had seemed to me that the involved
people had finally accepted my decision. 

I do like to idea to port the free Atheros driver to other operating
systems in addition to OpenBSD, because it is a clear sign against
hardware companies attacking the free software "community" by
releasing binary-only driver objects instead of free code or hardware
documentation. I used to cooperate with the people working on the
madwifi port of "OpenHAL"; we exchanged ideas, bug fixes, and small
code snippets.  They sent me some bug reports and I also looked at
their changes and reported some functional problems. This was possible
because they kept the license in place. 

But now the Linux code is almost ready and somebody wants to cancel
any options to cooperate by locking me out with a prepended GPL and an
invalid copyright on top of it. I hope that this was not caused by the
same people.

Nevertheless, I'm cross-posting this mail to some lists and people
because I don't know the responsible persons. I have too many mails
about this issue in my inbox and it's very hard to filter out the
useful information.

Could you please give me some feedback about the latest state? Please
reply in private, I'm not subscribed to any of the Linux lists and I'm
rather interested in facts than in the usual trolling.

- Has this issue been fixed?

- Is there any repository available with the "ath5k" code using a
modified/"extended" license?

I don't know how to find the relevant bits in the various Linux git
repositories. Sorry, I don't get the structure of it. Are there any
other sources online except this diff on the linux kernel mailing
list?

- Are there any plans to release the "ath5k" code using a
modified/"extended" license?

Please let me know if it is planned to release my code with any other
license than the attached one. I also strongly disagree with the
concept of adding a new copyright and/or a GPL license on top of it -
it is still a derived work and a few stylistic changes, some code
shuffling, and some bug fixes don't allow to change the copyright. I
invested a lot of time and work to implement "OpenHAL" and it was much
more than just porting it. Please remember, it was a very hard task to
make it happen without any support from Atheros :(.

Please keep the following license and copyright notice in all affected
files and any derived work:

/*
 * Copyright (c) 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org>
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and 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.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
 * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
 * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
 * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
 * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
 * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
 */

Thanks!
Reyk

-- 
/* .vantronix|secure systems - (research & development)
 * reyk floeter - friendly known free software engineer
 * reyk@vantronix.net - http://team.vantronix.net/reyk/
 */

Re: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing

[Michael Buesch]

On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> I'm the author of the free hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros
> devices in OpenBSD, also known as "OpenHAL".
> 
> I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state
> of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I
> just returned from vacation.

> Could you please give me some feedback about the latest state? Please
> reply in private, I'm not subscribed to any of the Linux lists and I'm
> rather interested in facts than in the usual trolling.
> 
> - Has this issue been fixed?

It has never been applied to any repository.
-> No issue and no copyright violation.

> - Is there any repository available with the "ath5k" code using a
> modified/"extended" license?

No.

> I don't know how to find the relevant bits in the various Linux git
> repositories. Sorry, I don't get the structure of it. Are there any
> other sources online except this diff on the linux kernel mailing
> list?
> 
> - Are there any plans to release the "ath5k" code using a
> modified/"extended" license?

No.

Re: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On 9/5/07, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > I'm the author of the free hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros
> > devices in OpenBSD, also known as "OpenHAL".
> >
> > I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state
> > of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I
> > just returned from vacation.
>
> > Could you please give me some feedback about the latest state? Please
> > reply in private, I'm not subscribed to any of the Linux lists and I'm
> > rather interested in facts than in the usual trolling.
> >
> > - Has this issue been fixed?
>
> It has never been applied to any repository.
> -> No issue and no copyright violation.
>
> > - Is there any repository available with the "ath5k" code using a
> > modified/"extended" license?
>
> No.

Well that is not accurate. Please give us a few we are working on
verifying some information for you.

> > I don't know how to find the relevant bits in the various Linux git
> > repositories. Sorry, I don't get the structure of it. Are there any
> > other sources online except this diff on the linux kernel mailing
> > list?
> >
> > - Are there any plans to release the "ath5k" code using a
> > modified/"extended" license?
>
> No.
>

Same here. Apologies for this taking so long. It'll all be sorted out soon.

