On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> J.C. Roberts wrote:
> > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2
>
> Link with outdated info.
>
> > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
>
> Link with outdated info.
>
> > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
> > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous
> > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly
> > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?
>
> Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process.
>
> A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g
>it
>
> but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and
> HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
> (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here)
>
> Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are
> actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly
> seen by the changes being made over time.
>
> So let's everybody calm down, ok?
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeff
Jeff,
Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say
someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they
are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license
removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere.
You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not
been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or
whatever project?
No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal
getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart.
If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the
people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code,
then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it.
Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all
of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the
GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a
criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven
to be guilty code theft.
After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the
horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux
source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other
than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this
point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now
stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now
missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on
the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they
now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their
assertion about the way you normally operate.
You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still
practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people.
By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code
theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the
GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft,
you are weakening your own license.
jcr
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
