bcw(4) is gone

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
109 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bcw(4) is gone

Diana Eichert
In case you don't follow -current commits,
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-cvs&m=117579052530442&w=2

bcw(4) is gone

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Diana Eichert
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Darrin Chandler
In reply to this post by Diana Eichert
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
the nature of his first email made it almost guaranteed. For Marcus to
delete the driver is absolutely understandable, and I imagine I would
have done the same.

It's very sad to see people supposedly on the same side fighting instead
of helping each other. It's worth remembering that initial words on a
topic have a lot to do with how it turns out in the end.

--
Darrin Chandler            |  Phoenix BSD User Group  |  MetaBUG
[hidden email]   |  http://phxbug.org/      |  http://metabug.org/
http://www.stilyagin.com/  |  Daemons in the Desert   |  Global BUG Federation

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Marc Balmer
In reply to this post by Diana Eichert
Diana Eichert wrote:

> bcw(4) is gone

Marcus Glocker, [hidden email], 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 person who knows how to
write original code.

When it comes to bcw, a piece of hardware for that no documentation
exists, he decided to use the docs the linux folks have.

He began a rewrite of a bcw driver, inspired by the work of the linux
folks.  His driver was not working yet, to give him a headstart, he used
some code of the linux folks with the clear intent to replace it with
his own.  Just to make sure this shit works.

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.

The linux folks tooks this as the grounds to ride attacks agains Marcus,
claiming license violations.

Marcus, devoting his spare time to OpenBSD decided that this is
kindergarten and best left to the Linux amateurs and deleted his driver
from the OpenBSD cvs tree.

Now everyone has won, the Linux people, Broadcom and the OpenBSD users.

Thank you, Linux BCW developers!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Bret Lambert-2
In reply to this post by Diana Eichert
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Steven Harms-2
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Daniel Ouellet
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
Broadcom names on it. Even the part of the discussion about relicensing
code so that they can include it in their GPL because Linus refuse BSD
code was a twisted angle to try to justify their actions.

This makes me sick!

I guess all the Microsoft of the world that can't compete on good,
secure and clean code got an other win today as they can't beat the good
guys at their own game, well no need let them destroy each others so we
win anyway in the end.

A great day for the Open Source community I tell you.

This makes me so sick that I can't even come up with words to describe
it properly, so I will not try!

Where is the Open Community is going these days...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Andrés Delfino
On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[hidden email]> 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 sick with anything carrying GPL, Linux, and
> Broadcom names on it. Even the part of the discussion about relicensing
> code so that they can include it in their GPL because Linus refuse BSD
> code was a twisted angle to try to justify their actions.
>
> This makes me sick!
>
> I guess all the Microsoft of the world that can't compete on good,
> secure and clean code got an other win today as they can't beat the good
> guys at their own game, well no need let them destroy each others so we
> win anyway in the end.
>
> A great day for the Open Source community I tell you.
>
> This makes me so sick that I can't even come up with words to describe
> it properly, so I will not try!
>
> Where is the Open Community is going these days...
>
>

What's wrong? They protect their license. Period.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Woodchuck-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Ouellet
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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Daniel Ouellet
In reply to this post by Andrés Delfino
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!

He sure did a hell of a huge amount of work that was his, and original
for your own benefit, and the only mistakes he may have done was to try
to work on it faster then he may should have and wrongly include
temporary files to help in the process!

Should he had finish his work in a later time and not try to make this
available sooner to us, then nothing would have been said on this.

In any case a simple private email to him directly would have been the
decent human being things to do, but I guess you don't even get that do you?

Just like I said before.

Where the hell is the open community is going these days, I have no
clue... Look to me it sure enjoy destroy itself for sure.

I am lost for words!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Andrés Delfino
On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[hidden email]> 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.kernel.wireless.general/1573
>
> I don't think you did!
>
> He sure did a hell of a huge amount of work that was his, and original
> for your own benefit, and the only mistakes he may have done was to try
> to work on it faster then he may should have and wrongly include
> temporary files to help in the process!
>
> Should he had finish his work in a later time and not try to make this
> available sooner to us, then nothing would have been said on this.
>
> In any case a simple private email to him directly would have been the
> decent human being things to do, but I guess you don't even get that do you?
>
> Just like I said before.
>
> Where the hell is the open community is going these days, I have no
> clue... Look to me it sure enjoy destroy itself for sure.
>
> I am lost for words!
>
>

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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Matthias Kilian
In reply to this post by Daniel Ouellet
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't developers and
don't contribute.

