On 4/11/07, Mike Erdely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:20:51PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:08:44 +0200 Marc Balmer wrote:
> > > [X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)
> > [X] marco is a communist
> no; if so, he's as good as communist as George
On 4/11/07, Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 22:34 -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 22:34 -0400, Jason Dixon wrote:
> 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 comp
On Wed, Apr 11, 2007 at 08:20:51PM +0200, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:08:44 +0200 Marc Balmer wrote:
> > > [X] -- communism isn't as bad as the GPL ;)
> > [X] marco is a communist
> no; if so, he's as good as communist as George W. Bush as president.
WTF! What the hell does GPL,
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 20:08:44 +0200
Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Timo Schoeler wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200
> > Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
> >> Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GPL is as fr
Timo Schoeler wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200
Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
GPL is as free as communism.
Please add this to fortune!
--
Massimo.run();
She's the kind of girl who climbed the l
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:25:14 +0200
Massimo Lusetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
> Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > GPL is as free as communism.
>
> Please add this to fortune!
>
> --
> Massimo.run();
> She's the kind of girl who climbed the lad
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:20:33 -0500
Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GPL is as free as communism.
Please add this to fortune!
--
Massimo.run();
She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success wrong by
wrong. -- Mae West
[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]
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
>> GPL is good though if you want to force people to give back the code
Seg, 2007-04-09 C s 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar escreveu:
> 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.
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the way both the GPL
and generic copyright work.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:33:31PM +0800, Doug Brewer wrote:
> Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:19:29PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> >> if someone is still reading the thread...
> >>
> >
> >lalalala
>
> Is it funny? Fuck off!!! lalalala
>
it is not funny b
Reyk Floeter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:19:29PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> if someone is still reading the thread...
>
lalalala
Is it funny? Fuck off!!! lalalala
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 12:19:29PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
> if someone is still reading the thread...
>
lalalala
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 lice
RedShift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
Is that a fact? Or just your opinion? I think it's a discussion that
doesn't belong on this mailing list.
//ar
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 =)
Marco Peereboom wrote:
I have to reply to this horse shit.
:-)
*snip*
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 sof
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007 23:15:36 -0400
Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No, its the FSF trying to re
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
free on me?
I dunno, who does RMS think he is imposing his definition of free on me?
---
Lars Hansson
darren kirby wrote:
This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD
community.
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
if it's correct, two wrongs make a right, doesn'
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 08:20:33PM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> 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
> * ex
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
No, its the FSF trying to redefine the word free. The english language has
had the word for a long time, and
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ...
>
> > 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
"Greg Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 c
On 4/9/07, Jason Dixon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:
> Unfuckingbelievable. Is there something in the GPL water that messes
> with its fans' brains and twists their realities???
The real hypocrisy is this:
GPL advocates claim their license prevents
On Apr 9, 2007, at 10:16 PM, Greg Thomas wrote:
Unfuckingbelievable. Is there something in the GPL water that messes
with its fans' brains and twists their realities???
The real hypocrisy is this:
GPL advocates claim their license prevents commercial entities from
stealing their freedom.
On 4/9/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
>
> 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 examp
On 4/9/07, Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi there,
On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
Who the hell do you think you are that you can impose a definition of
free on me? Freedom is also a matter of perce
> >It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
>
> 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 consi
Hi there,
On Apr 10, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
It is because you do not understand the definition of free.
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
I have to reply to this horse shit.
> 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 restrictio
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:48:08AM +0200, Tobias Weisserth wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:
>
> >It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.
blah blah blah
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Adam wrote:
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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!".
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:43 PM, Robby Workman wrote:
It's not a matter of perspective - forced freedom is not freedom.
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", th
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Jessie D wrote:
fastmail.net> writes:
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
Tobias Weisserth wrote:
>> 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 ;)
>
> The problem is the word "free". BSD people tend to int
Tobias Weisserth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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!".
Don't believe RMSs FUD. You can't turn code "
fastmail.net> writes:
> >
> > 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.
Exactly.
> So no code was rele
On Mon, 2007-04-09 at 18:29 +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > 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.
> That
Hi there,
On Apr 9, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
...
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 ;)
The problem is the word
Darren Spruell gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
What does any of this have to do with the license?!
On 4/9/07, Shawn K. Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
[..]
> 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.
Not exactly. The c
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:55:19AM -0400, Eric Furman wrote:
[..]
> 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*
In some jurisdictions it just means tha
On 4/6/07, Stefan Sperling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
c
On Apr 6, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Darren Spruell wrote:
> 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.
That appear
On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the really valuable lesson out of all this is that this shows,
for once & for all, that a GPL licensed driver is *not* an acceptable
substitute for proper documentation released by the maker without undo
intellectual or financial burden (
Gordon Willem Klok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 copyrig
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:15AM -0400, Marcus Watts wrote:
> Writes darren kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> ...
