On Apr 30, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
It took you several emails to accomplish this, and I just don't
enough time to chase "ghost" issues where your personal stance on
licensing differs from Fedora's. I have a high degree of confidence at
this point that you understand the definitions of Fedora licensing policies.
I'm pretty sure the definition of Fedora licensing policies does not
make room for blatant copyright violation, distributing code under
GPL+restrictions that is derived from GPL code. And, again, the GPL
violation is not firmware, it's driver code (stuff that runs on the
primary CPU, per Fedora's definition), in case it isn't clear yet.
When information is presented calmly, clearly, and without rhetoric,
continue to look into it.
I'd appreciate your pointing out where you saw this thing you refer to
as rhetoric. If any of us two is guilty of jumping to conclusions,
abusing rhetoric and aggressive tone, it's not me. You thought I was
going back to an old discussion, and overreacted. Apologies accepted
:-) but please try not to do that again. I know I've failed that myself
in the past, but it is possible to change. Don't react to the ghosts.
To assert that I am either failing, or at risk of failing in that
is rather insulting, especially given a lack of evidence in that area.
The “I'm done with it” in response to the specific information about the
problem was quite a shocking confession of your unwillingness to deal
with this particular copyright infringment issue.
Do you understand the consequences of infringing copyrights of code
licensed under the GPLv2, such as Linux?
Are you comfortable with Fedora's wilfull loss of its license to
distribute Linux, and its inducement for third parties that redistribute
Fedora to lose theirs?
Are you comfortable with the idea of having to beg thousands of
developers for a new license? And having all of our mirrors and
redistributors do the same before they can be legal redistributors
It is also worth considering that the Linux kernel, like X.org and
texlive, is a rather special case.
Neither X.org nor texlive are under the GPL.
Our best recourse is to work with the upstream to address these
issues. Progress continues to be made in this area.
Good. I look forward to seeing progress in rejecting code whose
copyright holders derived it from Linux, but refuse to offer it under
terms that are compatible with the licensing terms of Linux, rather than
becoming their hostages and supporting their attack on our communities
and our values.
Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi
Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/
FSF Latin America board member
Free Software Evangelist Red Hat Brazil Compiler Engineer