From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Bottomley Subject: Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:22:37 +0000 Message-ID: <1352658157.6524.58.camel@dabdike> References: <509A915B.30105@redhat.com> <1352626456.6524.46.camel@dabdike> <20121111130553.GA30943@thunk.org> <87390gxjbd.fsf@ebb.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87390gxjbd.fsf@ebb.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Cc: Theodore Ts'o , Andy Grover , "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Marc Fleischmann , Nicholas Bellinger List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 10:15 -0500, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > James wrote: > >> [I'd like to see] a genuine public apology for the libel... > >> Because any further discussion of unsubstantiated allegations of > this > >> nature exposes us all to jeopardy of legal sanction. Hey that's a complete misrepresentation. I expressed no such opinion in the email. What I said was: > I would really appreciate it if the next email I see from you on this > subject is either > > 1. Yes, I've got first hand proof of a GPL violation (in which case > we'll then move to seeing how we can remedy this) or > 2. A genuine public apology for the libel, which I'll do my best to > prevail on RTS to accept. > > Because any further discussion of unsubstantiated allegations of this > nature exposes us all to jeopardy of legal sanction. That asks for moderation until we have a better investigation of the facts. It definitely doesn't try to prejudge them or express preference for a specific outcome as your misquote makes out. James