From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261345AbVFUMxd (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:53:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261352AbVFUMum (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:50:42 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:32640 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261345AbVFUMrA (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:47:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:46:56 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: "Richard B. Johnson" Cc: Linux kernel Subject: Re: Linux-2.6.12 Message-ID: <20050621124656.GF592@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , "Richard B. Johnson" , Linux kernel References: <20050621003203.GB28908@redhat.com> <20050621111301.GA592@redhat.com> <20050621113040.GB592@redhat.com> <20050621115516.GC592@redhat.com> <20050621121507.GE592@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:30:03AM -0400, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > >Here's the thing. When you say "This is GPL code", you kind of have > >to ship GPLd code. I realise this is difficult for the hard of thinking, > >but getting creative with MODULE_LICENSE strings isn't good enough. > > > >> >Just fills me with confidence about the GPL'd nature of this driver. > >> > > >> >Due to the "C O N F I D E N T I A L" nature of this driver, I've stopped > >> >reading. Pity, datalink.c was quite amusing. > >> > >> You are really sad. > > > >No Richard, I'm just respectful of the licenses of code that comes my way. > >If you were a "real engineer", perhaps you would do the same. > > > >Anyway, I've given up trying to educate pork, so don't feel compelled > >to reply, I don't expect you to achieve enlightenment any time soon. > > Who do you think you are that you can call me a pig? > Are you so independently wealthy that you don't have to > work for a living? Do you think the management at > Red Hat will allow you to continue to abuse customers? Richard, please grow up. This is not a forum for Red Hat customer support, and neither is it one for puerile treats. > I have been very conservative in taking abuse from you. > I have even respected your right to an extremely obtuse > and naive concept of intellectual property and how > "GPL" strings somehow validate something. And yet you still refuse to offer any real reason for your subversion of the license. If the GPL causes you so many problems, why stick with Linux ? I understand Schillix is under a license that would probably be more acceptable to you, and sounds like it has everything you need. > However, I shall not allow you to call me a pig. You will retract that > statement or I will use all means at my disposal to have you terminated from > your place of employment. No-where in the previous mail did I make such a claim. I stated that trying to educate you was as difficult and pointless as trying educating pork. I know metaphors are hard to get your head around at first, but how old are you? 12 ? Linux-kernel is not the place for this nonsense. Please take it elsewhere. Dave