On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:15:33 -0400, "Harry Menegay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:29:52 +0200, "Marc Balmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > said: > >> Diana Eichert wrote: > >> 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. > > > > 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 > > license violation. It doesn't take a genius. > > > > Uploading it onto a publicly accessible CVS (even though the public > might not have upload rights) certainly is publishing the code. He made > an error by publishing it publicly instead of setting up a private CVS > to share with others working on the driver, or emailing them updates > until he could replace all the GPL'd code. Using someone else's code > temporarily while working on the changes is quite understandable, but > uploading it to a publicly viewable CVS where things are assumed to be > under the BSD license unless specifically marked otherwise is not. He > made a mistake in judgment.
You may be right, but then I would have made the same error as he did if I were in the same situation. Even though it is publicly accessible does not mean to me that it was *published* and there was certainly no insertion of a BSD license into the code used. A CVS is a repository of code under development, not finished products. I still don't feel any license was violated. I would have understood a friendly heads up of, "Hey, I see you are using some of my code. Do you want to discuss the licensing issue or are going to be removing all of it in the finished product?" Instead of calling him a thief and then *denying* you called him a thief.
