Re: Wasting our Freedom

Kyle Moffett
2007-09-16T07:32:57Z

On Sep 15, 2007, at 06:33:18, J.C. Roberts wrote:
> Would Linus put up a fight if someone took his source tree and
> relicensed the whole thing as GPLv3 without his permission? Yep,
> you betcha he'd fight and he has already had to put up with a lot
> of strong arm nonsense from the GPLv3/FSF zealots.

OH COME FREAKING ON!!!! Can you guys DROP it already? There was NO
VIOLATION because nobody actually changed the code!!! The patch that
Jesper submitted was a *MISTAKE* and was *NEVER* *MERGED*!!! Nobody
needs to argue/flame/spam about anything because there is no change
in the code.

My god this has been said 30 times by 30 different people at this
point. I swear it feels like talking to a wall.

EXHIBIT #1:
On Sep 03, 2007, at 10:50:53, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from Reyk Floeter <reyk@openbsd.org> -----
>> - This is eating our time. Every few weeks I get a new discussion
>> about licensing of the atheros driver etc. blah blah. Why can't
>> they just accept the license as it is and focus on more important
>> things?
>>
>> I will talk to different people to get the latest state and to
>> think about the next steps. I don't even know if the issue has
>> been solved in the linux tree.
>
> To clarify this myth once again:
>
> The patch that mistakenly changed BSD-only code to GPL has never
> ever been in the Linux tree.

EXHIBIT #2:
On Sep 02, 2007, at 13:57:41, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Marc Espie wrote:
>> After reading the current email exchanges, I've become convinced
>> there is something VERY fishy going on, and some people there have
>> hidden agendas. Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some
>> code, puts it under a dual licence, and goes on vacation. While
>> he's away, some other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the
>> copyright and licence on the file he's mostly written. Without asking
>
> Dude, you have got to put down the conspiracy juice. NOTHING IS IN
> STONE, because nothing has been committed to my repository, much
> less torvalds/linux-2.6.git. A patch was posted, people
> complained, corrections were made. That's how adults handle
> mistakes. Mistakes were made, and mistakes were rectified.
>
>> Reyk. Without even having the basic decency to wait for him to be
>> around.
>
> Demonstrably false: you cannot make that claim until the code is
> actually committed to Linux.

EXHIBIT #3:
On Sep 03, 2007, at 12:12:28, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:03:07 +0200, Marc Espie said:
>> Look at the situation: Reyk Floeter writes some code, puts it
>> under a dual licence, and goes on vacation. While he's away, some
>> other people (Jiri, for starters) tweak the copyright and licence
>> on the file he's mostly written. Without asking Reyk. Without even
>> having the basic decency to wait for him to be around.
>
> And we collectively told Jiri where to stick that.
>
> So let's recap:
>
> 1) Jiri submitted a borked patch that changed the licenses.
> 2) We didn't accept said patch.
> 3) There's then a whole big fuss about a *NON EXISTENT PROBLEM*.
>
> I could see where the *BSD people could complain if we had
> *accepted and distributed* said patch. But it was wrong, we
> recognized it was wrong, and the system is working as designed. So
> let's quit the flamefest already.

CONCLUSION:
You guys are spamming our mailing list for NO GOOD REASON!!!! Can we
*please* get back to actual useful development now?

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett