From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Subject: Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:32:54 -0800
Message-ID: <1352860374.28921.3.camel@dabdike>
References: <509A915B.30105@redhat.com> <1352626456.6524.46.camel@dabdike>
	 <20121111130553.GA30943@thunk.org> <87390gxjbd.fsf@ebb.org>
	 <1352658157.6524.58.camel@dabdike>
	 <20121111183243.62602d9b@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20121111183243.62602d9b@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: "Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@sfconservancy.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Andy Grover <agrover@redhat.com>, "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>, target-devel <target-devel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Marc Fleischmann <mwf@risingtidesystems.com>, Nicholas Bellinger <nab@risingtidesystems.com>
List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org

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