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)
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.
Posted Apr 13, 2007 6:04 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454)
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.
Posted Apr 13, 2007 13:16 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190)
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.
Posted Apr 13, 2007 6:05 UTC (Fri) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
Let us all make *some* room in order to allow discussion to occur.
Posted Apr 13, 2007 13:00 UTC (Fri) by lysse (guest, #3190)
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.
Posted Apr 14, 2007 13:35 UTC (Sat) by Los__D (guest, #15263)
...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?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds