Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 18:32 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >      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.
> 
> So how can you demand a public apology for libel or instant first hand
> proof and now claim you just wanted moderation ? It's not hard to see why
> your position was misinterpreted ?

So you want me to be less definite to avoid misinterpretation?

OK, here it is:  I'd really appreciate it if there was more rigour
behind the initial investigation before going public with suspicions of
GPL violation.  Based on what I read on the internet is a bit too low a
bar for me, particularly when, I believe, Red Hat has the proprietary
target OS and can check directly.

We now have a whole runaway train of suspicion and lawyer involvement
before anyone has actually confirmed there is a problem.
James