On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> And this make it even worst:
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38746
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".
...
> Where is the Open Community is going these days...
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.
