4 ms·
> he has never provided any evidence to support that anyone did it or suggested it. Which part of the patch[0] that removed the BSD license and made the file G
by glass- 11y ago
> he has never provided any evidence to support that anyone did it or suggested it.
Which part of the patch[0] that removed the BSD license and made the file GPLv2 isn't evidence?
You'll note that the patch removed the lines that say "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."
In other words they removed the notice that specifically says you're not allowed to remove the notice.
[0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118831729905625&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118831729905625&w=2
- belorn 11y agoOkey, someone apparently thought they could do it, but then realized better and fixed it. The source today includes the original copyright notice. That they fixed it afterward should point towards what their current believes are, and if they thought their past patch was correct. Was that version ever distributed to anyone? I also notice in that thread that the author of Ath5K .c code give explicit permission to "Alternatively, this software may be distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License". Removing the old license text of the header file and replacing it with GPL might be incorrect, and people are free to argue what a judge would say about it. It just seems very far from an actually issue, any proof of current believes, or what advices FSF gives. https://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118841220505946&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118841220505946&w=2
- glass- 11y agoThey only fixed it after Theo posted angry messages on the OpenBSD mailing lists about it, the story got posted to Slashdot, it became a huge controversy and the SFLC got involved.