At least that's my impression. Maybe i'm wrong. I hope i'm wrong.
Sorry for the rant.

Ciao,
        Kili, still slacking far too much

--
Das ist ein "hiermeins dadeins" BALKEN
                -- Kay Freier zur philosophischen Frage, wie denn
                   die Dinger heissen, die man im Supermarkt hinter
                   seinen Krempel aufs Fliessband packt.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Nick Guenther
In reply to this post by Andrés Delfino
On 4/5/07, Andris Delfino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[hidden email]> 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 destroy itself for sure.
> >
> > I am lost for words!
>
> 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.

Yeah. I'm going to have to agree. Sure the way they dealt with it was
really poor form, but licenses are licenses. This has been blown all
our of proportion, and this thread isn't even to 15 replies yet.

-Nick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Steven Harms-2
In reply to this post by Andrés Delfino
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[hidden email]> 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.kernel.wireless.general/1573
> >
> > I don't think you did!
> >
> > He sure did a hell of a huge amount of work that was his, and original
> > for your own benefit, and the only mistakes he may have done was to try
> > to work on it faster then he may should have and wrongly include
> > temporary files to help in the process!
> >
> > Should he had finish his work in a later time and not try to make this
> > available sooner to us, then nothing would have been said on this.
> >
> > In any case a simple private email to him directly would have been the
> > decent human being things to do, but I guess you don't even get that do
> you?
> >
> > Just like I said before.
> >
> > Where the hell is the open community is going these days, I have no
> > clue... Look to me it sure enjoy destroy itself for sure.
> >
> > I am lost for words!
> >
> >
>
> 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Andrés Delfino
On 4/5/07, Steven Harms <[hidden email]> 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 4/5/07, Andris Delfino <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 4/5/07, Daniel Ouellet <[hidden email]> 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.kernel.wireless.general/1573
> > >
> > > I don't think you did!
> > >
> > > He sure did a hell of a huge amount of work that was his, and original
> > > for your own benefit, and the only mistakes he may have done was to try
> > > to work on it faster then he may should have and wrongly include
> > > temporary files to help in the process!
> > >
> > > Should he had finish his work in a later time and not try to make this
> > > available sooner to us, then nothing would have been said on this.
> > >
> > > In any case a simple private email to him directly would have been the
> > > decent human being things to do, but I guess you don't even get that do
> you?
> > >
> > > Just like I said before.
> > >
> > > Where the hell is the open community is going these days, I have no
> > > clue... Look to me it sure enjoy destroy itself for sure.
> > >
> > > I am lost for words!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>

He should realized that he couldn't do that... get it?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Floor Terra
In reply to this post by Andrés Delfino
-----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 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?

I still don't know exactly what happened, but I suspect the process
went something like this.
Only the code in the development phase was public too and this is
what pissed of the developers
of the GPL'ed version.

Floor
iD8DBQFGFYMsUnW3VkBpTO4RAoz0AJ9QbDrwd4JYO9mooUxx6TRhm5clDwCeNGW2
IvES2c/ESqR3o38RjW6sEyY=
=c/+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Rogier Krieger
In reply to this post by Andrés Delfino
On 4/6/07, Andris Delfino <[hidden email]> 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 contact the developer in
question before going public, as seems to be the custom in many other
suspected licence issues.

Choosing to first send a private message would likely have remedied
any issues, both quickly and with a lot less fallout. Too bad that
that didn't happen.

Rogier

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Dries Schellekens
In reply to this post by Andrés Delfino
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 not allowed). He should have
waited to commit his code to the public CVS until he had properly
rewriten the GPL code...

Marcus admitted he made a mistake and corrected it. I don't see the
Linux guy admitting he made a big mistake in dealing with this issue.


Cheers,

Dries

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Andrés Delfino
In reply to this post by Rogier Krieger
On 4/5/07, Rogier Krieger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 4/6/07, Andris Delfino <[hidden email]> 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 contact the developer in
> question before going public, as seems to be the custom in many other
> suspected licence issues.
>
> Choosing to first send a private message would likely have remedied
> any issues, both quickly and with a lot less fallout. Too bad that
> that didn't happen.
>
> Rogier
>

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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bcw(4) is gone

Travers Buda-2
* Andr?s Delfino <[hidden email]> [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 burn right now
is Michael Buesch because he realizes the mistake HE made is bigger
that what happened with the licensing.

--
Travers Buda

1234 ... 6