From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Grover Subject: Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 11:52:19 -0800 Message-ID: <509D5EF3.9030809@redhat.com> References: <509A915B.30105@redhat.com> <509B117A.6070708@genband.com> <509BE460.6010404@redhat.com> <1352405111.29589.476.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <509C22B2.8010600@redhat.com> <1352426896.29589.512.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20121109110336.41833034@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:31141 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753665Ab2KITwd (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:52:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121109110336.41833034@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: nab@risingtidesystems.com, Chris Friesen , Jon Mason , target-devel , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Marc Fleischmann On 11/09/2012 03:03 AM, Alan Cox wrote: > I fail to understand the maintainer question however. If you were trying > to block people adding target features that competed that would be a > different thing. You think it's ok for us to have an unrepentant GPL violator as a subsystem maintainer?? If that's really what you're saying then I think that's crazy. -- Andy