Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on > > code with the BSD license. > > > > And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the > > MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only > > people that accepted the patches in question. > > Although it's true the code is not yet upstream... > > Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is > sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm, > rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" > > with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate > > Reyk's copyright. > > Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant. We want to > make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make > sure any copyright problems are fixed. > > On a side note: "MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k > driver, the driver at issue here. Some mistakes were made by Linux > wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected. > > > Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU > > > > If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with > > faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 > > is a better license than v3 > > Amen. 100% agreed. > > Jeff Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in bad faith, the code in question is per se "intended" to become part of the Linux kernel. The code has not been "accepted upstream" as you say but that is still the intended goal. 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 term is most often considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though it is pedantically incorrect to do so. Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example. There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair minded and well thought than I will ever be. With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go? The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer. As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you. If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team were to contact the people who have been illegally messing with licenses on the atheros code and ask them to quit messing around, it could do a lot of good towards resolving this issue. In doing so, you'll not only end the current pointless waste of time between GPL/GNU/BSD, but you'll also prevent the pointless waste of time of discussing this to death on lkml when the time comes to move the code upstream so you have better atheros support. The people who have done this illegal license swapping nonsense will not listen to Reyk, will not listen to Theo (which some will say is a difficult thing to do) and will not listen to me (which is probably more difficult than listening to Theo). All of three us are in the "wrong camp" simply because we use a different license. My hope is the people responsible for the illegal license swapping will hopefully listen to you, the Linux kernel developers. If you'd like to see all of this end, rather than carry on and on and on until it winds up in court, please do something. Please try asking the people responsible to quit messing with licenses. kind regards, jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at
Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD license. And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only people that accepted the patches in question. Although it's true the code is not yet upstream... Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm, rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or [EMAIL PROTECTED] *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* fix the problem with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate Reyk's copyright. Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant. We want to make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make sure any copyright problems are fixed. On a side note: MadWifi does not really describe the Linux ath5k driver, the driver at issue here. Some mistakes were made by Linux wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected. Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 is a better license than v3 Amen. 100% agreed. Jeff Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in bad faith, the code in question is per se intended to become part of the Linux kernel. The code has not been accepted upstream as you say but that is still the intended goal. 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 term is most often considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though it is pedantically incorrect to do so. Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example. There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair minded and well thought than I will ever be. With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go? The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer. As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you. If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team were to contact the people who have been illegally messing with licenses on the atheros code and ask them to quit messing around, it could do a lot of good towards resolving this issue. In doing so, you'll not only end the current pointless waste of time between GPL/GNU/BSD, but you'll also prevent the pointless waste of time of discussing this to death on lkml when the time comes to move the code upstream so you have better atheros support. The people who have done this illegal license swapping nonsense will not listen to Reyk, will not listen to Theo (which some will say is a difficult thing to do) and will not listen to me (which is probably more difficult than listening to Theo). All of three us are in the wrong camp simply because we use a different license. My hope is the people responsible for the illegal license swapping will hopefully listen to you, the Linux kernel developers. If you'd like to see all of this end, rather than carry on and on and on until it winds up in court, please do something. Please try asking the people responsible to quit messing with licenses. kind regards, jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
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 and overlapping > lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through > line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is > not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, > and to make policy recommendations Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations which very simply reads: "steal and infect everything you possibly can and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received." http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/ As you do your imaginary "painstaking reconstruction" the whole world can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed "spirit" of your "steal-alike" license because you refuse to pass on the rights you have received. > The required work has been made more arduous because some people have > chosen not to cooperate in good faith. When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention of cooperating in good faith with anyone. > But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like > "theft" and "malpractice" was a Really Bad Idea Speaking of "Really Bad Ideas," you trained us. The only time we get any form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push your "free as in koolaid" political agenda there will be people like me who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your stalling tactics and your legal bullying. I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell. jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 my temper when dealing with you. 