Theo de Raadt <deraadt@...> writes: > So next time, talk to the specific people, so you don't come off > as being mean, ok? I'm sorry to say this Theo, but you do realize this code was available in the CVS tree, right? Users, especially companies, that use this tree would very likely be interested in knowing that at some point in time this tree contained infringing code, so they can avoid using that version in their own product without being called on it later. If you think this PR is bad, just imagine a company pointing back at your tree as the source for the copyright infringement within their product. This is about trust: if I am to use your code, then I need to be able to trust that there is no infringing code in it, and that if copyright infringement should occur (accidently) at some point in time, that such is discussed in the open so I can avoid (accidently) using that code in my product. With the definition of derivative work as it is, I would think that a clean room approach should be advocated at all times to prevent mistakes like this from happening. Kind regards, Pieter Hulshoff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
