How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 8:19 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
Parent article: How not to handle a licensing violation

1. knowing Theo and how he'd "reinterpret" any private mail in public doing a private notification would have been madness. The OpenBSD folks have made this kind of public process necessary by their systematic hostility towards Linux wireless projects.

2. the OpenBSD people had already started distributing the contentious code, in fact SUN was looking at adapting their driver for Solaris. There was no way to handle this quietly at this stage - one had to notify third-parties because third-parties were already getting involved

Writing it has been mishandled by both sides is misleading. The initial notification was not closing any doors (one could fault it for being impersonnal, but given previous bad blood between the projects that was a good thing), and the Linux people did not react to the numerous flamebaits the other party shovelled at them.

Every way you look at it OpenBSD folks brought this on their heads themselves. Given the circomstances the Linux project has been pretty gracious about the whole thing.

to post comments

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 13:17 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (5 responses)

> knowing Theo

Oh good, you can settle a bet I have with a friend. What newspapers does he take, and which pages does he turn to first?

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 14:58 UTC (Thu) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link] (4 responses)

A few comments up, you asked, "Does 'reasonable' include an acceptance of
the consequences of such an action? Because honestly, I'd have seen Theo's
response coming a mile off..."

And here you are, mocking someone for making exactly that kind of
analysis.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 0:09 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (3 responses)

Had nim-nim said "given Theo's actions in the past" (and actually cited specific examples) in support of his claim that Theo would dishonestly misrepresent private communications in public, I'd not have made that criticism. As you note, I have no problem at all with deduction from prior experience.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 0:11 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

I'm sorry; nim-nim's implication. It didn't have the courage to be a claim.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 8:24 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (1 responses)

Since you seem to want to enter a pissing contest where did I wrote dishonestly?

Theo's worldview and vocabulary is not the same as those of mere mortals. I certainly hope the misrepresentation is not intentional, but all his public interventions I've read so far (and this thread is no different) tend to spin reality in another dimension.

As to citing specific examples: plonk, if you trying to pretend you don't know what I wrote about you're nothing but a troll.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 13:21 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Right, so you withdraw from accusing Theo of acting with deliberate dishonesty, instead level what amounts to an accusation of schizophrenia, and then *you* describe *me* as a troll for asking you to support your claims...?

I'm sorry that I ever wasted my contempt on you.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 13:23 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (10 responses)

> in fact SUN was looking at adapting their driver for Solaris

Google comes up empty on this claim. Would you care to furnish us with some specific evidence to that effect?

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 14:13 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (8 responses)

Read the thread. It's explicitely written in one of the messages (do not use the archives of the OpenBSD ML, they lack half the messages, use the Linux ML archives)

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 14:57 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (7 responses)

I'm sure you won't mind posting a URL. After all, as the claimant, it's your responsibility to provide support.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 15:17 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (6 responses)

Here
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.bcm54xx.deve...

Please do your own reading next time

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 12, 2007 23:50 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (5 responses)

...and what a surprise, it's hearsay - moreover, Quaker.Fang is described as an OpenSolaris developer, not a Sun developer.

As for "do your own reading": 1. I attempted due diligence (hence the Google reference); 2. even had I read and remembered this particular line in that email, I would not have associated it with the claim you made.

Because it's different.

As I suspected - you got nothin'. Please don't make baseless claims and then get defensive when you're called on them next time.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 6:04 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link] (1 responses)

You can think whatever you like.

Every other bit Theo tried to dismiss was substanciated big time in replies and only got him up to his neck. I note he didn't try to attack this one - you can ask in the thread if you don't trust the Linux guys but their case has been pretty solid so far and my money is on them.

Whatever qualifier you apply to Quaker Fang it doesn't change the basic point that third parties were getting involved. How did they knew they were getting involved? Probably the say way they learnt of the infringement, by reading what people write on specialized mailing lists. It's a small world.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 13:16 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> You can think whatever you like.

I am happy to be so permitted. So can you; you can even say what you like, and there's not a damned thing I can do to stop you. But you don't get to throw around unsubstantiated allegations and unsavoury implications without being called on them; that kind of behaviour is cowardly and despicable. (And yeah, I see you just did it again.) You may (and clearly do) think that Theo is the lowest of the low - but I don't believe that Theo has ever acted with the kind of wilful disregard of such niceties as evidence and honesty that you have exhibited here; I don't want to associate with people who think only "nice people" have the right to be treated well; and on the basis of what I've seen, I would trust Theo over you without hesitation.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 6:05 UTC (Fri) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link] (2 responses)

It seems the essential issue that the code was being actively considered for use in another project remains, and the rough description is not entirely inaccurate.

Let us all make *some* room in order to allow discussion to occur.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 13:00 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] (1 responses)

But then we have to return to the "hearsay" point. What has been presented isn't evidence of anything except what the original mail writer believed to be the case; he may be mistaken, he may not be aware of the most current facts, etc.

We can make some room, sure; but for one thing, it's manifestly unfair to start slinging concrete accusations around on the back of unsupported hypotheses; and for another, the GPL is clear that it applies to distribution rather than receipt, so the point (of whether the code was about to be reused by Sun, Microsoft, or some random guy who wanted to make his machine work) has no relevance at all.

Which makes it curious that it was raised in the first place, let alone overstated as wildly as it was.

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 14, 2007 13:35 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

...the GPL is clear that it applies to distribution rather than receipt, so the point (of whether the code was about to be reused by Sun, Microsoft, or some random guy who wanted to make his machine work) has no relevance at all.

What? Distributions about to reuse a driver, has no affect on the distribution clause? What do you think they would like to reuse it for?

How not to handle a licensing violation

Posted Apr 13, 2007 9:08 UTC (Fri) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]

Quaker Fang mentioned he'd look into it here: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=108575