On Sep 15, 2007, at 06:33:18, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and
relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep,
you betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with a lot
of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots.
OH COME FREAKING ON!!!! Can you guys DROP it already? There was NO
VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!! The patch that
Jesper submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!! Nobody
needs to argue/flame/spam about anything because there is no change
in the code.
My god this has been said 30 times by 30 different people at this
point. I swear it feels like talking to a wall.
EXHIBIT #1:
On Sep 03, 2007, at 10:50:53, Adrian Bunk wrote:
----- Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter <[email protected]> -----
- This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion
about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't
they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important
things?
I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to
think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has
been solved in the linux tree.
To clarify this myth once again:
The patch that mistakenly changed BSD-only code to GPL has never
ever been in the Linux tree.
EXHIBIT #2:
On Sep 02, 2007, at 13:57:41, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Marc Espie wrote:
After reading the current email exchanges, I've become convinced
there is something VERY fishy going on, and some people there have
hidden agendas. Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some
code, puts it under a dual licence, and goes on vacation. While
he's away, some other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the
copyright and licence on the file he's mostly written. Without asking
Dude, you have got to put down the conspiracy juice. NOTHING IS IN
STONE, because nothing has been committed to my repository, much
less torvalds/linux-2.6.git. A patch was posted, people
complained, corrections were made. That's how adults handle
mistakes. Mistakes were made, and mistakes were rectified.
Reyk. Without even having the basic decency to wait for him to be
around.
Demonstrably false: you cannot make that claim until the code is
actually committed to Linux.
EXHIBIT #3:
On Sep 03, 2007, at 12:12:28, [email protected] wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200, Marc Espie said:
Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
under a dual licence, and goes on vacation. While he's away, some
other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the copyright and licence
on the file he's mostly written. Without asking Reyk. Without even
having the basic decency to wait for him to be around.
And we collectively told Jiri where to stick that.
So let's recap:
1) Jiri submitted a borked patch that changed the licenses.
2) We didn't accept said patch.
3) There's then a whole big fuss about a *NON EXISTENT PROBLEM*.
I could see where the *BSD people could complain if we had
*accepted and distributed* said patch. But it was wrong, we
recognized it was wrong, and the system is working as designed. So
let's quit the flamefest already.
CONCLUSION:
You guys are spamming our mailing list for NO GOOD REASON!!!! Can we
*please* get back to actual useful development now?
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-
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]
