linux-kernel - Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <200609221430.55889.gene.heskett@verizon.net>
Date:	Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:30:55 -0400
From:	Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@...izon.net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...eleye.com>
Subject: Re: GPLv3 Position Statement

On Friday 22 September 2006 14:08, James Bottomley wrote:
>On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:59 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> James, I'm most definitely NOT a kernel developer, just a lurker who
>> occasionally exhibits his lack of knowledge with (usually) dumb
>> questions.
>>
>> But, while I can't say the above any better than you have, I do have
>> one question:
>>
>> Why is the FSF and RMS not included in the Cc: line of all messages on
>> this subject, so they can have first hand, the benefit of the remarks
>> this group makes by reading about them from the first person?  You
>> folks are, as a group, the movers and shakers in the advancement of
>> linux, and would continue to do so without the gnu trying to claim they
>> invented linux, which we all know is a prevarication.
>
>Basically because this is a discussion document, not an open letter.
>
>We had some discussion amongst a small group of kernel developers.  Now
>we're opening it up to the linux community---which we can't do without
>effectively going public as well.
>
>James

Well, since this document states the general consensus quite well, and is 
not likely to be edited other than crossing all the t's, I think including 
them (FSF & RMS) would show them just how concerned the major developers 
are with the deviciveness that the proposed V3, as worded say a month ago 
the last time I read it and was appalled, will cause.  You, nor the rest 
of the fans of a great os, will ever be properly served.

You need to remind RMS that he is not a majority when the vote shows 
otherwise by a quite resounding margin, and that he and the FSF may well 
become irrevalent if the V2 is not going to be supported after V3 is 
final.  Let me put it this way, I would be willing to become a paying 
member of a new organization dedicated to preserving the V2 status if the 
due weren't too onnerous.  If V3 becomes the defacto, then my membership 
in the FSF will get dropped like a hot potato.  I'm just one person, but 
how many other paying members will do likewise?  Enough to cause a serious 
hurt to the FSF's finances I'd think.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/