Re: Wasting our Freedom

[Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@mac.com>]

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