License Violation - ksh

[Pedro de Oliveira]

Hello,
Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
this a license violation?

[Marco S Hyman]

"Pedro de Oliveira" writes:
 > Hello,
 > Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
 > like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
 > this a license violation?

See /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL.

People can do just about whatever they want with public domain code,
including slapping a license on it.  Anyone foolish (or lazy) enough
to derive code from the licenses derivative deserves the license they
get.

// marc

[Ivo van der Sangen-2]

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -0000, Pedro de Oliveira wrote:
> Hello,
> Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
> like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
> this a license violation?

It seems that this is not a violation since the ksh-source is in the public
domain. Read /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL.

Regards,

Ivo van der Sangen

[Miod Vallat (on the road)]

>  > Hello,
>  > Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
>  > like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
>  > this a license violation?
>
> See /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL.
>
> People can do just about whatever they want with public domain code,
> including slapping a license on it.  Anyone foolish (or lazy) enough
> to derive code from the licenses derivative deserves the license they
> get.

But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not
come from pdksh initially.

Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors
gave permission.

Miod

[Marco S Hyman]

Miod Vallat writes:
 > But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not
 > come from pdksh initially.

That's not what /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL states, but I didn't look
further.  OK, looking I see that alloc.c and mknod.c have copyrights.

 > Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors
 > gave permission.

Very true.   Were they relicensed, or tossed and re-written from
scratch?

// marc

[ropers]

Pedro de Oliveira <falso@...> wrote:
> >  > Hello,
> >  > Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
> >  > like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3.
> >  > Isn't this a license violation?

Marco S Hyman <marc@...> wrote:
> > See /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL.
> >
> > People can do just about whatever they want with public domain code,
> > including slapping a license on it.  Anyone foolish (or lazy) enough
> > to derive code from the licenses derivative deserves the license they
> > get.

On 02/12/2007, Miod Vallat <miod@...> wrote:
> But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not
> come from pdksh initially.
>
> Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors
> gave permission.

Okay, so in case that is true, my question to Pedro is: Have you
contacted the publisher of http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ privately
before going public on a widely read mailing list? It would seem the
poluite thing to do, no? Maybe the guy (or gal)'s not very well
informed and made an honest mistake.

--ropers

[Andrés Delfino]

On Dec 2, 2007 5:42 PM, Marco S Hyman <marc@...> wrote:

> Miod Vallat writes:
>  > But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not
>  > come from pdksh initially.
>
> That's not what /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL states, but I didn't look
> further.  OK, looking I see that alloc.c and mknod.c have copyrights.
>
>  > Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors
>  > gave permission.
>
> Very true.   Were they relicensed, or tossed and re-written from
> scratch?
>
> // marc
>
>

As far as I can see, a COPYING file (containing the GPLv3) was placed
along the others files of OpenBSD's ksh. The license of alloc.c, for
example, has not been modified.

[Matthew Weigel]

Marco S Hyman wrote:

> Miod Vallat writes:
>  > But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not
>  > come from pdksh initially.
>
> That's not what /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL states, but I didn't look
> further.  OK, looking I see that alloc.c and mknod.c have copyrights.
>
>  > Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors
>  > gave permission.
>
> Very true.   Were they relicensed, or tossed and re-written from
> scratch?

Looking at http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/oksh-0.3.tar.gz, I see:

The copyright notice at the top of alloc.c is still there, providing (I
presume correctly) sole attribution to Marc Espie.  The file mknod.c is gone,
per the comments on the site ("Removed internal mknod builtin command").  The
file oksh-0.3/LEGAL is identical to revision 1.2 of /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL in
the OpenBSD CVS repository.

In addition to those, oksh-0.3/COPYING is the GNU GPLv3, and
oksh-0.3/README.oksh says

        oksh is licensed under the GPLv3, see COPYING.

        oksh contains code originally released as Public Domain
        and BSD 3-clause License.

From my understanding, the author of the port has met the requirements of the
2-clause BSD license under which alloc.c is distributed.  They refer to it as
the 3-clause BSD license, which GNU appears to do as well
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD), depending on
where you look (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html).
--
 Matthew Weigel
 hacker
 unique & idempot.ent

[Ivo van der Sangen-2]

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 06:14:09PM -0300, Andr?s wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2007 5:42 PM, Marco S Hyman <marc@...> wrote:
> > Miod Vallat writes:
> >  > But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not
> >  > come from pdksh initially.
> >
> > That's not what /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL states, but I didn't look
> > further.  OK, looking I see that alloc.c and mknod.c have copyrights.
> >
> >  > Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors
> >  > gave permission.
> >
> > Very true.   Were they relicensed, or tossed and re-written from
> > scratch?
> >
> > // marc
> >
> >
>
> As far as I can see, a COPYING file (containing the GPLv3) was placed
> along the others files of OpenBSD's ksh. The license of alloc.c, for
> example, has not been modified.

None of the licenses have actually been modified. The fact that there is a
COPYING file added which contains a copy of the GPLv3 seems harmless, but is
confusing.

