Return-path: Received: from cvs.openbsd.org ([199.185.137.3]:22078 "EHLO cvs.openbsd.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932128AbXDEBOu (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:14:50 -0400 Message-Id: <200704050112.l351C7Ev016627@cvs.openbsd.org> To: Stefano Brivio cc: Michael Buesch , Marcus Glocker , Jon Simola , Theo de Raadt , 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 02:59:56 +0200." <20070405025956.7b85639c@localhost> Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:12:06 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Copyrighted whitespaces and variable names, you mean, right? > > No. What does that "No." mean. Are you being obtuse? I am quoting you: > The bcw developers went public with it. This code was submitted to a > public CVS. With multiple commits. Copying comments. Maintaining > whitespace and variable names. Not even trying to hide that. ----------------------------- If whitespacing and variable names do not matter for the larger issue at hand, then I suggest you don't bring it up. Why would you bring it up? Because you want to accuse. You don't want to see these issues solved in the right way (whatever that will be). You want to accuse, by bringing up whitespace. Why else would you bring up whitespace? It should be obvious to anyone who actually goes and reads it, that the remainder Marcus' driver shows that he IS TRYING TO TAKE A GOOD FAITH APPROACH TOWARDS LICENSING. He is reading what he can and it appears he made a few expedient mistakes. But the larger bulk of the driver, shows that he is trying to do this right. I think Michael knows this, but Stefano -- your agressiveness does not show that you understand this. Michael's initial overly public statemen did not dispute Marcus obviously tried to do the right thing, but your agressiveness DOES dispute it. Your sentence: > Not even trying to hide that. Is exceedingly agressive. If you have an agenda here, please make it clear. I read every sentence you wrote, but I will wait for Michael to reply. He brought this issue up, he chose the venue, and he gets to decide where this goes now. I've talked a little with Marcus, and I think that based on Michael's next comments, Marcus will decide which direction he goes. Right about now I think you (Stefano) don't understand that every word you say is leading certain people to abandon even trying to write an alternative Broadcom driver. Your english seems solid, but you are not listening to the vibe. And ... if what you really want is that another Broadcom driver does not come into existance, then just say so. If that is your agenda, say so loud and clear, so that we can know. However if you are comfortable with another driver existing in the future, then we will wait for Michael to speak up. In this forum, since this is where he has decided it should all go. I believe that based on the public existance of reverse engineering specifications for the chipset there are a number of people who have no problem with there being MANY implimentations. But if you want to piss off other people who will try, Stefano, just keep on talking...