Really just a symptom of cultural change
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ed_0x1b Apr 07, 2007 11:22 AM EDT |
I find this dust-up interesting in how the GNU/Linux Development has become more formalized, more institutional and perhaps more distant from it's own GNU roots. While I expect the OBSD culture would have easily fixed any problem with an informal email between developers, the correct path in the GNU/Linux culture is now a more formal declaration. Culturally, such formality violates the small cadre developer ethos one finds in OBSD. Especially since this highlights that GNU/Linux development no longer shares this model. Relationships that once could be taken for granted as sharing a cultural model should be reviewed for having lost this innate leverage. Otherwise they will create an ongoing series of avoidable dust-ups and increased ill-will. Eyes open people - this wasn't personal and should have been expected. Somebody should ask if McKinsey would do some pro-bono work for the FOSS world. ean |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 08, 2007 1:13 PM EDT |
Quoting:While I expect the OBSD culture would have easily fixed any problem with an informal email between developers I disagree. Theo de Raadt is a very difficult person and spats like this have happened before. I think that if he had stayed out of it, it would have been resolved quite fast. |
| jimf Apr 08, 2007 1:37 PM EDT |
> Theo de Raadt is a very difficult person That's certainly the history. |
| jrogers Apr 09, 2007 8:56 AM EDT |
I think this whole thing is an extremely unfortunate example of the all too common miscommunication on the Internet. A friend of mine who has extensive experience with *BSD and GNU/Linux said he thought Buesch was mostly in the wrong. I read the beginning of the thread and I'm not very sure where most of the blame lies. I have very little experience with *BSD and a lot with GNU/Linux, so I can't claim to be unbiased. It does seem very clear that it was a mistake to commit code from the GPL Linux driver to the OpenBSD public CVS, as this implies that it is under a non-copyleft license and therefore free to be used in non-free code. The Linux developers make it clear this is exactly what they wished to avoid by licensing under the GPL. On the other hand, as de Raadt says in his initial response, the Linux guys could have communicated privately before making a a public issue of it. de Raadt acts like OpenBSD developers are under attack, which I think is a gross overreaction, but it was insensitive to post so publicly with no warning or private communication. I think both sides have forgotten that they should be on the same side. OpenBSD and OpenSSH are great contributions to Free software and de Raadt is passionate about Free drivers even if he doesn't like the GPL. |
| DarrenR114 Apr 09, 2007 9:22 AM EDT |
@jrogers Ditto from where I stand. |
| bigg Apr 09, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
> On the other hand, as de Raadt says in his initial response, the Linux guys could have communicated privately before making a a public issue of it. But as has been said before, open source development is not done in private. He was not notified in a press conference on CBS. The relevant groups were sent a message. And so what if other people did find out about it? Is the problem that people now know the BSD developers are capable of making mistakes? It shouldn't have been a problem even if it had been on the front page of the New York Times. I don't see how it is better to keep others in the dark about improper code in BSD. Would it be better if de Raadt knew about a bug, then six months down the road other developers found out that they had to rewrite from scratch because he didn't tell them? |
| tuxchick Apr 09, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
I don't see where making the initial contact publicly- and come on, the OpenBSD dev list? that's the next best thing to private, and darn near secret- justifies Theo's ensuing hysteria. Nobody would have given it a second thought if Theo hadn't escalated it to The End of the Universe and Life as We Know It. |
| jdixon Apr 09, 2007 9:38 AM EDT |
> I think this whole thing is an extremely unfortunate example of the all too common miscommunication on the Internet. Well, yes. But miscommunications are made much worse when one of the people involved is a jerk. And I agree with TC that the OpenBSD developers list was a perfectly appropriate forum for the discussion. |
| dcparris Apr 09, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
>And I agree with TC that the OpenBSD developers list was a perfectly appropriate forum for the discussion. Which was one of the points I attempted to make in my article, where i compared Buesch's posting to the SBA's tactics. |
| tuxchick Apr 09, 2007 10:23 AM EDT |
Actually I think contacting the dev in question (Marcus) privately first would have been a more diplomatic approach. But at some point it was going to end up on a public list anyway, because it involves a number of developers, and it seems clear that some basic OpenBSD procedures regarding commits and checkins were flawed. I did read the whole thread (pass the Valium please, my ears are still ringing), and Theo knew Marcus was studying and modifying some GPL Broadcom driver code, and mingling it where it should not have been mingled. The way the code was being handled was asking for trouble. Especially in a project like OpenBSD which makes frequent and loud pronouncements about how clean their codebase is, and how it's cleaner than anyone else's, and Linux is all polluted, and everyone else is impure, etc. Martin Buesch did not make legal threats or try to take his code away: "We would not be opposed to relicensing parts of our code under the BSD license on an explicit case-by-case base." Somewhere later in the thread Theo, after Marcus deleted all of his work from CVS and quit, ranted about "800 hours of hobby work wasted." That rests squarely on Theo's mis-handling of the whole deal. Honest to gosh, how can anyone read the stuff he posts and not go "eee he is the crazy one"? It starts here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/... |
| DarrenR114 Apr 09, 2007 10:32 AM EDT |
I don't think CCing to *any* list is appropriate *until* after private communications break down - but then again, I don't believe we should resort to using the pillory or scarlet letters. I can't really see *any* purpose to including the people that Buesch did except for public humiliation. |