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, the GNU project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you are all one large project working together. When some part of your project is indulging in code theft, it makes all of you look bad, regardless if it's upstream, downstream, sidestream or otherwise. When linux/gpl developers and linux/gpl lawyers refuse to take a stance against code theft, you look like one big happy family doing everything you can to put as much code as possible under your preferred license regardless if it's illegal or immoral. I knew darn well that I wouldn't be winning any new friends in the linux/gpl/gnu camp by voicing an unpopular opinion to your project, but after being ignored, you too would want to find the people on the other side with the spine to stand up and say code theft is wrong. Would you stand by quietly, tolerate being ignored, and accept delay tactics of unethical lawyers if the roles were reverse? Would you be willing to be called every untoward name in the book by voicing your dissenting opinions clearly and loudly? I have. jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote: > J.C. Roberts wrote: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=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 obviously erroneous > > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly > > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? > > Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. > > A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g >it > > but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and > HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git > (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here) > > Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are > actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly > seen by the changes being made over time. > > So let's everybody calm down, ok? > > Regards, > > Jeff Jeff, 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 license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere. You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or whatever project? No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart. If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code, then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it. Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven to be guilty code theft. After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their assertion about the way you normally operate. You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people. By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft, you are weakening your own license. jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 a lot > > of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots. > > OH COME FREAKING ON Can you guys DROP it already? There was NO > VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!! The patch > that Jesper submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!! You are wrong. http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=2 http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 a lot of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots. OH COME FREAKING ON Can you guys DROP it already? There was NO VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!! The patch that Jesper submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!! You are wrong. http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2 http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it? Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process. A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g it but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git (official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here) Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly seen by the changes being made over time. So let's everybody calm down, ok? Regards, Jeff Jeff, 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 license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere. You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not been officially brought upstream by the offical public domain or whatever project? No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart. If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code, then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it. Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven to be guilty code theft. After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other than linux and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their assertion about the way you normally operate. You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people. By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft, you are weakening your own license. jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Wasting our Freedom
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 my temper when dealing with you. 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, the GNU project, the FSF, and the SFLC is pedantic at best to the rest of the outside world. As far as everyone else on the outside is concerned, you are all one large project working together. When some part of your project is indulging in code theft, it makes all of you look bad, regardless if it's upstream, downstream, sidestream or otherwise. When linux/gpl developers and linux/gpl lawyers refuse to take a stance against code theft, you look like one big happy family doing everything you can to put as much code as possible under your preferred license regardless if it's illegal or immoral. I knew darn well that I wouldn't be winning any new friends in the linux/gpl/gnu camp by voicing an unpopular opinion to your project, but after being ignored, you too would want to find the people on the other side with the spine to stand up and say code theft is wrong. Would you stand by quietly, tolerate being ignored, and accept delay tactics of unethical lawyers if the roles were reverse? Would you be willing to be called every untoward name in the book by voicing your dissenting opinions clearly and loudly? I have. jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Statement by SFLC (was Re: Wasting our Freedom)
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 and overlapping lines of development, including forensic reconstruction through line-by-line code reviews where version control system information is not available), as well as to resolve all outstanding legal issues, and to make policy recommendations Everyone is expecting yet another one of your lovely recommendations which very simply reads: steal and infect everything you possibly can and refuse to pass on the rights that you have received. http://lwn.net/Articles/248223/ As you do your imaginary painstaking reconstruction the whole world can see you refuse to practice what you preach in the supposed spirit of your steal-alike license because you refuse to pass on the rights you have received. The required work has been made more arduous because some people have chosen not to cooperate in good faith. When you stated you intend to secure as much code as possible under your license of choice, you mistakenly told the world you had no intention of cooperating in good faith with anyone. But making threats of litigation and throwing around words like theft and malpractice was a Really Bad Idea Speaking of Really Bad Ideas, you trained us. The only time we get any form of response is when we continue to become more loud, more abrasive, more aggressive, and more accusational. As long as people in your camp continue to use your license and lawyers as a weapon to push your free as in koolaid political agenda there will be people like me who will stand up and fight against your theft, your malpractice, your stalling tactics and your legal bullying. I hope the name Pavlov rings a bell. jcr - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Thursday 13 September 2007, Jason Dixon 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 developers (reyk@) have been molested, and all we've done as a > community is to participate in useless flames and blog postings. Theo > has thrown himself, once again, against the spears of the Linux > community and their legal vultures in order to protect our software > freedoms. How many of us can say we've done our part to defend truly > Free Software? > > You don't have to be a lawyer or OpenBSD developer to make a > difference. Email the SFLC and FSF and remind them that Free > Software consists of more than the almighty penguin. OpenBSD is > arguably the most Free and Open operating system available anywhere. > The SFLC and FSF need to remember that they were created to protect > victims, not thieves. > > Your donations are important for keeping the servers running, but > your voice is necessary for keeping our freedom alive. > > > Contacts: > > Eben Moglen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Lawrence Lessig - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Bradley M. Kuhn - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Matt Norwood - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hi Jason, I admire your intentions but there are a few things which you need to understand a bit better. First off, I do not know Lawrence Lessig or his involvement, so I do not understand how he made your list. On the other hand, Eben Moglen is arrogant and unscrupulous. His stated goal is to steal as much software as possible and put it under the GPL even when doing so is illegal. If you give him a valid and sound argument why the "legal advice" he has given is obviously illegal, the very most you will get from him is a facetious reply asking where you are licensed to practice law. -I know this from experience because it is the exact reply I got from him after emailing him this: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc=118901954525700=2 Whether they realize it or not, the other two clowns on your list, Bradley M. Kuhn and Matt Norwood (as well as Richard Fontana and Karen Sandler who also signed off on it) are really nothing than expendable cannon fodder for the FSF war against reality. Eben being crafty and cowardly, he decided not to put his name on the list of FSF lawyers signing off on the code theft. Since anyone could easily complain to the Bar Association about lawyers giving out bogus legal advice, and possibly cause them to be disbarred, cowardly Eben is letting others take the fall. http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless=118857712529898=2 Signed-Off-By: Bradley M. Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-Off-By: Matt Norwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-Off-By: Richard Fontana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-Off-By: Karen Sandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took some GPL code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that cases was just as illegal, just as immoral and just as wrong but it was corrected when it was discovered in one of the dev branches of cvs. In the case of Ryek's code, the reverse is true but instead of admitting the mistake and making the needed corrections, FSF has pulled out their lawyers in hopes of getting away with the theft. All of this is being done *intentionally* in hopes that no one will put up a fight. 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 zealots. The main thing you need to grasp Jason is the people behind the illegal license replacements are doing it *intentionally* so voicing your concerns to them will fall on deaf ears. I'm cc'ing all of them not merely for the antagonistic pleasure but because I want them to know that people do see past their shifty, illegal and immoral ways. Their modus operandi is very simple; keep stealing code until they get busted, go to court, and then go back to stealing as much code as possible. All of their nonsense marketing about freedom and fairness is nothing more than a lie to cover their real intentions; enforcing the insane "share or be punished" manifesto of their delusional and deranged leader Richard Stallman. "If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs." The "GNU Manifesto" by Richard Stallman can be found here: http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/GNU/info/GNUGNU If Stallman actually believed a word of what he wrote above, he would still be dedicating all of his works to the public domain since it would have no restrictions. In short, Stallman is a liar. Stallman may be intelligent, persuasive and deceptive but he is neither rational nor wise. A
Re: Wasting our Freedom
On Thursday 13 September 2007, Jason Dixon 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 developers (reyk@) have been molested, and all we've done as a community is to participate in useless flames and blog postings. Theo has thrown himself, once again, against the spears of the Linux community and their legal vultures in order to protect our software freedoms. How many of us can say we've done our part to defend truly Free Software? You don't have to be a lawyer or OpenBSD developer to make a difference. Email the SFLC and FSF and remind them that Free Software consists of more than the almighty penguin. OpenBSD is arguably the most Free and Open operating system available anywhere. The SFLC and FSF need to remember that they were created to protect victims, not thieves. Your donations are important for keeping the servers running, but your voice is necessary for keeping our freedom alive. Contacts: Eben Moglen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lawrence Lessig - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bradley M. Kuhn - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Norwood - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Jason, I admire your intentions but there are a few things which you need to understand a bit better. First off, I do not know Lawrence Lessig or his involvement, so I do not understand how he made your list. On the other hand, Eben Moglen is arrogant and unscrupulous. His stated goal is to steal as much software as possible and put it under the GPL even when doing so is illegal. If you give him a valid and sound argument why the legal advice he has given is obviously illegal, the very most you will get from him is a facetious reply asking where you are licensed to practice law. -I know this from experience because it is the exact reply I got from him after emailing him this: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=118901954525700w=2 Whether they realize it or not, the other two clowns on your list, Bradley M. Kuhn and Matt Norwood (as well as Richard Fontana and Karen Sandler who also signed off on it) are really nothing than expendable cannon fodder for the FSF war against reality. Eben being crafty and cowardly, he decided not to put his name on the list of FSF lawyers signing off on the code theft. Since anyone could easily complain to the Bar Association about lawyers giving out bogus legal advice, and possibly cause them to be disbarred, cowardly Eben is letting others take the fall. http://marc.info/?l=linux-wirelessm=118857712529898w=2 Signed-Off-By: Bradley M. Kuhn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-Off-By: Matt Norwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-Off-By: Richard Fontana [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-Off-By: Karen Sandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took some GPL code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that cases was just as illegal, just as immoral and just as wrong but it was corrected when it was discovered in one of the dev branches of cvs. In the case of Ryek's code, the reverse is true but instead of admitting the mistake and making the needed corrections, FSF has pulled out their lawyers in hopes of getting away with the theft. All of this is being done *intentionally* in hopes that no one will put up a fight. 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 zealots. The main thing you need to grasp Jason is the people behind the illegal license replacements are doing it *intentionally* so voicing your concerns to them will fall on deaf ears. I'm cc'ing all of them not merely for the antagonistic pleasure but because I want them to know that people do see past their shifty, illegal and immoral ways. Their modus operandi is very simple; keep stealing code until they get busted, go to court, and then go back to stealing as much code as possible. All of their nonsense marketing about freedom and fairness is nothing more than a lie to cover their real intentions; enforcing the insane share or be punished manifesto of their delusional and deranged leader Richard Stallman. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs. The GNU Manifesto by Richard Stallman can be found here: http://ftp.jaist.ac.jp/pub/GNU/info/GNUGNU If Stallman actually believed a word of what he wrote above, he would still be dedicating all of his works to the public domain since it would have no restrictions. In short, Stallman is a liar. Stallman may be intelligent, persuasive and deceptive but he is neither rational nor wise. A rational man knows deceiving or forcing
