One, the use was under 5% This is a false statement. Go and compare the code!
I did not count the lines, but it seems to be about 80-90 percent. Maybe 75 percent, if you count. But that's not the point. It's _not_ 5 percent.
you better be willing and able to prove it was distributed. How did I get it, if it wasn't distributed?
Then why didn't you just leave Theo out of it? Because he's _THE_ openbsd guy and has a right to get informed??
In retrospect I think you would have done the FOSS community a big favour by not listening to your peers at that point. nbd is not responsible for doing this public. Noone else but me is. This was my decision. I agree that most people I talked to agreed to that decision, but if I had another opinion and didn't like to go public, it wouldn't have happened.
And I still think it was right.
Please, next time, try not to feed the trolls. I had a hard time doing this, as the troll was the main openbsd guy...
How about looking for a way to put aside bruised egos, calm down, and try working together? If OpenBSD was working on a driver, some of their advances could help your project. Yeah, but it was exactly the other way around;).
-remember the users, the poor guys who just want a working wireless card, and are smart enough to avoid Windows I already apologized to the users (and only them), although it is not my responsibility that the driver disappeared. We presented ways to solve the issue while preserving the driver. But I want to apologize to the users again.
-put pressure on Dell, HP, IBM and anyone who uses Broadcom chips to publish programming specifications for the same. Broadcom has good reasons for not releasing specs or code, which I respect. I talked to Broadcom guys. I won't tell what they said, as it was a private discussion. And no, it's not the company-exception that causes me to stay silent.;) (people who read the thread know what the company-exception is). It's because it was private in the first place.
And how would have this been handled if it had been IBM ? If they also distributed it in public?
Exactly the same way. Distribute in public -> complain in public.
The public has the right to get informed that the code thei're looking at is _not_ BSD licensed, like the source header says.
This isn't an issue of his code being copied exactly (a straight copyright violation), instead it's an issue of a certain amount of code in an as yet non-working driver being too derivative of a copyrighted product. Did you actually try to compare both projects? You'll be surprised how much copied code you will find.
None of these facts are relevant to the discussion. They _are_. Actually, these seem to be the _only_ facts that are relevant to the discussion in the first place.
Even Jeff Garzik, one of the bcm43xx developers Jeff is not one of the bcm43xx developers. He's the linux net maintainer.
It's unfortunate that Michael Beusch is more concerned about defending his actions than correcting the injustice. It's interresting that people seem to think _I_ have to apologize, as the OpenBSD developers did the Bad Things in the first place. There's a simple rule: Don't violate copyrights and don't get blamed for it. It's so simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, he's known for such reactions.
You probably swapped User-Agent ;)