RE: GPL weasels and the atheros stink

["David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>]

> Wrong - I said "You can't complain about Person A doing X when
> you let Person
> B do X without complaint".

Yes, I can. There is no inconsistency between acting in one case and failing
to act in another. We need not act in every possible case where we could act
to preserve our right to act in a particular case.

> To whit: you can't complain that Jiri has made
> changes to a dual-licensed "work" and only released his changes
> under one of
> the licenses on the work when somebody else - in this case Msr.
> Floeter - has
> done the same thing.

First of all, I haven't complained about Jiri's changes. Second, I most
certainly can. I can complain about one murder without complaining about
every murder. There is no inconsistency whatsoever with acting in one case
without having to act in every other conceivable case.

We can complain about or work to fight whatever injustices we like. There is
no obligation to address every equal, or greater, injustice before working
on the injustice of one's choice.

> No, no confusion. You could care less about the code being dual-licensed.
Your
> choice of subjects 'GPL weasels' speaks volumes.

*My* choice of subjects?! You seem to have me confused with someone else
entirely.

My sole points in this thread were to:

1) Correct some misunderstandings about how dual licenses actually work.

2) Explain *why* a file cannot really remain dual-licensed if it's part of
the Linux kernel distribution.

While I generally prefer the BSD license to the GPL license and tend to be a
pretty vocal GPL critic, I have said many times that almost any *consistent*
license is better for a large project than different licenses, even if
they're compatible, on different files.

> Doesn't matter if the BSD license or the GPL *PERMITS* it or not. The fact
> remains that the person making a work available under *ANY* form of
copyright
> license has the right to revoke said grant of license to anyone. The GPL
> codifies certain situations in which the person would not, personally,
have
> to revoke the license, but does not limit the original copyright holders
> rights (in that regard) in any way.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from, but it's not true. Linus cannot
decide tomorrow that nobody can distribute the Linux kernel anymore.

DS