On Sunday 16 September 2007 05:17:53 J.C. Roberts wrote:

quoted text
> On Sunday 16 September 2007, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> > J.C. Roberts wrote:

> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=118857712529898&w=2

> >

> > Link with outdated info.

> >

> > > http://madwifi.org/browser/branches/ath5k

> >

> > Link with outdated info.

> >

> > > I suggest actually taking the time to get the facts before making

> > > completely baseless statements. When you make obviously erroneous

> > > statements, it leaves everyone to believe you are either hopelessly

> > > misinformed, or a habitual liar. -Which is it?

> >

> > Please take a moment to understand the Linux development process.

> >

> > A better place to look would be 'ath5k' branch of

> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-dev.g

> >it

> >

> > but nonethless, the fact remains that ath5k is STILL NOT UPSTREAM and

> > HAS NEVER BEEN UPSTREAM, as can be verified from

> >

> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git

> > 	(official linux repo; nothing is official until it hits here)

> >

> > Part of the reason why ath5k is not upstream is that developers are

> > actively addressing these copyright concerns -- as can be clearly

> > seen by the changes being made over time.

> >

> > So let's everybody calm down, ok?

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > 	Jeff

>

> Jeff,

>

> Look at what you are saying from a different perspective. Let's say

> someone took the linux kernel source from the official repository,

> removed the GPL license and dedicated the work to public domain or put

> it under any other license, and for kicks back-dated the files so they

> are older than the originals. Then they took this illegal license

> removal copy of your code and put it in a public repository somewhere.

>

> You'd be perfectly content with such a development because it had not

> been officially brought "upstream" by the "offical" public domain or

> whatever project?

But that isn't the situation being discussed. You've sent this mail to the

*LINUX* *KERNEL* ML, not the MadWifi ML. The patches in question were not

accepted into the Linux Kernel, so this is *NOT* the place to send mail

related to them.
*PLEASE* go do a Google search or check the MadWifi site for their discussion

list/forum/whatever and complain there.
> No, you would most likely be absolutely livid and extremely vocal

quoted text
> getting the problem fixed immediately, so your reasoning falls apart.

Yes, true, but you are attacking people who haven't done anything wrong. And

by your own words, Mr. Roberts, OpenBSD has violated peoples

copyrights: "Most of us are also aware of the instance where OpenBSD took

some GPL code and replaced the license with BSD. What OpenBSD did in that

cases was just as illegal,"
If the OpenBSD developers want to attack the Linux Kernel community over

patches that were *NEVER* *ACCEPTED* by said community, it should be just as

fair for the Linux Kernel community to complain about those (unspecified)

times where OpenBSD replaced the GPL on code with the BSD license.
And, as said before, the place to take these complaints is the MadWifi

discussion area, since they are, apparently, the only people that accepted

the patches in question.
> If the people who could fix the problem continued to ignore you, and the

quoted text
> people in leadership roles tell you then intend to steal your code,

> then you would continue to get more angry and vocal about it.

*WE*, the people on the Linux Kernel ML, *CANNOT* "fix the problem" with the

*MADWIFI* code having accepted patches which violate Reyk's copyright.
> Now take it one step further. For the sake of example, let's assume all

quoted text
> of this atheros driver nonsense went to a German court and the

> GNU/FSF/SFLC/Linux or whoever you want to call yourselves lost a

> criminal copyright infringement suit. You have now been legally proven

> to be guilty code theft.

>

> After such a ruling let's assume some jerk was to do the all the

> horrific stuff mentioned in the first paragraph above to the linux

> source tree, along with a little regex magic to call it something other

> than "linux" and seeded the Internet with countless copies. At this

> point, the GNU, FSF, GPL and all of the hard working Linux devs are now

> stuffed. A company could download the bogus source, violate the now

> missing GPL license, claim you stole the code from someplace else on

> the `net and illegally put your GPL license on it... Worst of all, they

> now have your past conviction of criminal code theft to back up their

> assertion about the way you normally operate.

>

> You should be concerned. The above is an immoral and illegal but still

> practical attack on the GPL and all of hard work by many great people.

> By having some people within the GNU/FSF/GPL camp indulging in code

> theft to push their preferred license and the reasonable folks in the

> GNU/FSF/GPL camp refusing to voice a strong opinion against code theft,

> you are weakening your own license.

Linux Kernel != FSF/GNU
If it was then RMS would not be attacking Linus and Linux with faulty claims

just because Linus has publicly stated that the GPLv2 is a better license

than v3 and because Linux cannot, for numerous reasons, ever be released

under the GPLv3.
I repeat - Linux has *NOT* and will *NEVER* accept the patches in question. If

somebody else has, then go and yell at them about it. The developers here, on

the LINUX KERNEL MAILING LIST, have no control or authority (in general) over

projects such as MadWifi. If they have accepted the faulty patches - and said

patches are now part of their code-base, then go tell them about it and make

sure Theo gets the message.
DRH
--

Dialup is like pissing through a pipette. Slow and excruciatingly painful.