Return-path: Received: from mfe1.polimi.it ([131.175.12.23]:56292 "EHLO polimi.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932442AbXDEBpV (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Apr 2007 21:45:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 03:40:58 +0200 From: Stefano Brivio To: Theo de Raadt 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 Message-ID: <20070405034058.5fba1a90@localhost> In-Reply-To: <200704050112.l351C7Ev016627@cvs.openbsd.org> References: <20070405025956.7b85639c@localhost> <200704050112.l351C7Ev016627@cvs.openbsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [Please stop this. This doesn't lead anywhere. But as long as you need answers, I'll try to provide you with them.] On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 19:12:06 -0600 Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Copyrighted whitespaces and variable names, you mean, right? > > > > No. > > What does that "No." mean. Are you being obtuse? I am quoting you: [...] > 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? I don't want to accuse anybody. Please see the context. I was trying to explain why I think bcw developers went public about this issue even before we noticed about it, and this seems to imply direct copy. (But hey, I'm not against direct copy, even! I just agree with Michael about this.) > 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. I _think_ and hope 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'm really sorry if this has been perceived as aggressive. I don't want to be aggressive. See above, for the reason why I wrote this sentence. > 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. I can't really agree with this. I think you should at least explain why. > 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. My agenda: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/bcm43xx-dev/2005-December/000816.html -- Ciao Stefano