  Luis

Re: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing

[Reyk Floeter]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 01:00:15PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Reyk Floeter wrote:
> > > I'm the author of the free hardware driver layer for wireless Atheros
> > > devices in OpenBSD, also known as "OpenHAL".
> > >
> > > I'm still trying to get an idea about the facts and the latest state
> > > of the incidence that violated the copyright of my code, because I
> > > just returned from vacation.
> >
> > > Could you please give me some feedback about the latest state? Please
> > > reply in private, I'm not subscribed to any of the Linux lists and I'm
> > > rather interested in facts than in the usual trolling.
> > >
> > > - Has this issue been fixed?
> >
> > It has never been applied to any repository.
> > -> No issue and no copyright violation.
> >
> > > - Is there any repository available with the "ath5k" code using a
> > > modified/"extended" license?
> >
> > No.
> 
> Well that is not accurate. Please give us a few we are working on
> verifying some information for you.
> 
> > > I don't know how to find the relevant bits in the various Linux git
> > > repositories. Sorry, I don't get the structure of it. Are there any
> > > other sources online except this diff on the linux kernel mailing
> > > list?
> > >
> > > - Are there any plans to release the "ath5k" code using a
> > > modified/"extended" license?
> >
> > No.
> >
> 
> Same here. Apologies for this taking so long. It'll all be sorted out soon.
> 

I'm still waiting for an answer. Your process is taking too long.

Reyk

Re: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing

[Jeff Garzik]

Reyk Floeter wrote:
> I'm still waiting for an answer. Your process is taking too long.


Speaking as a person through which these changes flow upstream into the 
official kernel (ath5k maintainers -> linville -> me -> linus)...


The most important thing for today is that no ath5k stuff has been 
committed (nor has it ever been).


I would rather take it slow and make sure everybody is happy.  There is 
nothing upstream, and so, there is no need to rush and correct something.

Collectively, this is just growing pains.  Everyone is breaking new 
ground, trying to figure out how to best support atheros stuff on Linux. 
  There are new tools to deal with (svn? git? flavor of the day?:)), new 
licenses with new ramifications to consider, a new wireless stack to 
deal with.

What you are witnessing is but a small part of the chaos as everyone 
tackles these chores simultaneously.

	Jeff

Re: request for information about the "ath5k" licensing

[Joerg Pommnitz]

Reyk Floeter wrote:
> I'm still waiting for an answer. Your process is taking too long.
> 
> Reyk

Reyk (and everybody else),
I'm writing as a silent observer, not as an involved (until now) party. I will restrict my answer mostly to links to information I consider key facts of this whole affair:

The development of the Linux Atheros driver (both for the official Atheros HAL and your work) takes place at www.madwifi.org. The SVN branch based on openhal can be found here:
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
Going back in the version history you WILL find revisions with the changed license. This mistake has been corrected in revision 2699.

The patches from the openhal team at madwifi.org have been merged into the "official" Linux wireless repository. You can find the branch that includes the ath5k driver here:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=summary
the ath5k files are here:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=tree;f=drivers/net/wireless;h=2d6caeba0924c34b9539960b9ab568ab3d193fc8;hb=everything
(look for the ath5k files). Going back in the revision history you will find, that the proposed license changes where never applied:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.git;a=history;f=drivers/net/wireless/ath5k_hw.c;h=07ad1278b39037caf68825cabcf9469db059dfc8;hb=everything

The mail that started this affair was:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118831729905625&w=2

If you follow this thread, you will see, that the obvious problems were immediately flagged in the review process.

Next thing: While the proposed change was obviously bad, it *SEEMS* that this was a honest mistake. The following mail
by Sam Leffler suggest, that Jiri Slaby tried to get the consent of the *BSD developers:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/5305

Most of the ensuing flame war centered around whether it was illegal to change the license of those dual licensed files. Alan Cox stated in
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/70533
"So whats the problem ?"
Theo de Raadt in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/127782
wrote "Alan asks "So whats the problem ?".  Well, Alan, I must caution you -- your post is advising people to break the law."

This made a lot of people upset and the whole thing went out of hand.

It was more or less finally settled with the following mail:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/5303

This affair *NEVER* came close to what one would consider the official Linux repository, e.g. Linus tree:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=summary

And for Linus' position to BSD vs. GPL in drivers is summarized here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/5452

Kind regards
  Joerg
 
--  
Regards
 
       Joerg
 






      Machen Sie Yahoo! zu Ihrer Startseite. Los geht's: 
http://de.yahoo.com/set