In case you don't follow -current commits,

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=117579052530442&w=2
bcw(4) is gone

if someone is still reading the thread...
1. marcus makes mistake

2. michael tells the world

3. theo plays theater
1. it's not rocket science not to commit gpl licensed code into

the public cvs tree under a bsd license and let it sit there for

months.  esp. with the openbsd kind of draconian license audits.

it's not rocket science, and thus it's hard for linux people to

believe it was not intentional, but again, its obviousness is

the proof it couldn't have been intentional.  pray, who wouldn't

have noticed the gpl code in there?
2. let's stop for a moment, and think why michael would make a

mistake like this, again, it's not rocket science, it was a

mistake.  let's play the associations game.  i say "openbsd

developer" you say the first three things that come into your

mind.  ready?  go.  mine were: "theo", "arrogant", and

"difficult".  now let me state publicly after my fair share of

flame wars on misc@ that i do not believe on any day, that all

openbsd devs are like this.  not even the majority.  maybe no

one is like that these days... but the thing is, that these are

some of the attributes openbsd got associated with in the past,

a stigma.  so i wouldn't be surprised if michael just skipped

the first step of the rules of engagement and called in the

heavy artillery right away. it's not that far fetched, do you

work in big company?  the first thing you learn is to cc: all

the managers if you want to get something done for real.  so he

did.  at this point there could have been a nice and easy

solution if markus just explained publicly what he did.
3. theo's repeated (to the point of "shut up, already!", which

he uses so frequently) cries for empathy, downplaying marcus's

mistake and at the same time enlarging michael's is the most

postmodern literature i have read this year.  it's absurd.

imagine theo with tears in his eyes calling for empathy because

one of his developers has made a mistake and he's still managing

to insult people in the process!  just brilliant.
...
[ message continues ]

lalalala

Is it funny? Fuck off!!! lalalala

it is not funny but all this GPL discussion and speculations will not

bring it back.
reyk

Marcus Glocker, mglocker@openbsd.org, knows a big deal about wireless

LANs.  He has been involved in many of our wirelesss driver, he has also

written applications for wireless applications like rtunes.  He wrote

the nostromo webserver.  He is certainly the person who knows how to

write original code.
When it comes to bcw, a piece of hardware for that no documentation

exists, he decided to use the docs the linux folks have.
He began a rewrite of a bcw driver, inspired by the work of the linux

folks.  His driver was not working yet, to give him a headstart, he used

some code of the linux folks with the clear intent to replace it with

his own.  Just to make sure this shit works.
To ease his work, and to let others in our group to step in in his

efforts, he committet it to our work area which we call cvs.
The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus,

claiming license violations.
Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is

kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver

from the OpenBSD cvs tree.
Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users.
Thank you, Linux BCW developers!

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:29:52 +0200, "Marc Balmer" <mbalmer@openbsd.org>
When I read Michael Buesch's original e-mail, I figured this out. He was

probably just using it for testing purposes.

I do not call myself a programmer. I just know enough scripting to get
A CVS is not by any stretch of the imagination a public repository

of code for anyone to use. So no code was released hence no
<AntiLinuxRant>

Forget it. I was annoyed by the "GPL" Nazis and was going to write

a long diatribe, but what's the point. I would either be preaching to

the choir or just ignored as another one of those people who "just

don't get it".

</AntiLinuxRant>

actually, although the above is clearly meant in the sense if irony.

I take it literally and agree with it.
didn't cry a single tear about the adaptec shit either.
my laptop has some silly 3com softmodem, which is not supported and

I don't care that much. yes it would be more convenient to have it

working but I still have enough serial (not even pcmcia) modems to

carry around in case I need a modem which work better anyway.
in the whole thread on gmane there is the sentence
"I am going to take my toys and go home" is an immature, childish

response to an adult problem.
in this case I don't think so. why the fuck should I buy some trash

from nvidia, adaptec, broadcom and spend have people spending lifeblood

on doing the work of those when I can get stuff from amd,lsi,ralink ?
public market is not a democratic republic. the only vote there is the

vote of the feet. so people, don't buy and don't use trash dispose it

properly and there will be less trash on the market.
( the sentece wasn't meant or used in this way in ther original thread,

  but the above is what came to my mind when I read it. in the original

  meaning it was referring to the deletion of the driver from the tree.

  I don't see this childish though. If we play we play for fun and not

  for profit. when the fun is gone there is no reason to keep playing

  unless one draws pleasure from the pain or fun is not the reason to

  play. )
apart from that Michael Buesch obviously doesn't have the balls to

admit when he's wrong. like theo said, one pm would've been enough.

I can understand that and why he didn't do that and sent out the mail

to many, obviously he believed there was theft there and looking at

the situation he had some reason to believe that. but at least later

on he could've admitted that it was the wrong thing to do, that what

he saw was not somebody intentionally stealing something from them

but somebody putting things where they don't belong without realising

and considering the consequeces of hi...
[ message continues ]

I don't believe Michael's initial intention was to have this happen, but

the nature of his first email made it almost guaranteed. For Marcus to

delete the driver is absolutely understandable, and I imagine I would

have done the same.
It's very sad to see people supposedly on the same side fighting instead

of helping each other. It's worth remembering that initial words on a

topic have a lot to do with how it turns out in the end.
--

Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG

dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/

http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

and info why here,

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1558/

With apologies to everyone for off-color language...
What a bunch of douches.

I think it is sad, and a horrible representation of GPL coders. Michael

doesn't speak for all of us, and it is clear to anyone with common

sense that the first thing you do is contact in private.

And this make it even worst:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38746
All good work and good faith to come with better end results is

wrongfully drag into mud.
I read all the thread and this makes me sick!
It only makes me more sick with anything carrying GPL, Linux, and

Broadcom names on it. Even the part of the discussion about relicensing

code so that they can include it in their GPL because Linus refuse BSD

code was a twisted angle to try to justify their actions.
This makes me sick!
I guess all the Microsoft of the world that can't compete on good,

secure and clean code got an other win today as they can't beat the good

guys at their own game, well no need let them destroy each others so we

win anyway in the end.
A great day for the Open Source community I tell you.
This makes me so sick that I can't even come up with words to describe

it properly, so I will not try!
Where is the Open Community is going these days...

