Jeroen Massar wrote:
Daniel Ouellet wrote:
[.. a part that you didn't want to make a 'point' about anyway..]
Men,
I must be pretty darn stupid I have to say.
My point wasn't about the dam licenses or comparing GPL to BSD for
crying at loud!
Then don't mention it. Also learn how to reply to email:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_styles#Inline_replying
I quote extract of their own answer, on witch you pick up only.
From which you should know that I didn't comment on the rest of your
comment as I didn't have any (important) comments on that part, the part
I did comment on I did have a big comment on ;)
Trying to tell me not to make a comment about something you wrote is
IMHO 'darn stupid'. But hey I don't have to say that to somebody who
already writes that that is the case ;)
<insert "No offense" and other such thingies>
Let me put it better then. I use their GPL part here ONLY to show how
more ridiculous the answer was and oppose to what you say, they wrote
and quote "A GPL Linux device driver for the Marvell wireless chip..."
and then at the same time, they say they can't release anything. Then
you go saying it possible to keep secret code that is GPL. All just
doesn't fit, sorry!
What got me going was that you turn the stupidity of their answer into a
GPL/BSD issue that frankly have nothing to do with the essence of the
problem where they refuse to release documentations and allow
redistributions of FIRMWARE, but at the same time USE GPL that by itself
,if GPL ZEALOTS should go all over their own convictions and say, hey
you can't do that and they don't.
So, in the end it's all talks and nothing more.
But I didn't make it a GPL issue, I use the GPL to show how untrue they
really are, based on the principal of the license that all GPL defenders
say it's good for.
You are right in the fact that I may be shouldn't have included in the
reply, but reading it was just to obvious that they were doing plenty in
bad faith here including screwing up with the GPL license that is
suppose to stop them from doing that exact same thing! And it was just
way to obvious that they were not respecting the spirit of their own
routs in term of codes used either.
May be my hopes, obviously wrong here, were to put the spotlight to this
part of the issue as well and include even the same Linux guys if you
want to put pressure on OLPC and Marvel for taking and not giving back
and are suppose to do so based on the same Linux (GPL) point of view.
To me that's a very good example of testing their own convictions.
They always said their license is very good, but never been tested. May
be with the size of this issue here it's time they test it no?
They should request to have open documentations and if they can't they
can always use the GPL they love so much to force to open it, and
pressure the OLPC to do the right thing.
But looks like it will never happen.
Best,
Daniel
