|From:||Theo de Raadt <deraadt-VON6Tr2NNtkmbxgs1yVkuA-AT-public.gmane.org>|
|To:||Michael Buesch <mb-fseUSCV1ubazQB+pC5nmwQ-AT-public.gmane.org>|
|Subject:||Re: OpenBSD bcw: Possible GPL license violation issues|
|Date:||Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:32:38 -0600|
|Cc:||Joseph Jezak <josejx-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A-AT-public.gmane.org>, Stefano Brivio <stefano.brivio-hl5o88x/ua9eoWH0uzbU5w-AT-public.gmane.org>, Marcus Glocker <mglocker-7YlrpqBBQ3VAfugRpC6u6w-AT-public.gmane.org>, Jon Simola <jsimola-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org>, Theo de Raadt <deraadt-T7FYYhErWq4AvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org>, Martin Langer <martin-langer-Mmb7MZpHnFY-AT-public.gmane.org>, Danny van Dyk <kugelfang-aBrp7R+bbdUdnm+yROfE0A-AT-public.gmane.org>, Andreas Jaggi <andreas.jaggi-xegAWGFB9mQXXHkOk0aIfQ-AT-public.gmane.org>, Larry Finger <larry.finger-tQ5ms3gMjBLk1uMJSBkQmQ-AT-public.gmane.org>, Quaker.Fang-xsfywfwIY+M-AT-public.gmane.org, Johannes Berg <johannes-cdvu00un1VgdHxzADdlk8Q-AT-public.gmane.org>, John Linville <linville-2XuSBdqkA4R54TAoqtyWWQ-AT-public.gmane.org>, Greg kh <greg-U8xfFu+wG4EAvxtiuMwx3w-AT-public.gmane.org>, bcm43xx-dev-0fE9KPoRgkgATYTw5x5z8w-AT-public.gmane.org, linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA-AT-public.gmane.org, license-violation-1yPg2kKgK35oVitdyIjqkB2eb7JE58TQ-AT-public.gmane.org|
> On Thursday 05 April 2007 20:00, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > The most striking thing about this is that I am sure you guys are > > treating Marcus worse than you would treat a company using your code > > against license. You would privately mail a company, I am sure of it. > > This is the proof that you read mails in the way you want > them to be. You should indead read my mail and _not_ interpret > your personal foobar into my words. On the contrary, I am reading the mails in the way that Marcus Glocker read it, before he deleted the driver, because I have at least some fucking empathy in my soul. > We do not treat Marcus bad in any way. That is a complete lie. You called him a thief, and PRESUMED that he did it on purpose. In later mails privately to me you said that you did not call him a thief of even imply it (I quote, "the word thief was not even in my mind when I wrote it"), but then in your next public mail you directly contradicted that again by saying you are completely convinced he did it on purpose. You cannot have it both ways; there is only one interpretation, that being that you are accusing him of theft, just in other words. > The opposite is true. We offered the explicit opportunity to > get (some of the) code relicensed, if he starts to work together > with us. You have no understanding of how human beings work. You maligned someone by saying he did it intentionally, therefore your explicit opportunities are bullshit. Or are you now going to say that all the functions he is using are OK to use? No, you wanted him to come begging, after you called him a thief. You obviously have no understanding of how human beings operate. > > Your postings have been simply inhuman. > > > > And I will go out of my way to ensure that anyone in the future > > understands that is our viewpoint on this. > > fine.
Copyright © 2007, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds