Re: Possible GPL Violation of Linux in Amstrad's E3 Videophone

[Bruce Ferrell <bferrell@baywinds.org>]

Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 08 October 2004 03:15, Jon Masters wrote:
> 
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>jmerkey@galt.devicelogics.com wrote:
>>
>>[ Would you please quite removing the attribution from mailing list
>>posts? I know you don't care to keep it in the kernel, but at least
>>let people know who said what in this completely pointless
>>thread... ]
>>
>>Jesper>>| There are other rewards than money.
>>
>>jcm>> Al summed it up quite well earlier. Jeff probably wants to get
>>the jcm>> lining on his tinfoil hat thickened to avoid the brain
>>lazers getting in
>>jcm>> any further. Check those bushes for Novell snipers too - you
>>never know
>>jcm>> when they'll pop out and come to get you, like everyone else
>>everywhere.
>>
>>*Strong medication*. Very strong. Now with added eucalyptus! It'll
>>make removing all that code easier. Ya know, you don't like cdrom
>>support in your kernel (and claim it corrupts memory on your SuSE
>>box...that's cute) but I've never much like memory management or
>>CPU support in my kernel. I say you rip out everything under
>>kernel/ and mm/ just in case. After all, Novell operatives might
>>have secretly corrupted it, eh? ;-).
>>
>>|>50,000USD is a patheticly small amount to pay for the kernel,
>>|> there's nothing wrong with the current licensing model, and
>>|> people already make big bucks from Linux. Several of those aren't
>>|> just dot-coms that went tits up later either - and most of them
>>|> emply core kernel hackers.
>>
>>I meant that too. Just think about it - with the number of
>>contributors in the kernel you'll have to offer a lot of money
>>before even a few of them start to hear cash register sounds in
>>their head. I expect it is graphable, but I've never actually that
>>eye-rolling-dollar-sign thing that happens in the various cartoons.
>>By the time it's diluted down, is the guy entitled to 0.05 cents
>>really going to be suddenly convinced that all this time he was
>>secretly after money but didn't realize it?
>>
>>| Not for a license to a single snapshot of a single 2.6.X or 2.4.X
>>| version.
>>
>>I'd argue that the kernel is entirely priceless. It's better than
>>that, more advanced, now extra-caffeinated with added pro-V
>>complex!
>>
>>| I agree this isn't about money.
>>
>>...oh but you think this pointless endeavour of yours will actually
>>get you somewhere other than in even more killfiles. I really
>>shouldn't feed the troll but it's oh so hard to resist. I mean, you
>>seem like a fun crazy sort of guy. So far I've seen:
>>
>>~    *). Intense bitterness at Novell.
>>~    *). Signs of paranoid delusion.
>>~    *). A fundamental missunderstanding of the GPL.
>>~    *). Various other random craziness.
>>
>>Tell me, Mr Jeff, of various mail domains (does that make you feel
>>bigger and better than the rest of us?) are you funded by Microsoft
>>to suggest this stuff or do you truly believe it? Really? Truly? I
>>mean, I'd much rather hear you're being paid to say this shite.
>>
>>| It's about control and using the GPL to control what happens.
>>
>>...by undermininging it and opening the floor to bribary. What would
>>those damn Novell snipers say about that?
>>
>>| The offer is for real.
>>
>>I doubt that greatly. Actually no, I don't. I believe there are
>>crazy people in the US with lots of money who'll think this is a
>>good idea.
>>
>>Jon.
> 
> 
> Yeah there are Jon, and his initials are probably BG.  I've been 
> following this thread, first in amazement, followed by disbelief, 
> since it started yesterday, and the only thing my 6th sense is 
> telling me is that this is an attempt to undermine the GPL by someone 
> like M$ so that they can take it to court and successfully render it 
> moot.
> 
> At one point he's talking about $50,000 for a snapshot, then next he's 
> saying $50,000 per copyright holder, and how that would end up being 
> millions.  A new story with almost every message, and coming from 
> several addresses, at one point from drdos.com, so I went over to see 
> if he was actually listed there but couldn't find a reference. Ditto 
> for the *panogas address.  And I haven't looked at comcast as that is 
> an ISP with several million addresses IIRC.
> 
> This old (70, and more user than coder now) fart associate member of 
> the FSF is more and more convinced he's a troll, out only to 
> contaminate the GPL and a few million to do that is just chicken feed 
> to his backers.  And make no mistake, the sucessfull contamination of 
> the GPL could be worth many billions of dollars to M$ et all.  Thats 
> the most obvious 'SWAG' candidate as the real source of all this 
> largess.
> 
> My $0.02: Deal with the likes of him at the peril of the GPL.
> 
> Here's another question that needs answered too, why the hell isn't 
> Linus in the To: or Cc: list?  (He is now!) After all, his approval 
> would be the first thing you would need, isn't it Jeff?  Again, one 
> more clue that this looks like the fox, trying to sneak in under the 
> henhouse radar.
> 

A bit of a historical note is in order.  Jeff used to work for Novell... 
And had more than a small dispute with them over some linux code he did 
that allowed linux to, as I recall, do things with netware 4.x.  Novell 
took exception as at the time the only other code that did it was closed 
source distributed through Caldera.