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:25:53 -0400, "Daniel Ouellet"
They stated that they don't want Broadcom to take their work and close

it. Why do they care? What possible difference does it make?

Broadcom will get a driver that actually works well?

They're not going to make any money off their work on the Broadcom

driver (the GPL nonsense makes sure of that) so why do they give

a flying f*** *what* Broadcom does with their code?

Speaking as someone who has read more of the gnu.org and fsf.org Web

sites and (probably) listened to Richard Stallman speeches than most of

the OpenBSD user community:
Nothing in the GPL prohibits commercial use of code released under the

GPL. It is perfectly fine to sell copies of GPLed code at any price.

What is *not* perfectly fine is to sell copies of GPLed code without

allowing access to the source code.
The GPL is not about limiting commerical use of software. The GPL is

about preserving freedom (i.e. "share and share alike"). The GNU Ada

compiler is commerical software, which also happens to be released under

the GPL.
(It is worth noting that even Richard Stallman himself understands that

the GPL and LGPL are not always the best choices. One example of this:

<http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/icecast-dev/2001-February/000005.html>)
--

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>

Sounds like 1984 newspeak to me.
Greg

"I'm not kicking you in the balls, I'm just rapidly moving my foot in

the general direciton of your crotch."
However. This is an OpenBSD mailing list and we have our licenses

pretty much figured out, so if you want to discuss GPL, please do it

where someone actually cares.
//art

Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Not exactly. The copyright owner can sell it for any price they want and

doesn't have to give their code away in any way. They can also sell it

as a binary+source. Their pick, full power to the original author.
Now the moment that somebody else gets the code they can either:

 - sell it on in giving away source+binary

 - give it away to everybody they want
What the non-copyright owner can't do though is share the binaries with

others. When one shares the binary one also has to share the source and

all the changes made. As long as the non-copyright owner keeps the

source and keeps the binary they don't have to distribute either. The

moment they sell/pass it on though, eg a linksys box, they must give it

away.
This portion limits "commercial usage" as anybody who wants to extend it

to make it do what they want, taking just a simple basis and adding a

load of options to it, they still have to provide also the source when

they pass on the binary to the third party.
For me that is unacceptable. I either give my code away for everybody to

 peruse or I keep it locked up in a closet.
GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code to

you so that you can use it in your own dual-licensed projects.
For people wanting true freedom of their code use: BSD or ISC it ;)
Tip for coders: Start a lousy little project that many people will like,

then release it as GPL, then if lucky people will use it and give you

patches, now you can sell it back to them ;) Okay, that stops at the

moment you have other people's code in there which you can't
That is simply dual-licensing, something different altogether ;)

See above for a nasty trick there though.
Greets,

 Jeroen
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL

and generic copyright work.
	* Nobody is forced to publish derivative works (as long as they

	  keep them inside doors, eg. internal usage in a company)
	* Dual licensing in the way you suggest would be a copyright

	  violation.
Rui
--

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

[set the topic to make it nice and clear, this has nothing to do with

bcw(4) for a long time now, actually the whole thread avoided it]
Did you actually read what I wrote, as the above two points where in my

text, but you deleted that from your reply. You might want to read the

snipped text too :) I actually made a difference between the original

copyright owner (who is allowed to do anything they like with the code)

and somebody adding their stuff, who can't relicense it. As for the

first 'point' you are trying to make, also covered in my text...
PS: Please realize that some people want a different kind of freedom

than that other people want, respect that: take your pick, go GPL or

BSD, but don't try to force your religion on other people. You might end

up getting Jehova's witnesses on your neck ;)
Greets,

 Jeroen
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

[correct the subject] ;)
What you also said is actually fully irrelevant, since I'm correcting

one phrase which has TWO incorrect things, one of them a copyright
Please realize that I didn't raise that issue, *you* did.
I merely focused on two quite simple technical details which you failed

to understand: one of the GPL and another of copyright law.
Rui
--

+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown

+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,

| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi

+ So let's do it...?
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Again, re-read what I wrote. Don't try to mingle my words as I never

wrote that, it was in one sentence yes, but the rest of the sentences

told a completely different story.
Good that I PGP sign my messages so that it is clear that I didn't write

what you think I wrote by stripping out the portions that also matter

and that without those portions the message is not mine.
Greets,

 Jeroen
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

Now that the subject is accurate, it's more obvious than ever that this

discussion doesn't belong here. Not only is it not relevant, but it's

been discussed to death many times, in many places.
--

Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG

dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/

http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Clearly not to death and people here are seriously interested in pro

and contra arguments.
+++chefren
p.s. GPLvX is BSD with DRM, GPLvX people try to rule after "giving" it

away, new GPL versions are "needed" because the idea behind it is

flawed, GPLvX people believe it can be fixed, BSD people know it's

technically beyond repair since the first version.

People are interested in discussing a lot things but that doesn't mean

those discussions belong on misc@.
---

Lars Hansson

Hey, if you young folks still have all that typing power in your

fingers, please bang on the

code for BSD some more!
--

Jack J. Woehr

Director of Development

Absolute Performance, Inc.

jwoehr@absolute-performance.com

303-443-7000 ext. 527

Or "finish" a few GPL projects.  Or BSD projects.  Or proactively

audit some code.  Or or or...
There is lots of work that can be done to make the world better.

Encouraging the various choirs to preach at each other is

unlikely to change any minds, nor is it going to make the world

better.
Nick.

