Return-path: Received: from cvs.openbsd.org ([199.185.137.3]:29836 "EHLO cvs.openbsd.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767134AbXDER3j (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 13:29:39 -0400 Message-Id: <200704051725.l35HPJXt014600@cvs.openbsd.org> To: Michael Buesch cc: Marcus Glocker , Marcus Glocker , Jon Simola , Theo de Raadt , Stefano Brivio , Martin Langer , Danny van Dyk , Andreas Jaggi , Larry Finger , Quaker.Fang@sun.com, Johannes Berg , Joseph Jezak , John Linville , Greg kh , bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, license-violation@gpl-violations.org Subject: Re: OpenBSD bcw: Possible GPL license violation issues In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:14:10 +0200." <200704051914.10999.mb@bu3sch.de> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:25:19 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > On Thursday 05 April 2007 18:48, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > I personally believe that you made a very poor choice by publically > > attacking a developer who did not even have working code yet. You chose > > The GPL is not about "working code", it's about distribution. > And you did distribute our code under the BSD license, which is > a GPL violation. Marcus made a mistake, and instead of privately mailing him you told a bunch of mailing lists. Your mails make it clear that you don't believe his process was in good faith. Fine -- then we cannot believe that your very public posting was in good faith, either. > I think this is dangerous, because the code is tainted and it > may even taint other codebases. For example if someone working > for opensolaris choses to import bcw into solaris, as he's rightfully > got the opinion that bcw is BSD licensed. Yes, dangerous mistakes happen all the time. But we live in a world of source code, where mistakes can be undone. Now that mistake is undone. In the way you wanted; was there every any doubt in ANYONE'S MIND that Marcus would approach this any other way? Or are you completely and totally deluded, and beyond that -- completely unaware of how human beings react? > I offered several ways to solve the issue that would help bcw development > (offering to relicense my code). Isn't that a bit like offering a kibble to a cat after you've kicked it? > If Marcus gave up that's a pity. But that's his choice. I respect that, > although I hoped to get a better solution. KICK KICK KICK KICK. I wish the cat still wants to come over and purr near me. There's thousands of people who write code, and try to be nice to the people who write that code. When license problems happen, they try to nicely get problems resolved privately first. If problems cannot be nicely resolved, then they do them in a more public fashion. There is a large culture of GPL proponents who privately deal with companies to get things resolved, and then privately use legal force, and then maybe, in the end, use public force. But when dealing with a parallel open source effort, you went right to the jugular. I bet you deal nicer with companies. What is the matter with you? Are you not human? But you, sir, are not in the group of people who try to nicely get problems results. You publically kick people who make mistakes. Maybe you don't feel guilty about what has happened here, but you no longer have my respect. You don't understand how a human being might react to being kicked in public, when a small private word might have been better.