Open Source (BSD) WDM Drivers
Moderator: Moderator Team
it depns on which BSD licen
it exists one with ad clause and one without it.
the BSD licen without ad clause are compatble with GPL project.
That mean the code that are under BSD licen can not be change to GPL licen, it is still under BSD licen.
Example of licen reactos are using
Arttisy licen
The font we are using are under this licen and acoding FSF it is okay
BSD
Are being use for our network stack and few other part are under this licen.
GPL
For all our own modules we are coding, or from other GPL project
LGPL
For diffent libs and dll we import, we import mosly from wine.
it exists one with ad clause and one without it.
the BSD licen without ad clause are compatble with GPL project.
That mean the code that are under BSD licen can not be change to GPL licen, it is still under BSD licen.
Example of licen reactos are using
Arttisy licen
The font we are using are under this licen and acoding FSF it is okay
BSD
Are being use for our network stack and few other part are under this licen.
GPL
For all our own modules we are coding, or from other GPL project
LGPL
For diffent libs and dll we import, we import mosly from wine.
You may not relicense my code under the terms of GPL, and if you do, I'll bite.Copyright (c) 2006-2007 dogbert <dogber1@gmail.com>
All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
We are very consern over the licen.
and how done the code,
you can see you code are still intact with all copyright noice and everthing, we never change copyright notes to something else,
we are always consern from which project we taken and which licen it is.
Example our matrix screensaver are under Freesoftware licen
that mean we must release it as freesoftware licen.
and we doing that.
If u do not whant we are using you sound card drv then let us known.
we do not have a sound card stack yet in reactos. Getting a working audio drv is one step in right directions. and you driver fix one problem. Silverblade are working on the audio stack in reactos and tryig getting u audio driver working in reactos.
and how done the code,
you can see you code are still intact with all copyright noice and everthing, we never change copyright notes to something else,
we are always consern from which project we taken and which licen it is.
Example our matrix screensaver are under Freesoftware licen
that mean we must release it as freesoftware licen.
and we doing that.
If u do not whant we are using you sound card drv then let us known.
we do not have a sound card stack yet in reactos. Getting a working audio drv is one step in right directions. and you driver fix one problem. Silverblade are working on the audio stack in reactos and tryig getting u audio driver working in reactos.
At no point is anything conflicting in the BSD header except endorse and promote clause but then there is a way around that. Make a slightly altered version of GPL as permitted by 7. Additional Terms of GPL including the BSD conflicting clause. Ie clause 3 of BSD inserted into the Addition terms.
To add a GPL header you don't have to remove the BSD one so you don't break the BSD licence.
The GPL header provides other rules that have to be obeyed. This line in GPL "You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License." Kills the BSD license from being usable even that its still there also kill code from being taken from GPL.
Legally a file can have 1000's of copyright notices with different conditions as long as they don't have conflicting rules. Most I have found is 10 different licenses in one file. No pretty working out the condition list you have to follow.
Sorry to say dogber1 if you don't want people changing the license on your files so you can reuse code you need a stronger license.
Note I used GPL as example because I know it well. There are many licenses that you can do the same with to BSD. Even some licenses are many layers stacked http://opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php. 3 copyright notices to make up one license.
Reactos developers will always respect the wishes of the developers even if there license does not say it.
Note section 7 of GPL can also be used to allow code under GPL to be shipped inside project using BSD and lower licenses. Does not remove the GPL since you are still only ship as permitted by the licence. Exaple Trolltech http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception.
To add a GPL header you don't have to remove the BSD one so you don't break the BSD licence.
The GPL header provides other rules that have to be obeyed. This line in GPL "You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License." Kills the BSD license from being usable even that its still there also kill code from being taken from GPL.
Legally a file can have 1000's of copyright notices with different conditions as long as they don't have conflicting rules. Most I have found is 10 different licenses in one file. No pretty working out the condition list you have to follow.
Sorry to say dogber1 if you don't want people changing the license on your files so you can reuse code you need a stronger license.
Note I used GPL as example because I know it well. There are many licenses that you can do the same with to BSD. Even some licenses are many layers stacked http://opensource.org/licenses/sleepycat.php. 3 copyright notices to make up one license.
Reactos developers will always respect the wishes of the developers even if there license does not say it.
Note section 7 of GPL can also be used to allow code under GPL to be shipped inside project using BSD and lower licenses. Does not remove the GPL since you are still only ship as permitted by the licence. Exaple Trolltech http://trolltech.com/products/qt/gplexception.
I'm afraid you may not alter the license if you haven't authored the piece of software or modified it in a manner that you can claim copyright. There's quite a lengthy discussion going on at the moment on openbsd-misc that debunks some myths: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=118861134304239&w=2
This is the 12 time BSD cannot be argument as come forward since 1994.
Problem with BSD it does not have a clause blocking other conditions being added or forcing if its release as source that the source must be usable under BSD.
What I was explaining was not dual license if its dual license you could release under either. Using this
So as long as the over wrapping/dominate license support the 3 conditions of BSD its extra conditions then come into effect. Even that the BSD license has never been removed it has been rendered useless by the second license.
Someone needs to fix the BSD license it needs a 4 clause. Basically If distributed in source form all files containing this copyright notice must be allowed to be shipped under only the conditions of this copyright notice. The problem in the past BSD supporter call that virus like. Its where BSD and GPL supporters first split. GPL people don't want to lose the right to use the code they make.
A mirror clause could be put in section 7 of GPL to allow that to happen ie If any file contains requirements to ship under different license and conditions it's here by permitted. Of course this could be done in a more contained form as well. That way file inside the GPL program remains under GPL protection but is also removable.
It does not matter how you put it BSD allows you to be screwed and needs fixing. BSD people need to stop yelling at Linux people for doing what there license down right permits.
Some of the good Linux guys use a Clause 7 in GPL to allow GPL removal form BSD works. So at no time was the code Dual licensed or BSD not in effect. Only some of the time did the BSD code have other conditions placed on it. Note the Linux guys don't have to allow GPL to be removed from BSD containing file. If you cannot remove the GPL license due to no clause 7 allowance it is stuck under the conditions of GPL and BSD forever. And since GPL particularly blocks shipping under a different license you stuck.
Problem with BSD it does not have a clause blocking other conditions being added or forcing if its release as source that the source must be usable under BSD.
What I was explaining was not dual license if its dual license you could release under either. Using this
particularly allowed modification so adding of more conditions is permitted a flaw in BSD.Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
So as long as the over wrapping/dominate license support the 3 conditions of BSD its extra conditions then come into effect. Even that the BSD license has never been removed it has been rendered useless by the second license.
Someone needs to fix the BSD license it needs a 4 clause. Basically If distributed in source form all files containing this copyright notice must be allowed to be shipped under only the conditions of this copyright notice. The problem in the past BSD supporter call that virus like. Its where BSD and GPL supporters first split. GPL people don't want to lose the right to use the code they make.
A mirror clause could be put in section 7 of GPL to allow that to happen ie If any file contains requirements to ship under different license and conditions it's here by permitted. Of course this could be done in a more contained form as well. That way file inside the GPL program remains under GPL protection but is also removable.
It does not matter how you put it BSD allows you to be screwed and needs fixing. BSD people need to stop yelling at Linux people for doing what there license down right permits.
Some of the good Linux guys use a Clause 7 in GPL to allow GPL removal form BSD works. So at no time was the code Dual licensed or BSD not in effect. Only some of the time did the BSD code have other conditions placed on it. Note the Linux guys don't have to allow GPL to be removed from BSD containing file. If you cannot remove the GPL license due to no clause 7 allowance it is stuck under the conditions of GPL and BSD forever. And since GPL particularly blocks shipping under a different license you stuck.
I have been contact with FSF and other lawers, they say simple u can not remove a licen without premitins or if the licen allown that.
BSD does not have such loop wholes,
GPL, LGPL, APCHIE, MIT, BSD and allot other licen allown u modify the source code and give out the program. But it must be given out under same licen. as it was frist issue to. no expections.
And we follow that.
Then u got the the internal copyright laws. that say it is the author to a copyright decide the licen agremment, and some contry u need lable the licen with © in the copyright text to make the vaild copyright in that contry.
The best with BSD licen is for company, they can take a BSD project make it close source and do not need release the source code. in comserlles point is BSD or Freesoftware licen 1.0 the two best licen to take a program from and close the source to it, without any problem or
licen breaking.
Etiher way reactos always respect the licen and how have done the code or wich project. it is nothing more agurment about. if it allown or not.
