Return-path: Received: from cvs.openbsd.org ([199.185.137.3]:11988 "EHLO cvs.openbsd.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767348AbXDEVm2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:42:28 -0400 Message-Id: <200704052139.l35LdHhb006295@cvs.openbsd.org> To: Johannes Berg cc: Stefano Brivio , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Pavel Roskin , Michael Buesch , Joseph Jezak , Marcus Glocker , Jon Simola , Theo de Raadt , Martin Langer , Danny van Dyk , Andreas Jaggi , Larry Finger , Quaker.Fang@sun.com, 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 23:36:27 +0200." <1175808987.3489.18.camel@johannes.berg> Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:39:17 -0600 From: Theo de Raadt Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > > Cooperation is not built on that. Maybe you specifically don't care > > about cooperation, but I am sure there are others who do. So perhaps > > watch your words. > > How you can *possibly* expect cooperation from a group of people who > * just discovered that somebody has taken large parts of their code Well, you start to expect that mistakes happen, and you privately contact them. > * removed their attribution The attribution was never to be added, because a couple of functions were copied in temporarily to help development of other functions, and then they were accidentally commited. This was a mistake, but no private mail about it happened. > * relicensed them under a much more permissive license They were accidentally copied, and then a public mail was made to a bunch of large mailing lists. > * /then/ claims that it was "an honest mistake" If the claims aren't believed, then you are right there can be no cooperation, can there. But someone has to believe claims. If I don't believe your claims that you aren't a rabbit, it doesn't make you a rabbit. Someone has to try to accept claims of fair development. If you don't believe us, how about this claim: OpenSSH on Linux has no major holes. Go ahead, keep using it. The fact is, you have to accept that some claims are done on fair grounds. If you don't, then no, you are right -- no cooperation is possible. > * also claims that the license (GPL in this case) isn't relevant > because the code doesn't "run" (hint: GPL covers redistribution too, > no matter if the code runs or not) Accidents were made. But you don't believe that. How does cooperation start? > is totally beyond me. > > Yet Michael offered it. He offered something after slagging someone to bits. That's not a real offer. How does cooperation start, if the first statements are about theft and lies? It doesn't. And you prefer it that way?