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

Bruce Ferrell
2004-10-08T13:48:54Z

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.