BSD does not have such loop wholes,
GPL, LGPL, APCHIE, MIT, BSD and allot other licen allown u modify the source code and give out the program. But it must be given out under same licen. as it was frist issue to. no expections.
And we follow that.
Then u got the the internal copyright laws. that say it is the author to a copyright decide the licen agremment, and some contry u need lable the licen with © in the copyright text to make the vaild copyright in that contry.
The best with BSD licen is for company, they can take a BSD project make it close source and do not need release the source code. in comserlles point is BSD or Freesoftware licen 1.0 the two best licen to take a program from and close the source to it, without any problem or
licen breaking.
Etiher way reactos always respect the licen and how have done the code or wich project. it is nothing more agurment about. if it allown or not.
I need to use cleaner words. I was not meaning the GPL copyright header is removed. I was meaning a clause that disables the GPL conditions from effecting that file when contained in a BSD work.
At no time what I am talking about involves removing a copyright notice or license. BSD lacks the clause preventing other licenses from being stacked on top of it.
Yes I agree leaving out the words after removal of "of conditions" was a big typo. And the GPL little way down after that leaving out "conditions" was also a big typo.
A simple clause in GPL license using section 7 of "All BSD license contained files directly added by Reactos retain the right to distributed as per original BSD conditions without any GPL conditions applied to them."
Note these clause can be also done on a file by file base protect the return right. Most likely safer when importing stuff from other projects. Since they might trap something under GPL that is BSD.
This way the wrapping license protects the right of those files to be returned. Of course that is a developer option if they want to do something like that in the license of Reactos to put in past question.
PS. I recall this well because I had a good person at copyright that showed me that loop holes in copyright laws with disabling clauses. BSD and 13 incompatible licenses with each other but compatible with BSD. We had to add another license that was incompatible to all bar the BSD license. Every license bare the BSD had a disabling clause removing its conditions effects dropping it back to BSD conditions so the next license could be stacked on. Boy that is a evil question to put to someone because if you miss the disabling clauses you start arguing that is illegal from the get go. Yes it was funny watching some people make that argument and being told they had just failed and would have to take a makeup explaining what they missed and the side effects of a stack like it.
At no time what I am talking about involves removing a copyright notice or license. BSD lacks the clause preventing other licenses from being stacked on top of it.
This is just a disabling clause so that the first license alone can still be used in its past form. Same kind of conditions have been added by some Linux developers to allow GPL alteration to the work to be returned to BSD source work. GPL is still there but non functional in the BSD work. But without the clause all conditions of GPL are required to be met blocking its return to is past BSD form.If any file contains requirements to ship under different license and conditions it's here by permitted.
Yes I agree leaving out the words after removal of "of conditions" was a big typo. And the GPL little way down after that leaving out "conditions" was also a big typo.
A simple clause in GPL license using section 7 of "All BSD license contained files directly added by Reactos retain the right to distributed as per original BSD conditions without any GPL conditions applied to them."
Note these clause can be also done on a file by file base protect the return right. Most likely safer when importing stuff from other projects. Since they might trap something under GPL that is BSD.
This way the wrapping license protects the right of those files to be returned. Of course that is a developer option if they want to do something like that in the license of Reactos to put in past question.
PS. I recall this well because I had a good person at copyright that showed me that loop holes in copyright laws with disabling clauses. BSD and 13 incompatible licenses with each other but compatible with BSD. We had to add another license that was incompatible to all bar the BSD license. Every license bare the BSD had a disabling clause removing its conditions effects dropping it back to BSD conditions so the next license could be stacked on. Boy that is a evil question to put to someone because if you miss the disabling clauses you start arguing that is illegal from the get go. Yes it was funny watching some people make that argument and being told they had just failed and would have to take a makeup explaining what they missed and the side effects of a stack like it.
Re: Open Source (BSD) WDM Drivers
ISISALSA PROJECT's DOCUMENTS page wrote:Daudio_Win2k.zip - Hoontech driver source code for their SAM9x07 based card.
Dsp3.zip - Part 2 of this driver.
»Forward Agency NPO
In progress we (always) trust.
In progress we (always) trust.
Re: Open Source (BSD) WDM Drivers
the source code fron ISISALSA PROJECT's DOCUMENTS page can not be use in reactos for no licen are given to the source.
Re: Open Source (BSD) WDM Drivers
[ external image ] then...
»Forward Agency NPO
In progress we (always) trust.
In progress we (always) trust.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 28 guests