Ivo

[Marco Peereboom]

There are other sources as well:
http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html
http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/

Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit
on it.

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -0000, Pedro de Oliveira wrote:
> Hello,
> Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
> like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
> this a license violation?

[j4nKy]

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:05:10PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> There are other sources as well:
> http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html
> http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/
>
> Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit
> on it.

fear, misunderstanding, and confusion caused by the rantings of RMS?

> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -0000, Pedro de Oliveira wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
> > like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
> > this a license violation?
>

--
jakemsr@...
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org

[David H. Lynch Jr.-2]

Jacob Meuser wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:05:10PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
>  
>> There are other sources as well:
>> http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html
>> http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/
>>
>> Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit
>> on it.
>>    
>
> fear, misunderstanding, and confusion caused by the rantings of RMS?
>  

Why would anyone bother putting a BSD license on something that started
as PD ?

The authors of PD KSH are perfectly free to choose to put it into the
public domain.

At that point while you could republish the whole mess under most any
license you please
you could not prevent the removal of any license you added on any of the
original code.

The developers of the OpenBSD variant chose a BSD license for the code
they added.
It appears the developer of the GPL variant respected that and chose
GPLv3 for his contributions.

No fouls were commited, and the only unhappiness is among zealots -
regardless of their persuasion,
who beleive their way is the one true and only way.

>  
>> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -0000, Pedro de Oliveira wrote:
>>    
>>> Hello,
>>> Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
>>> like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
>>> this a license violation?
>>>      
>
>  

--
Dave Lynch      DLA Systems
Software Development:           Embedded Linux
717.627.3770       dhlii@...  http://www.dlasys.net
fax: [phone]           Cell: 1.717.587.7774
Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
Albert Einstein

[Marco Peereboom]

No harm done just stupidity perpetuated.  Kind of like fox news.

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 12:32:56AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote:

> Jacob Meuser wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:05:10PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> >  
> >> There are other sources as well:
> >> http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html
> >> http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/
> >>
> >> Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit
> >> on it.
> >>    
> >
> > fear, misunderstanding, and confusion caused by the rantings of RMS?
> >  
> Why would anyone bother putting a BSD license on something that started
> as PD ?
>
> The authors of PD KSH are perfectly free to choose to put it into the
> public domain.
>
> At that point while you could republish the whole mess under most any
> license you please
> you could not prevent the removal of any license you added on any of the
> original code.
>
> The developers of the OpenBSD variant chose a BSD license for the code
> they added.
> It appears the developer of the GPL variant respected that and chose
> GPLv3 for his contributions.
>
> No fouls were commited, and the only unhappiness is among zealots -
> regardless of their persuasion,
> who beleive their way is the one true and only way.
> >  
> >> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -0000, Pedro de Oliveira wrote:
> >>    
> >>> Hello,
> >>> Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
> >>> like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
> >>> this a license violation?
> >>>      
> >
> >  
>
>
> --
> Dave Lynch      DLA Systems
> Software Development:           Embedded Linux
> 717.627.3770       dhlii@...  http://www.dlasys.net
> fax: [phone]           Cell: 1.717.587.7774
> Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list.
>
> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
> Albert Einstein

[Daniel Ouellet]

Marco Peereboom wrote:
> No harm done just stupidity perpetuated.  Kind of like fox news.

I like that one! (;> Started my day on a good note.

Always thought Fox News was really bad, but felt many disagree.

[Lars Nooden]

Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> ...
> Always thought Faux News was really bad,...

There.  Fixed it for you. ;)

[beck-7]

* Marco Peereboom <slash@...> [2007-12-03 06:19]:

> No harm done just stupidity perpetuated.  Kind of like fox news.

        Dunno about "no harm done" there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do
any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels didn't to any harm - only
perpetuated stupidity..

        perpeduated stupidity can be damn harmful.

        -Bob

[Jacob Yocom-Piatt-2]

Bob Beck wrote:

> * Marco Peereboom <slash@...> [2007-12-03 06:19]:
>
>  
>> No harm done just stupidity perpetuated.  Kind of like fox news.
>>    
>
> Dunno about "no harm done" there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do
> any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels didn't to any harm - only
> perpetuated stupidity..
>
> perpeduated stupidity can be damn harmful.
>
>  

did you hear about how al qaeda set those fires in southern
california?!?! if you say it enough times it must be true.

think i saw that last part on CNN...


> -Bob
>
>  


--

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:37:53PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote:
> * Marco Peereboom <slash@...> [2007-12-03 06:19]:
>
> > No harm done just stupidity perpetuated.  Kind of like fox news.
>
> Dunno about "no harm done" there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do
> any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels didn't to any harm - only
> perpetuated stupidity..
>
> perpeduated stupidity can be damn harmful.

I call Godwin's law! (specially because you're most unfortunately
diminishing Gobbels' evil actions with that comparison).

Rui

--
Hail Eris!
Today is Pungenday, the 46th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

[new_guy]

Pedro de Oliveira wrote:

Hello,
Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems
like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't
this a license violation?

The ksh in OpenBSD is the pdksh (Public Domain). Slap a license on it if you like, it matters not.