Just because you're still flogging a horse doesn't mean it's not dead.
BSD v. GPL is easy to understand:
If you want to give your code away for whatever purpose, use BSD.
If you want to enforce your view of "correct" on anyone using your code,

use GPL.
--

Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG

dwchandler@stilyagin.com   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/

http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Why isn't there some zealot out there who recodes gpl stuff into

Because preaching takes much less energy than sitting for long hours at a

computer and figuring out why a piece of code is refusing to work.
I myself coded some GPL software and released it, the biggest one is 25% of the

Links browser which is included in the OpenBSD packages. It's not clear to me

what's better, GPL or BSD. I don't care. Personally I always choose GPL for

software projects and GFDL for hardware projects. 
Due to law, hardware is de facto always released under a BSD style licence.  I

didn't have any problem with the fact that my hardware is under BSD. Neither

had I problem with my software being released under GPL.
CL<

This is gradually being done.  But coding replacements for all that GPL

code takes time (and talent).  I'm drinking milk, and one day I'll be

able to code well enough to add my poor skills to the talent pool doing

I think you are misinterpreting "commercial" to imply "proprietary". It

does not: <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial>
--

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>

Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to interpret "free"

as "I can do whatever I want with that code! Hell, I can even make it

"unfree" again by turning it into a proprietary product!". In my

opinion, /code/ that is labeled "free" should always remain "free",

no matter what the possible actions are. This ain't the case with BSD

code. /You/ may do as you like with the code, but this doesn't make

the code "free", it just liberates your actions. BSD code is not

"free" code as such. It just implies "free" actions. It's just a  
You don't have to accept GPL contributions to your own codebase if

you want to dual license. Their code contributions, your choice. As

easy as that. It's all about respect. Respect their copyright or drop

it. Easy, simple, fair. In fact, GPL projects offer more incentives

of contributing that BSD projects. Someone wanting to contribute to a

BSD project has to give up all control of their contribution. Not

everybody is willing to follow down that road. The GPL at least makes

sure that nobody can legally exploit a contribution without making it

available to the users so that they can profit too. This is a much

more valuable incentive to participate.
If you /really/ want to include GPL contributions in your codebase in

dual licensing schemes, you'll have to ask for permission of the

copyright owner of that contribution. This is the most natural thing

in the world.
This whole bcw(4) discussion turned out to be a "Those GNU/Linux/GPL

fanatics don't allow us to be even more free than they claim to be!"

cryout. The funny thing is that it comes down to an OpenBSD

contributor who didn't respect the copyright of some other party by

redistributing GPL code without the GPL license through a public CVS

repository. It's amazing how a community that should actually take a

defensive position in a matter like this switches into attack mode

and makes ...
[ message continues ]

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem that the mailing list where you chose

to air this opinion is for you, so could you please air your concerns

somewhere where people actually care?
Thank you.
//art

Don't believe RMSs FUD.  You can't turn code "unfree", the BSD licensed

code is still there.  Just because some evil corporation uses my BSD

licensed code in a closed source product, doesn't make my code unfree.

Its still there, still just as free as it always was, for anyone and

everyone to use.  That is free.  The code they added to it is not free,

but the BSD licensed code is.  The GPL is not about releasing free code,

its about trying to force other people into releasing their code under
And code that has seriously restrictive licenses like the GPL should not

be labeled "free" in the first place.
Adam

Hi there,
Everything you said is true, fair and square. But does it really

change anything? A copyright owner can decide whatever he wants when

it comes to /his/ code. If he decides that other people may only use

it if they offer it under the same restrictions it has been

originally offered, then this is also fair and square. It's his code,

his copyright. Take it as it is or leave it. As simple as that.
Regarding freedom: Take the Linksys routing devices. They ship with

GPL software. Taking what you said as an example, it would be OK if

Linksys made proprietary changes to the free software and deliver a

closed software on the device. If for example the proprietary changes

make the free software work on the device in the first place, the

software is in effect not free anymore, as the free version of the

software is useless in effect. If there is no other option than to

buy these Linksys devices or similar devices in the future and the

originally free software cannot be used on any other device anymore,

then the propriety changes to a free software has made this software

unfree for users. What's the freedom of BSD software worth when it

can't be used in its free form anymore? That can't happen with GPL'ed

software.
Think one step further. Take computers. Take computers that

incoporate hardware that checks wether you run a signed binary from a

particular vendor only. What use is BSD "free" code then? None at

all. You'll have to start reverse-engineering. That's not a myth,

that's not propaganda, that's simply a fact and that's a danger the

Free Software Foundation wants to ward off by offering the GPL.

You'll say: hey, what does it matter? I have plenty of choices in

computer devices. What happens, when that is going to change? The GPL

FORCES people to respect users rights to run free software on any

devices that have been delivered with software based on free software

and that ain't a bad idea at all. In fact it's pretty cle...
[ message continues ]

Bullshit.  Code will remain free.  A newer version can be closed but

code that has been published under the BSD/ISC license is free forever.

Just like code published under the GPL license will remain un-free
No it doesn't force anyone to do anything.  People/companies CHOOSE to

free up code because it's the shit these days.  I can promise you that
The only good use so for of the GPL is java.  Sun gets to pretend to put

"free" code out there and it is completely protected by the GPL.  It will

never take any patches from the community; it simply wants to retain

full control.  The joke is on GPL since it protects the companies it
It is because you do not understand the definition of free.  Let me

quote some relevant passages from dictionary.com:

 * exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc.

 * able to do something at will

 * exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains,

   burdens, etc.

 * given without consideration of a return or reward

 * not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.
Those are some of the entries.  The GPL is 100% NOT compatible with the

word free.  That's why people who can read call the GPL monkeys morons.
GPL is as free as communism.

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
Please add this to fortune!
--

Massimo.run();

She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by

wrong. -- Mae West

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200
[ ] -- you read about and understood what communism is (both of you)
[X] -- I replied that late because I was busy laughing after Marco's

post
[X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)

[X] marco is a communist

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:08:44 +0200
no; if so, he's as good as communist as George W. Bush as president.

