Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: Wasting our Freedom | Date | Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:32:42 -0400 |
| |
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 <reyk@openbsd.org> ----- >> - 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, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |