On Thu, 13.09.2007 at 23:09:51 -0400, Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about
installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms
are quickly eroding away. The rights and recognition of one of our
own
On 10/11/07, Toni Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 13.09.2007 at 23:09:51 -0400, Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It boggles my mind that we can lie around complacently, arguing about
installer menus and taking the bait from trolls, while our freedoms
are quickly eroding away.
* Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 23:04]:
Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
HAL
if that is true and stays that way -
Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:00:13AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 23:04]:
Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
have still not been
On Sep 18, 2007, at 7:16 AM, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who
consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Bodo Eggert wrote:
Paul de Weerd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
|
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is kvetching about, and which apparently is enough to cause the
*BSD
hmm, on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:08:46AM -0700, David Schwartz said that
As said above, the accusations, if you read them correctly, were not
wrong, but spot on right. Unless someone proves that dual-licensing as
in you may follow terms A or terms B at your choice implicitly implies
being
On 9/18/07, Theodore Tso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is kvetching about,
hmm, on Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso said that
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 06:29:48AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
Now if they'd fix the copyright message to only mention Reyk all would
be good.
It *does* mention Reyk, if you would bother to look. The thing which
Theo is
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
[...]
Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's b.s. like this which is why, 16
years ago, I decided to work with Linux instead of BSD.
Fortunately, no one seems to miss you so much in the BSD camp ;-)
Gilles
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
The only remaining issue is whether Nick Jiri have enough
original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
The main reason of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except*
these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning
when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they
sure can add their names.
Can E. Acar wrote:
As long as it is not a derived work, Reyk gets to decide who is in the
copyright. Even if it is a derived work, it is polite to ask.
Additional work went in, thus additional copyrights were added.
I am really disappointed by all this. I would have expected that once
such
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
Well, they can add their names *anywhere* in the whole file, *except*
these two lines. See, these lines have a whole different meaning
when it comes to laws. When they make sufficient contribution, they
sure
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:56:47AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
all of the megabytes and megabhytes of flamewar is over these two
lines:
* Copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nick Kossifidis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Copyright (c) 2007 Jiri Slaby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Petty, isn't it? Let's just say it's
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 11:55 -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
The only remaining issue is whether Nick Jiri have enough
original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
I believe this needs to be
sorry, but calling attribution claims of any sort petty is nothing
short of dangerous ignorance.
Says a man who has a .sig of SDF Public Access UNIX System -
http://sdf.lonestar.org;
Well sdf.lonestar.org claims to be NetBSD so might I suggest your
dangerous ignorance starts at the Unix
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118963284332223w=2
and here is a very brief summary:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118965266709012w=2
On Monday 17 September 2007 02:43:50 Can E. Acar wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 23:00:09 Can E. Acar wrote:
[snip]
Theo summarized the latest situation here, some days ago:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118963284332223w=2
and here is a very brief
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community
over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it
should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain
about those
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources
to WAFL, and claim that they have moral duty to give the code back,
and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office?
which is
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:11:05PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
NetApp does not pretend to be free and open and save the world etc
--
Henning Brauer,
Hello!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
[...]
What is going on whenever someone changes a code is that they make a
derivative work.
Only if the additions/changes are significant enough to be copyrightable
on their own.
Whether or not you can even make a derivative
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:47:43AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Your problem seems to be with the BSD licence,
and the power to alter that licence lies in the BSD community.
I hope you can understand that this mentality is _exactly_ what has
some in the BSD community so upset.
when I see the
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:18:05PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
So for code which is single-licensed under a BSD license, someone can
create a new derived work, and redistribute it under a more
restrictive license --- either one as restrictive as NetApp's (where
no one is allowed to get
Hannah Schroeter wrote:
The original issue *was* about illegal relicensing (i.e. not just
choosing which terms to follow, but removing the other terms
altogether).
You are confusing two completely different issues. One is about removing
license notices, the other is about relicensing. One has
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes NetApp ok and Linux evil?
NetApp does not
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
JFTR, I do
On Sep 17, 2007, at 8:57 AM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-09-17 02:29]:
you claim that it's unethical for the linux community to use the
code, but
brag about NetApp useing the code. what makes
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
The only restrictions on my code is that copyright and attribution
must remain
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
regardless of what Company X(1) does with their *copy* of my code.
The only restrictions on my
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:33:52AM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Sep 17, 2007, at 9:27 AM, Sean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:31 -0400
Jason Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure it does. My code under BSD license continues to remain free,
regardless of what Company X(1)
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
copyright and license does hopefully not modify the copyrights of imported
BSD/ISC code.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 11:20:19AM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
Hi Hannah!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:13:51PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007
Hannah Schroeter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. You may add nearly any copyright *on your own significant
additions/changes*.
Such as a patch? Hardly IMHO, a patch is not a work but an output
of an automated tool. The copyright is not about fragments of works.
You may add a copyright
Can E. Acar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you believe re-arranging code, renaming functions, splitting code
to multiple files, adding some adaptation code is original enough
to be a derivative work and deserve its own copyright?
Deserve? The copyright is automatic, the author (of the
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
...
Saying something like:
Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
is quite similar to saying:
Windows != Microsoft
In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be equal but they are
certainly related. Also in both cases, the former
Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Or that
OpenBSD != Linux kernel
was wrong since although they are not equal, they are related since they
are both open source operating systems.
BTW: never heard someone is using the FreeBSD version of Linux?
I did, not once :-)
--
Krzysztof Halasa
Am Montag 17 September 2007 15:15 schrieb Jason Dixon:
The GPL places additional restrictions on code. It is therefore less
free than the BSD.
Free code + restrictions = non-free code.
The legal restriction that people must not enter your house uninvited
by smashing the door adds to
Jacob Meuser wrote:
when I see the linux community start to take credit for works they
did not create and I see the linux community respond to warnings
that people in the community are going overboard and jeopardizing
the linux community, which we do all benefit from, with a more or
less
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:15:05PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it
And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
void?
Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's code.
The code you distribute contains protectable elements from different
Theodore Tso writes:
Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
Do you think Microsoft users have licences from authors of
the works MS Windows etc. are
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:25:14AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
And if you choose the GPL the code you distribute will be under the GPL
*only* forever [1], so what value would be in shipping terms that are
void?
Not true. You cannot chose the license that applies to other people's
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:38:45PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| It's not about lazyness of BSD developers, many people who consider the
| BSD licence more free than the GPL argue that the advantage of the BSD
| licence is that it does not require you to give back.
|
| Something is wrong if your
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
| give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that hey,
| they don't require it,
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:38:46PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| Something is wrong if your licence text clearly states that you MUST
| give back, but then you don't return the favour on grounds that hey,
| they don't require it, so we don't have to.
| ...
|
| The GPL doesn't require to give back
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:34:58AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:55:54PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Wohoho! Slow here please. NDA have nothing to do with licenses and
especially with copyright. NetApp even though their stuff is under their
copyright and license does
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:32:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
| I'm not making any arguments against any (commercial) user of BSD
| licenced code on moral (or legal or other) grounds that they should
| give back. I am (and I think others too, but I do not wish to speak
| for them) trying to
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.
The BSD license promotes goodwill.
The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:44:28 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
The GPL license promotes and enforces viral control. How hypocritical
that the Linux community fights so hard against the evils of corporate
greed, while it
Kryzstof Halasa writes:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theodore Tso writes:
hardly
A apologize for the error in attribution.
Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work.
You never need
a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries
word
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 08:20:39AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Theodore Tso writes:
Now, you don't need a licence from the original author to use
the derived work. The author of the derived work only needs
a licence from the original author to create a derived work.
Do you think
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:32:35 +0200, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your licence puts you in the position that you always depend on the
goodwill of the persons from whom you want to get code back.
The BSD license promotes
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Theodore Tso writes:
hardly
Of course you don't need a license to *use* the derived work. You never need
a license to use a work. (In the United States. Some countries word this a
bit differently but get the same effect.)
Really? I thought you need
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.
Number 1, some of the
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:23:41PM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
Because they put their copyright plus license on code that they barely
modified. If they would have added substantial work into the OpenHAL code
and by doing that creating something new I would not say much.
Adrian Bunk wrote on Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 02:57:14PM +0200:
But stating in your licence that noone has to give back but then
complaining to some people on ethical grounds that they should give
back is simply dishonest.
Is your intention to allow people to include your code into GPL'ed code
2007/9/18, Can E. Acar [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Theodore Tso wrote:
Number 2, if you take a look at their latest set of changes (which
have still not been accepted), the HAL code is under a pure BSD
license (ath5k_hw.c). Other portions are dual licensed, but not the
HAL --- if people would
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a derivative work from
receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
elements in that work.
Of course you can.
What rights do you have to BSD-licenced works, made available
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:06:37PM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
The only remaining issue is whether Nick Jiri have enough
original contributions to the code to be added to the Copyright.
I believe this needs to be resolved between Reyk and Nick and Jiri.
The main reason of Theo's message,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 04:40:38PM -0700:
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007, Jacob Meuser wrote:
so the linux community is morally equivilent to a corporation?
that's what it sounds like you are all legally satisfied with.
if it's legal it's legal. it's not a matter of the Linux
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a
derivative work from
receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
elements in that work.
Of course you can.
No you can't.
What rights do you have to
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 05:03:55PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My point is that you *cannot* prevent a recipient of a
derivative work from
receiving any rights under either the GPL or the BSD to any protectable
elements in that work.