WTF!  What the hell does GPL, communism or GWB have to do with OpenBSD?

Let this thread die.
-ME

/me agrees. This is a list about OpenBSD. Discussion about the GPL

*may* have its

place, but *please* don't interject politics into the discussion.

I dislike the GPL, but calling it communism is useless.

Have you actually read that piece of text??
Have you tried submitting patches to them? You are just being prejudist.

Please don't say things you "think", say things that are proven fact.
*snip*
Glenn

Is that a fact? Or just your opinion? I think it's a discussion that

doesn't belong on this mailing list.
//art

Phew, what a load of animosity. I really hope humanity still has a chance.
Now, regarding the bcw issue, let's leave this thread to die. Mistakes

are meant to be forgiven, and life to be lived forwards =)
--

An OpenBSD user... and that's all you need to know =)

Any license at all is a release from the total copyright held by any
The GPL 'gives' to the comunity in consideration of getting back
Any licence short of releasing to public domain imposes _some_

restrictions.  There are just fewer in BSD compared with GPLv2 and fewer

in GPLv2 than in the proposed GPLv3.
Doug.

Hi there,
Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of

free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perception and perspective. I

have given you a practical example which you simply rejected without

even considering it. Do you really think you can make a rude point by

copying and pasting from a dictionary? This is ridiculous.
Tobias

I dunno, who does RMS think he is imposing his definition of free on me?
---

Lars Hansson

No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free.  The english language has

had the word for a long time, and its meanings are quite clear.  None of

those meanings include being restricted.  Its not a matter of perception or

perspective, you can't just pretend words meaning other things and expect

everyone to go along.  GPL your code all you want, just stop claiming it

has anything to do with freedom.
Adam

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:15:36 -0400
1984. Newspeak. Slavery (GPL) is freedom.
;)
timo

Then obviously your definition of what freedom means from the

perspective of software developers and users doesn't agree with this

community's. Why don't you carry on your views in a forum more

appreciative of that opinion instead of trying to sell it here?
http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html
DS

Oh this *is* the best argument I have ever heard from a GPL ding dong.
My perception of the word cat is no longer a furry animal that meows.  I

perceive a cat like most people perceive the color green when not color

blind.
bravo sir!  Intellectual point made.

Unfuckingbelievable.  Is there something in the GPL water that messes

with its fans' brains and twists their realities???
Greg

The real hypocrisy is this:
GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from

stealing their freedom.  These are the same people who have no

problem giving up their freedoms (in the form of NDA's, closed-source

kernel modules, etc) to the companies they're trying to fight.
--

Jason Dixon

DixonGroup Consulting

http://www.dixongroup.net

True free software movement supporters will not sign an agreement not to

help their neighbor such as an NDA. Some in the open source movement

have no trouble accepting a binary only driver, or specifications under

NDA, or what have you, for convenience. That's what open source is

about: convenience, not freedom for its own sake. This is exactly why it

is important to make a distinction between the free software movement

and the open source movement and not lump the two together.
--

Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@speakeasy.net>

Exactly. And it's a distinction that must be made again and again and again.

Yeah, when I first heard about the GPL way back when I primarily used

Linux I thought it was the coolest idea on the planet.  After

switching to OpenBSD for other reasons I finally realized that it was

the most selfish idea on the planet.  And that's not even getting into

the hypocrisy of selling out to closed companies, those same evil

companies that the GPL claims to be trying to protect us from.
Greg

To ignore the possibility that it was an honest mistake is part of the

problem.  I won't claim to know what Marcus Glocker was thinking, but

it seems quite plausible that he had every intention of removing the

infringing code prior to making the bcw(4) work public, but in the

excitement of some initial positive results, he simply forgot.  Either

way, he admitted that a mistake had been made.

The reason (as I see it - again, I won't speak for anyone else) that

the OpenBSD community came down so hard on the bcm43xx dev is due to

the way he pursued the issue.  There was absolutely no good reason to

initially address the issue on a public mailing list and CC'd to a

bunch of other people.  If the initial mail had been sent privately to

Marcus, then he could/would have removed the infringing code (or

perhaps the entire driver temporarily).  He could have then issued a

public statement on *why* he did it (which would have satisfied the

need to have it out in public that some of the code wasn't actually

BSD licensed).  Had it happened that way, everybody wins, and we

don't have all of this fuss over it.
RW

Hi there,
That statement also is a matter of perspective. ;-) If you mean by

"freedom", the liberty to do whatever you want, then BSD is freedom.

If you mean by "freedom", the security that users have the same

rights with the code tomorrow they already have today, even if

numerous people contribute to the code, the GPL is freedom. GPL is a

license that ensures code stays free in the sense of open for users.

It doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you want. It's not you

that's free, it's the code. That's what I ment with matter of

perspective. You don't have to agree with this at all, but at least

you have to understand and respect the idea and that other people

contribute to this model. It's nothing that should be rejected like I  
Yes, that's exactly what I have been talking about on undeadly when

that stupid "death of a driver" article was published to promote the

myth. The reason why I'm bothering to participate in this discussion

at all, is that many people claiming to take the "OpenBSD side" in

this argument are actually no better than the bcm43xx devs when they

had the idea to go public. This whole issue has been escalated

primarily by OpenBSD folks, not the other way around. I'd say it's

time to simply drop it.
kind regards,

Tobias W.

blah blah blah

What do you care if that's what they care about? Don't forget that the

desire to keep proprietary vendors from forking and re-closing code was

precisely and explicitly the reason the GPL was written; someone who

values that is probably going to choose the GPL to release their work

under. Complaining that Developer X chooses to use the GPL is as useless

as complaining that Vendor Y chooses not to release source code at all.

In both cases it's a license that is at odds with the purpose and

principles of OpenBSD, and in both cases it's a violation of those

authors' rights to copy their code in a manner they have not licensed

you to.
I'm not trying to come across as some sort of GPL cheerleader. I don't

use it except when contracts stipulate it (and more do than you might

think, given your "they can't make money" statement) and I think this

situation is a good example of why the GPL bad for code trees with

multiple authors (which is going to be any code tree of significant

complexity that accepts patches). If one guy writes something and

chooses to place it under the GPL, he can then relicense in a situation

like this; if there end up being 40 authors of a module it's impractical

to track every one of them down if they haven't handed their copyright

over to a primary maintainer, especially if all you really know about

somebody is their public key and email address 3 years ago when they

committed last.
But all those complaints don't mean anything at all: I wasn't an author

for the Linux driver so I don't get a say in how the Linux driver is

licensed. The people who did the work to write it get to decide under

what terms it can be redistributed, and once they have decided that they

have a responsibility to see it is enforced. They don't have to CC

hundreds of people on their first mailing like this guy did, but then

again they have a right to do so if they want to. Just like I have a

right to think they're jerks for doing that.
Weldon
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type ...
[ message continues ]

In the public, most people talking about "open source community"

don't really care about open source or community at all -- they

just want great software for cheap, and they aren't developers and

don't contribute.
At least that's my impression. Maybe i'm wrong. I hope i'm wrong.

Sorry for the rant.
Ciao,

	Kili, still slacking far too much
--

Das ist ein "hiermeins dadeins" BALKEN

		-- Kay Freier zur philosophischen Frage, wie denn

		   die Dinger heissen, die man im Supermarkt hinter

		   seinen Krempel aufs Fliessband packt.

Typical of that rag.  The author talks as if bcw was part of

a release, not some sort of development code.  Apparently

GPL means "Go Piss in the Lake".
To the lawyers *sigh*. RSM and his pet toad Egon have discovered

the subtle joys, glories and honors of litigation, and this unwholesome

appetite is spreading to a world starved for respect and admiration.
All this once again shows that GPL is about free as in "free beer",

not "free" as in "free will", and the forced acceptance of some

sort of True Faith.  What a waste.  Barely worth talking about.

Probably has negative worth to talk about it.
If *BSD felt that way, we'd be auditing the Linux/GNU userland

looking for Regents code falsely GPLed.  But what a stupid thing

to do.
<sarcasm> Anybody willing to sign an NDA with Mr Buesch and his

crew to use their spec? Are we now in the position of having to

reverse engineer a reverse-engineered Linux driver?  Maybe OpenBSD

could put a "click to consent" shrink-wrap license/NDA/hold-harmless

on the CVS sites (like Sun had on jde)  Maybe Marcus should have

released a sed script (acting on the Linux code) to grab the parts

temporarily needed for debugging/regression and "include"d them in

his source?  That would pass the GPL, I think -- copyright would

only apply to the code output from sed and cpp, which would be

transient.  </sarcasm>
"Here's a book!  Don't read it!  If you read it, forget it!"

(c) Woodchuck 2007.  Some rights reserved,  you guess which.
Maybe the whole thing is Mr Buesch's idea of some sort of protracted

April Fool's hoax.
Dave "I may hold the patent on the off-by-one bug."

--

     Resistance is futile.  You've already been GPLed.

What's wrong? They protect their license. Period.

No one seems to dispute the right of copyright holders to protect their

licence.
That said, there are more ways than one to protect one's licence. It

hardly seems unreasonable to privately contact the developer in

question before going public, as seems to be the custom in many other

suspected licence issues.
Choosing to first send a private message would likely have remedied

any issues, both quickly and with a lot less fallout. Too bad that

that didn't happen.
Rogier

First, this wouldn't happen cause I prefer the BSD license, but, if

someone violates the copyright of my work, I'll take that guy down. In

the most publicly and shameful way.

How does this militant attitude work alongside your preference for

the BSD license? If another free software developer is violating your

license, would you publicly shame someone who is probably working for

similar reasons to yourself, or would you give them the benefit of the

doubt and give them a private "do you know what you are doing?" email

and try to work things out like gentlepeople?
I know of at least one GPL project that violates the license (BSD) of

some code that I wrote. If I ever cared to enforce that license then I

would certainly be polite first.
-d

A) If you really prefer BSD you wouldn't care about what people do

with your code, the only reason why your name as an author is in the

code is because without that anybody could claim "that's my code pay

me", your name is there just to prevent other people put claims on it,

not for your "honour". BSD is about maximum open-ness and making it

impossible to violate copyright.
B) If you don't have the decency to inquire before you do harm to

people, even to a type like Saddam Houssein you are plain stupid asshole.
The whole situation makes me think of the sneaky guy in this one:
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/12523/f0abd313/index.html
+++chefren

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1
Mistakes where made on both sides.

This entire discussion is about how you handle problems and if you

should remain friendly (or not) when such problems occur.
Please keep the discussion friendly and on topic.

Posting links to a movie of some guy making racist  and other insulting

comments while videotaping two people fighting DOES NOT HELP ANYONE.

What are you trying to accomplish with this?
Floor Terra

iD8DBQFGFj+NUnW3VkBpTO4RAlK8AKCmZvX9CHj2BoVecskiQjgiD8Y8XgCg32Yw

lhj1K0f6dV5+n10b6PYFV5Y=

=vnTH

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Thats great! What would that accomplish?

Software is developed by PEOPLE (plural), people dont work very well

together when one of them is acting like a five year old.
gwk

Isn't everybody in this discussion like a five year old?

If you look at the thread it makes ping-pong-ping-pong from both sides.
Neither the BSD side nor the BCW side is really really fair the hole

time. Both sides are like rocks..
Why don't do a cut? Let Marcus and Michael work on this!
s
--

GnuPG: 5755FB64
Per aspera ad astra.

Heh.  I think the person that's feeling the biggest burn right now

is Michael Buesch because he realizes the mistake HE made is bigger

that what happened with the licensing.
--

Travers Buda

Did you read the full tread first before you wrote this? Did you look at

the code in CVS, did you even see Marcus reply and why?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1573
I don't think you did!
He sure did a hell of a huge amount of work that was his, and original

for your own benefit, and the only mistakes he may have done was to try

to work on it faster then he may should have and wrongly include

temporary files to help in the process!
Should he had finish his work in a later time and not try to make this

available sooner to us, then nothing would have been said on this.
In any case a simple private email to him directly would have been the

decent human being things to do, but I guess you don't even get that do you?
Just like I said before.
Where the hell is the open community is going these days, I have no

clue... Look to me it sure enjoy destroy itself for sure.
I am lost for words!

Yes, and he was wrong. He shouldn't base his work in copylefted

software (if he intend to release the result as non-copylefted).
Licenses are licenses.

Yes, Marcus made a mistake. But not the mistake this GPL zealots seem to

think (not knowing that copying GPL code is not allowed). He should have

waited to commit his code to the public CVS until he had properly

rewriten the GPL code...
Marcus admitted he made a mistake and corrected it. I don't see the

Linux guy admitting he made a big mistake in dealing with this issue.
Cheers,
Dries

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hash: SHA1
Would it be wrong to develop software using existing GPL'ed code as a

starting point.

And bit by bit rewrite the code until you have rewritten all of it.

Then releasing the final code under an BSD license?
I still don't know exactly what happened, but I suspect the process

went something like this.

Only the code in the development phase was public too and this is

what pissed of the developers

of the GPL'ed version.
Floor

iD8DBQFGFYMsUnW3VkBpTO4RAoz0AJ9QbDrwd4JYO9mooUxx6TRhm5clDwCeNGW2

IvES2c/ESqR3o38RjW6sEyY=

=c/+8

-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

100% legal
--

Henning Brauer, hb@bsws.de, henning@openbsd.org

BS Web Services, http://bsws.de

Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services

Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam

*shrug* Personally I consider that a derivative work and try to avoid

it, though practically if your rewrite is different enough nobody would

ever know.
Maybe this is the other side of the blob fight; we should be just as

eager to make sure there is no improperly-copied GPL (or APL or MPL

or...) code in the tree as we are to make sure there are no mysterious

hunks of binary code (why exactly these issues always seem to come to a

head about wireless drivers as opposed to other parts of the tree is

beyond me -- Intel never requires its sound or ethernet controllers to

have non-freely-redistributable firmware).
IMO this is a vindication of the principle that being a jerk doesn't

necessarily make you wrong: Michael should have handled this differently

(especially given the state of the driver at the time), but he does have

a responsibility to protect his license. It seems to be a big concern to

him that the hardware vendor not be able to use his software, so the GPL

is the correct license for his work. I have trouble imagining a

situation where I wouldn't want a hardware vendor to use my code if it

worked better, but he's the author so it's his decision to make.
Weldon
[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

This is the absolute lamest argument that I have ever heard.  What makes

you think that Michael Douche has written anything "better" than

broadcom?  Granted there are better vendors out there but I am willing

to bet money that broadcom has better engineers working on their

products than some random dude working on a driver without docs and

available engineers to bounce questions of.  I am sure his "magical"

sequence is like super good.
I for one am glad that Marcus deleted the code; I would have done it

immediately after that email and responded with the cvs delete message

to an even wider audience and no explanation of my rationale.
What you people seem to miss in the whole discussion here is that Linux

people contact vendors IN PRIVATE if they find GPL violations yet a

valuable member of the open source community does not get the same

courtesy.  Only bad things happen when one looks at Linux code.  This is

yet another example of it.  This also underscores once more that Linux

as a community is dead.

May I offer the perspective of one coming from Linux?  I'm not a

developer, I'm a user of Debian (since 2001).
This should have been handled in private in a respectful manner.  The

two parties could have quickly released an agreed statement of facts

that left the public clear that a mistake had been made in uploading

something to the cvs under the wrong licence.  My guess (I'm no lawyer)

is that if the GPL people started out with a public accusation like this

towards a corporation, then they would be facing a slander and lible

suit.  
The GPL is based partly on fear and partly on spite:
	Fear that code written to work with device A will be

	incorporated into the firmware of device B whos maker will make

	it closed-source.  Some poor shmuck who has to reverse-engineer

	device B so it works will, when successful, find that the

	resultant driver is very similar to the free driver for device

	A.
	Fear also that a technique written for GNU/Linux will be

	incorporated into the 'competition' (e.g. a popular commercial

	non-*NIX OS).
	Spite: since hardware makers make it difficult to access their

	devices by not releasing specs, why would a developer want their

	hard work being used by a hardware maker; let them do their own

	work.  This tarrs all hardware makers by the same brush.
The Linux community is a divided one: just look at the number of

different distros, differentiated to large extent by philosophy and

'religion' than on technology.  There's also a lot of concern over the

proposed GPLv3 going too far copyleft.  Personally, I don't use a

licence I can't understand.  Unless I can understand the final GPLv3, I

won't be using anything licenced under it.  As the draft stands right

now, it leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
To me, the BSD community is far less divided.  As I see it, FreeBSD

allows non-BSD licenced drivers into the code base to access more

hardware devices; NetBSD is more strictly BSD-licence only while

expending a lot of energy maintaining support for an...
[ message continues ]

I see the issue simply as a disingenuous effort by a Linux dev to shame

and OBSD dev for the purposes of self-promotion. And shamefully, and at

the expense of Marcus, it worked.
Marcus can't really go after Buesch the way a corporation could (and

would), and knowing this, Buesch seized the opportunity and ran it up

the flagpole.
'Inhuman' is not an outrageous term for him; unless, of course, it is

considered 'human' to take advantage of a situation the way Buesch did.