| Abe Apr 09, 2007 11:25 AM EDT |
I think this whole big fuss is about pride and reputation. What is it that they are concerned about when the whole idea of FOSS is to study, learn and build on the work of predecessors? humbleness is a vitue |
| dwc Apr 10, 2007 5:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:I can't really see *any* purpose to including the people that Buesch did except for public humiliation. Unfortunately, I think "AHA! I CAUGHT YOU!" has become part of the GPL culture. It's unfortunate, and I can't imagine rms ever wanted that, but there it is. Play fair and square or I blast you, and hopefully get on slashdot. It stinks. As for Theo's behavior... he was abrasive, name calling, and nasty. Theo ALWAYS gets that way when people try to appear to be one thing but are actually something else. When corporations say they're open source friendly and they don't actually open up he calls them LIARS in all caps. When people say they're looking for reconciliation, but lay out a laundry list of grievances and CC news sources, he also uses LIAR and other words. It's ugly, it's undiplomatic, but it's also true. Since he doesn't mince words, that makes him a jerk in many peoples' book. But at least he calls them like he sees them, and he's pretty much always right. |
| jdixon Apr 10, 2007 6:26 PM EDT |
> Theo ALWAYS gets that way when people try to appear to be one thing but are actually something else. Actually, as far as I've been able to tell over the years, Theo always gets that way, period. |
| tuxchick Apr 11, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
Well now, if Theo is so smart and so right, then there should be a good, positive outcome from this dustup, correct? OK, the tally so far: -Marcus Glocker deleted his code from CVS and quit -Michael Buesch and the other Broadcom driver developers, who invest considerable resources into reverse-engineering because Broadcom is a butthead, withdrew their offer of cooperation, which included re-licensing their code to make it BSD-friendly -The appearance that it is policy for OpenBSD devs to disrespect software licenses -Theo's fans don't seem to respect software licenses either -More people than ever know that Theo would rather throw a tantrum than try to work things out like an adult Yep, that's some sterling leadership there. |
| bigg Apr 11, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
> Play fair and square or I blast you, and hopefully get on slashdot. It stinks. Enforcing license restrictions is actually a common practice in the computing industry. You might want to check out the internet. It's got stories about proprietary companies preventing others from copying their software. How is it "blasting" someone to point out that GPL code is not being used properly? And what's the secret? Who cares if every household in the US was CC'd? |
| dcparris Apr 11, 2007 7:42 AM EDT |
> Play fair and square or I blast you, and hopefully get on slashdot. It stinks. It might not have even made Slashdot had it not been for Theo's overreaction. A much more diplomatic approach would have been: Glocker responds as he did, Buesch has opportunity to go from there. Theo acknowledges Glocker's error and politely reminds Buesch a private e-mail would have sufficed. Buesch would have had opportunity to explain he would have used private e-mail if not for such a flagrant violation (removing attribution, for example) Theo (who didn't deny knowing about the code use) promises to improve the OpenBSD development process Glocker and Buesch work things out and Glocker maybe needs to re-write a few things instead of everything. Everyone wins. Frankly, calling Buesch "inhuman" in light of the fact that he did not resort to BSA tactics is going way overboard, don't you think? Inhuman? Come on! Go ask Ernie Ball about "inhuman". How about a swat-styled raid with the 6:00 news there to watch? How about not even the remotest notice that anything is wrong? And where did Theo get off on this one? Quoting: > He should start to contact us to get relicensing permission from > us to speed up bcw development and stay legal. Glocker had just been put on notice that he had made a mistake. The Linux developers wanted him to respond, to contact them to resolve it. Theo attempts to make it seem like Glocker is supposed to be a mind reader, as if the Linux developers are so mean, they want him to just up and contact them without notice (despite having served notice). Now that's a bunch of bull. |
| stevem Apr 12, 2007 1:28 AM EDT |
Oh I can sure appreciate and understand why Theo reacted the way he did.
Not agree mind, but understand. Why? OpenBSD has as it's biggest, indeed only, selling point is it is Secure. Secure by default. X exploits in the default install in Y decades and so on. Which all boils down to one word, and one word only. TRUST Is the emperor wearing clothes? Or are his feet made of glass? How many metaphors can dance on the head of pin? This one *terrible* mistake has dealt a huge blow to the years of value that has been given to that trust. I could see this as being the mortal blow to that entire project which IMHO would be an appalling tragedy. |
| DarrenR114 Apr 12, 2007 8:13 AM EDT |
I think it's very telling that Mr. Buesch CC'ed the "GPL violations" ( license-violation@gpl-violations.org ) email address at the FSF right in the first email. What do the legal people who respond to violations have to do with a sincere fact finding effort that's not "out for blood"? Why include them before you have any kind of feedback from the suspect violator? I find Mr. Buesch's inclusion of several of the addressees very disingenuous to his stated purpose of the email. |
| dcparris Apr 12, 2007 1:18 PM EDT |
I agree that Buesch could have been more diplomatic. I would have started with a narrower list myself, not to mention omitting the whole "out for blood" comment. That said, Theo's declaration that Buesch is "inhuman" is rather melodramatic. What really bothers me is Glocker's suggestion that Theo knew in advance what he was doing, and Theo didn't deny that - not that I saw, anyway. What is a project leader doing allowing code to be misused like that? Either he didn't know the details, or he knew the details and allowed it anyway. In the latter case, I think Buesch's CC list might actually be sensible. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!