> > From: Joseph Jezak:
> > >>As one of the reverse engineers, the reason for the openness of
> > >>writing the specification was to ensure that the Chinese Wall method
> > >>was maintaine
bofh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> > specifications separately.
>
> Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?! Reading that gmane list, one of
> the spec writing people said he wo
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 11:50:15AM -0400, Marcus Watts wrote:
> It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> specifications separately.
They did: http://bcm-specs.sipsolutions.net and
http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net.
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 01:30:35PM -0400, bofh wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
> >specifications separately.
> Waitaminit - I thought they did?!?!
Yes they did: http://bcm-v4.sipsolutions.net/
I've
On 4/6/07, Marcus Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's a shame the gnu folks didn't release their reversed engineered
specifications separately.
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
Writes darren kirby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
...
> From: Joseph Jezak:
> >>As one of the reverse engineers, the reason for the openness of
> >>writing the specification was to ensure that the Chinese Wall method
> >>was maintained.
>
> >>To date, I have not been contacted by any of the bcw programmers
lf
Of Douglas Allan Tutty
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:15 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: bcw(4) is gone
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:46:28AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> What you people seem to miss in the whole discussion here is that
Linux
> people contact vendors IN PRIVATE if
On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 09:46:28AM -0500, Marco Peereboom wrote:
> 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 b
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
darren kirby wrote:
This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD
community.
quoth the Steven Harms:
There are two roads, the high and the low road. I am not sure why an adult
(assuming) needs to be educated on this.
High road? Is that how you would describ
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
> >> effort
On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 10:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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?
What do you care if that's what they care about
On 4/6/07, Marco Peereboom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 wh
> 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
> h
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:25:53 -0400, "Daniel Ouellet"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Where is the Open Community is going these days...
>
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 tha
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:29:52 +0200, "Marc Balmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> Diana Eichert wrote:
>
> > bcw(4) is gone
>
> Marcus Glocker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], knows a big deal about wireless
> LANs. He has been involved in many of our wirelesss driver, he
* Floor Terra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-06 01:43]:
> 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?
100% legal
--
Henning Brauer
Hi,
> Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users.
>
> Thank you, Linux BCW developers!
>
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 s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6-apr-2007, at 10:32, chefren wrote:
On 4/6/07 1:26 AM, Andris Delfino wrote:
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 s
On 2007/04/06 00:27, darren kirby wrote:
> Oh no? Read the thread again:
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
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007, Andris Delfino wrote:
> 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
> 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?
*shrug* Personally I consider that a derivative work and try to avoid
it, though pra
On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, darren kirby wrote:
This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD
community.
Ok, as I feel part of it, I will respond to this.
High road? Is that how you would describe Theo's handling of this situation?
Theo reacted _to_ the handling of the situ
On 4/6/07 1:26 AM, Andris Delfino wrote:
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.
A) If you really prefer BSD you wouldn't care about what people do
with your
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 08:13:39PM -0400, Gordon Willem Klok wrote:
> 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 make
This is not so much a response to you Steven, as to the entire OpenBSD
community.
quoth the Steven Harms:
> There are two roads, the high and the low road. I am not sure why an adult
> (assuming) needs to be educated on this.
High road? Is that how you would describe Theo's handling of this si
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
effe
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 08:26:06PM -0300, Andr?s Delfino wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Rogier Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 4/6/07, Andris Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> What's wrong? They protect their license. Period.
> >No one seems to dispute the right of copyright holders to protect
* Andr?s Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-04-05 20:26:06]:
> 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.
>
Heh. I think the person that's feeling the biggest b
On 4/5/07, Rogier Krieger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/6/07, Andris Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
On 4/6/07, Andris Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 co
Andris Delfino wrote:
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 n
On 4/5/07, Steven Harms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
On 4
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.
On 4/5/07, Andris Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6-apr-2007, at 0:51, Andris Delfino wrote:
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.
Would it be wrong to develop software using e
On 4/5/07, Andris Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andris Delfino wrote:
> > What's wrong? They protect their license. Period.
>
> Where the hell is the open community is going these days, I have no
> clue... Look to me it sure enjoy destro
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 05:25:53PM -0400, Daniel Ouellet wrote:
> A great day for the Open Source community I tell you.
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
On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andris Delfino wrote:
> What's wrong? They protect their license. Period.
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.ke
Andris Delfino wrote:
What's wrong? They protect their license. Period.
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!
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
On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
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
Broadc
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.
On 4/5/07, Bret Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:16 -0600, Diana Eicher
On Thu, 2007-04-05 at 13:16 -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
> 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.
Diana Eichert wrote:
bcw(4) is gone
Marcus Glocker, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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
On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 12:55:10PM -0600, Diana Eichert wrote:
> In case you don't follow -current commits,
> http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=117579052530442&w=2
>
> bcw(4) is gone
I don't believe Michael's initial intention was to have this happen, but
th
and info why here,
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1558/
In case you don't follow -current commits,
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=117579052530442&w=2
bcw(4) is gone
97 matches
Mail list logo
