Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by kod on Saturday October 01, 2016 @10:47AM
(#12618059)
Theo deRaadt complaining about "copyright theft" is hilarious given his original stance on the ipfilter debacle.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by mrweasel on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:13AM
(#12618171)
I might very well be wrong, but I believed that the licensing of the IPFilter code, and the clarification of the attached license was part of the reason that OpenBSD, and Theo, is so much against complex licenses.
While better than the GPL, version 2 and 3, in the sense that it's shorter, the Apache 2 license is still much more complex than the ISC or the BSD/MIT licenses. Another part of the issue, for some developers at least, is that the Apache 2 license sort of acknowledges that software patents are a thing. So if you disagree that companies should be allowed to patent software, mathematics and processes, you might not pick a license that validates the existence of those patents.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by icebraining on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:31AM
(#12618265)
So if you disagree that companies should be allowed to patent software, mathematics and processes, you might not pick a license that validates the existence of those patents.
This sounds absurd to me. Software patents don't go away because one stops believing in them. Either the courts enforce them or not.
Sure, but I see the idea as a kind of boycott/protest. I disagree with patents, mainly software patents, consequently I will never use a license that consider patents.
That's not how laws work. At all. Even the GPLv3 (authored by one of the biggest activists against software patents) has clauses relating to software patents -- because they are a legitimate threat to software freedom and need to be addressed. Just because you don't like patents doesn't make the problem go away -- in fact by ignoring it you're making the problem worse because then your code's license has no protection for your users.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by icebraining on Saturday October 01, 2016 @12:46PM
(#12618656)
But a boycott is supposed to help the cause, no? All you're doing is preventing a lot of people from using your code from fear that you'll sue them - some of which who might end up using an alternative from a company that holds and supports patents.
That's not a boycott. That's a capitulation.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by foodstances on Saturday October 01, 2016 @12:38PM
(#12618603)
How does the "ipfilter debacle" relate to "copyright theft" in your mind? Darren Reed changed the license text on his ipfilter software to clarify that modified versions were not permitted, and so his software was removed from OpenBSD.
Darren Reed's original license didnt grant the right to make derivative works, the modification just clarified that. Theo spent a lot of time arguing that OpenBSD's derivative work was still fair use and / or covered by the section of copyright law allowing you to copy a program you own into ram and modify it. Both of those arguments were total BS, and just used as justification for shipping the modified code even after they had been notified of the license violation.
Re:Theo de Raadt on LLVM license change
by TheRealPomax on Saturday October 01, 2016 @11:03AM
(#12618128)
then again, we don't pat people on the back for holding on to their odd views, we congratulate them for coming to new realizations and acting on those. So... no, not really. It's not even hypocritical. It's just someone who is currently raising a perfectly valid argument, and his arguments in previous debates have literally nothing to do with the current, legally constrained, discussion around events that appear to have been put in place and moved forward without buying from all parties involved.