lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: scsi target, likely GPL violation
From
Date
On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 18:32 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > 1. Yes, I've got first hand proof of a GPL violation (in which case
> > > we'll then move to seeing how we can remedy this) or
> > > 2. A genuine public apology for the libel, which I'll do my best to
> > > prevail on RTS to accept.
> > >
> > > Because any further discussion of unsubstantiated allegations of this
> > > nature exposes us all to jeopardy of legal sanction.
> >
> > That asks for moderation until we have a better investigation of the
> > facts. It definitely doesn't try to prejudge them or express preference
> > for a specific outcome as your misquote makes out.
>
> So how can you demand a public apology for libel or instant first hand
> proof and now claim you just wanted moderation ? It's not hard to see why
> your position was misinterpreted ?

So you want me to be less definite to avoid misinterpretation?

OK, here it is: I'd really appreciate it if there was more rigour
behind the initial investigation before going public with suspicions of
GPL violation. Based on what I read on the internet is a bit too low a
bar for me, particularly when, I believe, Red Hat has the proprietary
target OS and can check directly.

We now have a whole runaway train of suspicion and lawyer involvement
before anyone has actually confirmed there is a problem.
James






\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-11-14 09:01    [W:0.065 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site