Re: When we detect that a 16550 was in fact part of a NatSemi SuperIO chip

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 01:59:44PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:57:13PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Linus, please do not apply patches from me which have my personal
> > information mangled or removed. I object to having my contributions
> > anonymised in this way, just as I object to the contributions of others
> > being anonymised. This makes it harder to contact those responsible for
> > changes which are committed via Russell's trees, and makes a nonsense of
> > the practice of including Signed-off-by: lines from the contributor.
> > 
> > If Russell thinks that he's bound by the UK's Data Protection Act, then
> > he presumably thinks that he's also obliged to honour my demand that he
> > correct my personal information in his 'database'. His nonsensical
> > amateur interpretation of the law would put him in a Catch-22 situation.
> 
> David,
> 
> I don't have time nor the inclination to deal with your petty single
> mindedness thought games at the moment.
> 
> However, what I will say is that if you think you know better than
> solicitors, why don't you become one.  At that point you can start
> preaching about such things to others.  Until then, your opinions
> are only opinions and I don't have to take any notice what so ever
> of you.
> 
> Welcome to /dev/null - since I can't handle the stress you're causing
> by this.  It's nice and large and will contain everything further you
> have to say on the subject *until* OSDL have completed their own
> investigation into this issue.
> 
> It's rather a shame that you can't be patient and work this out in
> a civilised manner isn't it?

I would like to add some further context to why I've had to take the
regretable course of action I have.

Firstly, I admit to accidentally applying David's patch, which I'm sorry
for doing.  However, that can't be undone.

However, we have discussed the issue of the DPA by private email.  When
I didn't reply for a period of 1h15, he noticed me on IRC and started
hounding me for an answer to his mail.  When I declined to give an
answer until OSDL have completed their investigation, but this wasn't
satisfactory.  The hounding continued.  Not surprising one eventually
gets annoyed.

So, because David couldn't get the answer he wanted, he's decided to
make the whole thing public as in his first mail to this list.

I feel that this hardly the attitude of a mature individual wishing to
resolve a difference of opinion.  It merely serves to cause alienation
and confrontation.

So, regretfully, this leaves me with the only option but to ignore
David via all forms of communication until the reason for deference
is resolved - namely the completion of OSDLs investigation.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core