Message-Id: <200709170122.31204.jcroberts@designtools.org>
Date:	Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:22:28 -0700
From:	"J.C. Roberts" <jcroberts@...igntools.org>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Daniel Hazelton <dhazelton@...er.net>,
	Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
	Jason Dixon <jason@...ongroup.net>, misc@...nbsd.org,
	moglen@...twarefreedom.org, bkuhn@...twarefreedom.org,
	norwood@...twarefreedom.org, fontana@...twarefreedom.org,
	karen@...twarefreedom.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Wasting our Freedom

On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community
> > over patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it
> > should be just as fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain
> > about those (unspecified) times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on
> > code with the BSD license.
> >
> > And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the
> > MadWifi discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only
> > people that accepted the patches in question.
>
> Although it's true the code is not yet upstream...
>
> Given that we want support for Atheros (whenever all this mess is
> sorted), I think it's quite fair to discuss these issues [in a calm,
> rational, paranoia-free manner] on LKML or
> linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org.
>
> > *WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem"
> > with the *MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate
> > Reyk's copyright.
>
> Given that we want it upstream, it is however relevant.  We want to
> make sure we are aware of copyright problems, and we want to make
> sure any copyright problems are fixed.
>
> On a side note:  "MadWifi" does not really describe the Linux ath5k
> driver, the driver at issue here.  Some mistakes were made by Linux
> wireless developers, and those mistakes were corrected.
>
> > Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
> >
> > If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with
> > faulty claims just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2
> > is a better license than v3
>
> Amen.  100% agreed.
>
>         Jeff

Thanks Jeff. I've been told both on list and off, as well as both 
politely and impolitely that including the Linux kernel mailing list 
was the wrong thing to do. Though I certainly do take serious issue 
with a handful of people at the GNU/FSF/SFLC who have been acting in 
bad faith, the code in question is per se "intended" to become part of 
the Linux kernel. The code has not been "accepted upstream" as you say 
but that is still the intended goal.

Saying something like:
    "Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU" 

is quite similar to saying:
    "Windows != Microsoft"

In both cases, the pairs of terms may not be "equal" but they are 
certainly related. Also in both cases, the former term is most often 
considered part of the latter term. Just as the Linux kernel is under 
the GPL of the FSF/GNU, equally Windows is under EULA of Microsoft. You 
are correct in stating a distinction technically exists, yet in common 
language of everyday people, the terms are interchangeable even though 
it is pedantically incorrect to do so.

Please pardon the comparison with Microsoft, it is not intended as an 
insult in any way, but does serve nicely as an example.

There are some extremely talented and altruistic people who put their 
hard work under the GPL license. Some of the Linux kernel developers 
are on my personal list of ubergeeks deserving hero worship for their 
continuous contributions. I am certain some of them are far more fair 
minded and well thought than I will ever be.

With that said, if you had been ignored and even stone walled by the 
GNU/FSF/SFLC and you wanted to reach the more pragmatic and free 
thinking minds which use the GPL license where would you go?

The linux kernel mailing list is the best answer.

As much as you may have disliked my action of involving the Linux kernel 
mailing list, please understand it was not an attack, but instead it's 
a plea for help on an issue which will, eventually, affect you.

If some of the outstanding members of the linux kernel development team 
were to contact the people who have been illegally messing with 
licenses on the atheros code and ask them to quit messing around, it 
could do a lot of good towards resolving this issue. In doing so, 
you'll not only end the current pointless waste of time between 
GPL/GNU/BSD, but you'll also prevent the pointless waste of time of 
discussing this to death on lkml when the time comes to move the code 
upstream so you have better atheros support.

The people who have done this illegal license swapping nonsense will not 
listen to Reyk, will not listen to Theo (which some will say is a 
difficult thing to do) and will not listen to me (which is probably 
more difficult than listening to Theo). All of three us are in 
the "wrong camp" simply because we use a different license.

My hope is the people responsible for the illegal license swapping will 
hopefully listen to you, the Linux kernel developers. If you'd like to 
see all of this end, rather than carry on and on and on until it winds 
up in court, please do something. Please try asking the people 
responsible to quit messing with licenses.

kind regards,
jcr
-
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists