On Apr 30, 2009, "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > It took you several emails to accomplish this, and I just don't have > 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, I > continue to look into it. Thank you. 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 task > 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 again? > 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. Best, -- 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 _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list