On Sep 15, 2007, at 06:33:18, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and
relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep,
you betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with a lot
of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
On Sep 15, 2007, at 06:33:18, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and
relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep,
you betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with
I do happen to agree with one of Jason Dixon's original arguments:
this and the related discussions on this list are an utter waste of
time and resources. (Of course, this means I'm going to contribute to
the waste a little more.)
Theo made his arguments. There have been some conversations
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Link with outdated info.
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
Link with outdated info.
I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
completely baseless statements. When you make
There's no need to CC all those FSF people on this as I'm sure
they're plenty busy with other things, have lots of people to dispel
FUD for them, and certainly don't need the excess email in their
inboxes.
On Sep 16, 2007, at 03:52:43, J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle
On 09/16/2007 10:12 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
So let's everybody calm down, ok?
Or rather, can everybody please just shitcan those perverted dipshits you
are replying to and get on with it? These people are here for one reason
only and that's to cause a stir -- however righteous they may feel
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Link with outdated info.
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
Link with outdated info.
I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making
That's the wonderful thing about open development: our mistakes, and
the corrections made to fix mistakes, are out in the open for all to
see. And we wouldn't have it any other way.
Jeff
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Kyle Moffett wrote:
Secondly, what the HELL is with you guys and the personal
attacks?!?!? You said I am hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual
liar???
You are right and I apologize. I've received plenty of personal attacks
from your group, and failed to hold
On Sunday, 16 September 2007, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Let's say
someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they
are older than
Am 16.09.2007 um 12:05 schrieb J.C. Roberts:
Can I ask a question here? You're getting worked up over nothing.
Open Source doesn't
work without Open Hardware. The level of the software is approaching a
good level to
use for Open Hardware, IMO. While it's your time to relax the
hardware
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote:
We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and
we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us
instead of helping.
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2007/jul/31/openhal/
As I said in a
Thanks for the detailed response. There have also been some very
articulate and fact-oriented responses here from the OpenBSD Misc list
as well.
I will repeat and elaborate on what I wrote in my first response which I
gave the subject Divide and conquer (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
Although
On 16/09/2007, Marc Espie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:17:41AM -0400, Eben Moglen wrote:
We will make no more public statements until the work is complete, and
we will be neither hurried nor intimidated by people who shout at us
instead of helping.
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Link with outdated info.
http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k
Link with outdated info.
I
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Most noticeably, I fail to see any credits to Reyk Floeter in the
above press release.
Moreover, back when the release was first posted at the above address,
there was no credit even to the OpenBSD project, which I found simply
outrageous! Only after I (and
J.C. Roberts wrote:
You and the rest of the linux kernel devs need to realize there are a
lot of angry people who are tired of being ignored by the powers that
be in the GNU/FSF/GPL/SFLC. The claimed distinction between the linux
kernel, the linux operating system, the various linux distros,
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Eben Moglen wrote:
Also, and again for the last time, let me state that SFLC's
instructions from its clients are to establish all the facts
concerning the development of the current relevant code (which means
the painstaking reconstruction of several independent
On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2
Link with outdated info.
I don't thinl this helps openbsd or anyone else. As Theo is already
working with the individuals involved, and hasn't asked for help, I
think rather than saying I think you're going to suck, let's see
what happens. Going ovewrboard isn't going to help anyone.
On 9/16/07, J.C. Roberts [EMAIL
Can E. Acar wrote:
There have been complete silence from the leaders of their own
community (Linux Kernel developers, FSF, ...) all perhaps used your
Regarding Linux Kernel developers, false. _I_ have posted. ath5k,
wireless, and net driver maintainers have all sent emails. License and
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed
Daniel Hazelton wrote:
If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over
patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as
fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified)
times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code
On Sunday 16 September 2007 14:48:47 Can E. Acar wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 15:23:25 Daniel Hazelton wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
J.C. Roberts wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC (which is closely related to FSF) in the process.
The most
On Sunday 16 September 2007 16:39:26 Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and SLFC
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 09:59:09PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 11:48:47AM -0700, Can E. Acar wrote:
...
First, these developers got questionable advice from senior Linux kernel
developers, and
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 10:39:26PM +0200, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
The most questionable legal advice in this thread was by Theo de Raadt
who claimed choosing one licence for _dual-licenced_ code was illegal...
JFTR, I do *not* think that that assessment was questionable. Unless the
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 02:17:53AM -0700, J.C. Roberts wrote:
Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say
someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,
removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put
it under any other
On Sun, Sep 16, 2007 at 05:12:08PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
reimplement them. Why don't you go and try asking NetApp for sources
to WAFL, and claim that they have moral duty to give the code back,
and see how quickly you get laughed out of the office?
which is _exactly_ what you guys are
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
