linux-kernel - Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1352860374.28921.3.camel@dabdike>
Date:	Tue, 13 Nov 2012 18:32:54 -0800
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	"Bradley M. Kuhn" <bkuhn@...onservancy.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Andy Grover <agrover@...hat.com>,
	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>,
	target-devel <target-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marc Fleischmann <mwf@...ingtidesystems.com>,
	Nicholas Bellinger <nab@...ingtidesystems.com>
Subject: Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation

On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 18:32 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >      1. Yes, I've got first hand proof of a GPL violation (in which case
> > >         we'll then move to seeing how we can remedy this) or
> > >      2. A genuine public apology for the libel, which I'll do my best to
> > >         prevail on RTS to accept.
> > > 
> > > Because any further discussion of unsubstantiated allegations of this
> > > nature exposes us all to jeopardy of legal sanction.
> > 
> > That asks for moderation until we have a better investigation of the
> > facts.  It definitely doesn't try to prejudge them or express preference
> > for a specific outcome as your misquote makes out.
> 
> So how can you demand a public apology for libel or instant first hand
> proof and now claim you just wanted moderation ? It's not hard to see why
> your position was misinterpreted ?

So you want me to be less definite to avoid misinterpretation?

OK, here it is:  I'd really appreciate it if there was more rigour
behind the initial investigation before going public with suspicions of
GPL violation.  Based on what I read on the internet is a bit too low a
bar for me, particularly when, I believe, Red Hat has the proprietary
target OS and can check directly.

We now have a whole runaway train of suspicion and lawyer involvement
before anyone has actually confirmed there is a problem.
James




--
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/