I
Danno
-----Original Message-----

From: owner-misc@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-misc@openbsd.org] On Behalf

Of Douglas Allan Tutty

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:15 PM

To: misc@openbsd.org

Subject: Re: bcw(4) is gone
This should have been handled in private in a respectful manner.  The

two parties could have quickly released an agreed statement of facts

that left the public clear that a mistake had been made in uploading

something to the cvs under the wrong licence.  My guess (I'm no lawyer)

is that if the GPL people started out with a public accusation like this

towards a corporation, then they would be facing a slander and lible

suit.

Not sure if I agree with you on that.  Michael seemed to indicate that

he'll do the same to a vendor.  You can't lump all linux folks as of

one mind.  Agree that not treating everyone the same sucks, but this

isn't the whole community doing it.

I read the whole thread at gmane and I'm disgusted that a Linux

developer would turn on a BSD developer like that, but I'm not

surprised.
Theo makes the point that Buesch and Co. are treating Marcus like a

thief. They all deny it (claiming they want to help Marcus and the

situation), but then they show their true colors when Buesch himself

says-
"The way OpenBSD folks used our code was a complete lack of respect

for us. Fullstop."
That clearly exposes that Buesch thinks Marcus didn't make a 'mistake',

but did something on purpose... like a --thief--.
Buesch cc'd a large part of the community on his initial email, which

itself was rude. Why?
Because Buesch clearly thinks he and his driver are more important than

treating Marcus like a human being, and the chance to look important via

controversy just couldn't be resisted. This is Buesch's big moment! His

15 minutes of fame! And unfortunately, it worked.
That, to me, means Buesch is an asshole. He made more of a name for

himself in this bullshit fight then he would've for just being the

author of the GPL driver. He did it at the expense of Marcus, he did it

on purpose, and that is wrong. Plain and simple. 'Fullstop'.
Anyone that tries to handle an issue like Buesch has handled this one is

just trying to ham it up in the public spotlight. Theo rightly came to

Marcus' defense because that's Theo's job. Theo gains nothing from this

except the understanding amongst OBSD devs that anyone that develops for

OBSD won't be left in the cold when this shit happens. Kudos to you,

Theo.
danno

This isnt a question of him being wrong, its a question of HOW IT WAS

HANDLED.  Get it?
The simple courtesy of privately emailing someone would have taken 30

seconds and would have saved everyone a bunch of time, energy, and

embarrassment.

He should realized that he couldn't do that... get it?

There are two roads, the high and the low road.  I am not sure why an adult

(assuming) needs to be educated on this.  The guy took code and relicensed

it.  That sucks.  We know.  But instead of trying to work with him, and

educated him (since he does do a ton of work on free software), Michael

effectively destroys him.  Thats fair.  Whether code is GPL or BSD, we all

are in the same sea, and our boats are pretty damn close.

This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD

community.
Oh no? Read the thread again:
Eh? Destroys him? Are you drinking the same kool-aid as Theo? It was Marcus

that had a hissy and deleted the bloody code. A response, I might add, I see

a lot from my six-year old. Nope. Michael asked politely to have a quick

resolution to the issue. It was all Theo with the personal attacks.
Here are some more choice quotes from your fearless project leader, taking the 
I especially like that last one. So you would write off an entire community

because of the actions of one guy? A perfectly measured and reasonable 
You are right. Too bad Theo feels the need to throw mines in the water.
Look: I'm not religious about these issues, I just like Unix and free

software, and I don't give a rats ass at this point who is wrong or right

about the original issue. To my mind, both acted plenty dumb, but this

episode has opened my eyes to the fact that I want nothing to do with your

community. Theo's (and Marcus') response is absolutely shameful and

disgusting.
Granted, I'm a nobody, and my words don't mean shit, but you _all_ should have

a good long think about how Theo's reaction to this plays to others in the

greater OSS community, and beyond. 
Wasn't his biggest beef about Michael's public disclosure and lack of respect?

Causing OpenBSD embarrassment? Well what the hell do you call Theo's public

blowout which included both personal attacks and plenty of creative

misreading that could easily be called propaganda? (Hint: No one said 'thief'

but Theo) Is that what you call the high road?
Don't bother responding, I'm gone. Have fun with your Broadcom chips....
-d

--

darren kirby :: Part of the problem since 1976 :: http://badcomputer.org

"...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected..."

- Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, June 1972

Wide-sweeping incorrect generalizations are awesome. Can I make one too?

All GPL developers are morons. See? That was fun, wasn't it? Who cares 
No thanks, I don't buy from moronic companies.
---

Lars Hansson

i prefer to hear an impassioned person getting angry and making their

ENTIRE statement to the silly CNN

handful-of-carefully-selected-2-second-clips-on-repeat bullshit you

posted. if i took the time to clip out all the select parts of a series

of emails to make you sound especially bad, lo and behold, you'd sound

like an idiot.
the slow pan-in on osama bin laden photograph with ominous music

technique doesn't work here. talking crap about someone who has

obviously accomplished an order of magnitude more than you have by this

technique is the sort of yellow journalism that doesn't belong anywhere,

especially in canada.

Writes darren kirby <bulliver@badcomputer.org>:
In order for the OpenBSD folks to have worked this out, they would have

had to go through function by function and ask for approval to use that

function.  If refused, they would have had to devise a workaround that

was sufficiently different as to qualify as "new and original" --

without documentation.  The example function quoted sounded like it was

actually a macro - probably a small enough chunk of code that there may

not be any logical "new and original" alternative.  So, even if we stop

here, we have a cumbersome process that (a) wastes a lot of time, and

(b) is not guaranteed to result in anything that works.  But wait,

there's worse!  The FSF contract standard generally requires a release

*in writing*.  (See documents like "Legal Issues about Contributing

Code to GNU").  Assuming the gnu bcw programmers are serious about

protecting their interests (and they sure sound like they are), and

assuming the openBSD folks are even willing to tolerate this level of

nonsense, then to get the same level of protection each of these

exceptions would then need a separate written release.  So, what we're

talking about here is a momumental amount of work that is easily an

order of magnitude more complicated than the actual driver, with no

appreciable benefit to anybody except perhaps the lawyers drafting up

all those releases.  No part of this process produces better code,

and no part of this process produces a more secure operating system,

so all this work we're talking about here is way out of scope for OpenBSD.
There isn't really any alternative for Marcus Glocker here either.  Now

that he's clearly seen the GPL code, it would be very difficult for him

to produce any code for this hardware a clever lawyer couldn't argue

was "derivative".  He's on the "dirty side" of the Chinese Wall now.

Unless he wants to spend 90% of his time working out function by

function copyright releases, the only real alternative he has is to

delete his code...
[ message continues ]

Finally, a really meaningful point.
This whole affair has once again proved that the project's dedication

to getting a hardware vendor to reduce completely open specifications

and documentation, and not compromises around such, is truly the only

"safe" way to go.
Also proving all the more that the GPL is without a doubt an extremely

short-sighted and self-serving reference to software freedom. Poison,

both in the sense of software licensing and developer mindset.
DS

That appears to be a fair conclusion.
--

Jack J. Woehr

Director of Development

Absolute Performance, Inc.

jwoehr@absolute-performance.com

303-443-7000 ext. 527

Part of this is nonsense and I dont mean to pick on you in particular

but I have seen it repeated a few times now and its getting annoying.
If licenses were as viral as some of you people imagine that one cannot

look at a source file copyrighted with a dumb license interpert what the

code does and create your own version parts of the LINUX KERNEL WOULD BE

 SUBJECT TO THE APSL and imagine the CDDL as well but I dont mess around

with sun hardware... Seriously you can go look at some of their recent

mac powerpc drivers and you can see plenty of references to where bits

of information were taken from darwin, they have done nothing wrong.

You got me.  I'm not a lawyer.  But before you assume you're in the

free & clear, you might want to look at these:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000101----...

	text of us statue defining derivative work.

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/fairusemusic.html

	fair use - "music sampling"

http://www.ivanhoffman.com/helpful.html

	pointers to more interesting copyright cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

	parody - fair use?

	4 grounds: purpose, nature, substantiality, effect on market

	case by case - no general rule.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/

	derivative works.

	"all or parts".

	4 part rule again.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/derivative/faq.cgi

	note last case - "same expression".

	also note in many cases, words like "probably not", "that

	depends", etc.  That means you're in a grey zone,

	which means you could be right, and you could

	still end up in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leading_legal_cases_in_copyright_law

	lots and lots of case law.

	some of them are even relevant, some is not.

http://www.low-life.fsnet.co.uk/copyright/

	copyright and sampling.  UK.

http://dvinfo.net/articles/business/copyrightfaq4.php

	lots of stuff.  Note question 30:

	"new recording based on parts of other songs"

	"usually not legal".

	"may fall into the category of derivative work".
This isn't a black & white thing.  There's a lot of grey here, with

room for lots of expensive legal maneuvering, and you can definitely

find case law on both sides of the coin.  The biggest saving grace I

can see here is since the GPL folks aren't in fact a for-profit

concern, they can't really claim much in the way of monetary damages in

their market.  That *might* save you on ground #4.
One of the things I learned in constructing the above list is a lot has

happened with music sampling and copyright law in the past decade, and

questions that were formerly in the grey area might not be anymore.

All of th...
[ message continues ]

They did: http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net and

http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net.

Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?!  Reading that gmane list, one of

the spec writing people said he would be happy to answer any questions

about the specs.

Cool!  My mistake --
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20061121194620

	openbsd...  points to

http://bcm43xx.berlios.de/

http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/

	points to

http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/
I have seen other pieces of GPL code where the writers had

signed NDAs to get the necessary information.  I always

found that questionable.
				-Marcus Watts

Yes they did: http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/
I've spent some time reading it today, for the occasion.
It seems to be lacking some details, e.g. the section describing

how to attach the backplane bridge of the chip [1] says to turn on the

clock crystal and links to a section called "Clock Control", but that

section is completely empty...
[1]

http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/Backplane#head-e793f6c6fc341200320958a2a3...

0af0bdc97
Now, someone writing a driver for that crazy chip would really like

to know how to turn on that bloody clock to get the chip up and running.
Apparently it's supposed to be the very first thing the driver should

do to init the chip btw. Weird that it does not seem to be documented

in the spec already. I hope I've just missed it, maybe it's documented
I guess someone working only with that spec would end up

asking them quite a few questions indeed.
And as far as I can tell writing a driver for that chip is

a big task, even if there were full docs.
I can see why mglocker@ used their code to get going.

If only he hadn't committed it, oh well, shit happens :-|
--

stefan

http://stsp.in-berlin.de                                 PGP Key: 0xF59D25F0

It's a pain, I was constantly comparing the v4 specs at the URL you

mentioned above and the older v3 specs at

http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net/ to try and figure out how to get

anything done. I am impressed beyond belief that the bcm43xx crew

managed to build a driver and/or reverse engineer that hardware.
--

Jon

I think it would have been fairer if you included Marcus' response

for the benefit of people who just read your selected quotes rather

than the whole thread.
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1573

What is the problem with you people... isn't it clear that as soon as

the first mail was sent PUBLIC and to a whole bunch of people the rest 
All I have to say is that next time you make a mistake, I hope someone

will make sure a maximum of people know about it so that they can

point fingers at you and write a shitty article on some stupid Internet

so-called news site.

Of course, someone could just have told you "dude, watch out, you've

made a mistake here" and this would have ended right where it began... 
Do you also call the first mail sent to many many many people a 
Don't tell me what to do. I answer if I want to... and please, don't

come back.
I usually don't answer to those kinds of messages, but seeing how people

are stupid, brain damaged and obstinate makes me really pissed!

Don't they understand the situation on purpose???
--

Antoine

Yeah. I'm going to have to agree. Sure the way they dealt with it was

really poor form, but licenses are licenses. This has been blown all

our of proportion, and this thread isn't even to 15 replies yet.
-Nick