Return-path: Received: from static-ip-62-75-166-246.inaddr.intergenia.de ([62.75.166.246]:46488 "EHLO vs166246.vserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1767266AbXDETq0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Apr 2007 15:46:26 -0400 From: Michael Buesch To: Theo de Raadt Subject: Re: OpenBSD bcw: Possible GPL license violation issues Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 21:45:31 +0200 Cc: Joseph Jezak , Stefano Brivio , Marcus Glocker , Jon Simola , Theo de Raadt , Martin Langer , Danny van Dyk , Andreas Jaggi , Larry Finger , Quaker.Fang@sun.com, Johannes Berg , John Linville , Greg kh , bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, license-violation@gpl-violations.org References: <200704051929.l35JTZYm015728@cvs.openbsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200704051929.l35JTZYm015728@cvs.openbsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200704052145.32619.mb@bu3sch.de> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 05 April 2007 21:29, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > The way they chose to "notify" Marcus shows a complete lack of > > > respect for Marcus. > > > > The way OpenBSD folks used our code was a complete lack of respect > > for us. Fullstop. > > You refuse to accept it was an accident. Therefore we refuse to > accept that your public posting was an accident. Both exactly right. > You publically > attacked another open source developer for a specific purpose. You > are an inhuman asshole, out to make a public fuss about something, > when you had a choice to tell him in private. *clap clap clap* Nice show, Theo. Insulting people is always the way to get an issue solved. > You got what you wanted -- the driver has been deleted. I never said I wanted the driver to be deleted. Re-read the whole thread please. But switch your "turn the meaning of sentences over" device off first, please. > > > As Theo expressed in the thread, there is NO > > > DOUBT that they would have notified a corporation privately. Why > > > would you treat an individual, working on the code out of their own > > > desire, with less respect? > > > > This is a lie. > > Read the whole thread again! > > Jason Dixon is a liar because he doubts something? How can he be a This sentence is the prove that you don't read mails exactly before replying. Jason did not "doubt something". He wrote [citing]: "there is NO DOUBT that they would have notified a corporation privately" Note the capitalized words. This is a plain lie. There is no special exception from me to companies. I already said that in another mail. > liar if he is stating something he believes? Let me rephrase it: He > believes you would treat a company better than you treated Marcus. > > Where's the lie? -- Greetings Michael.