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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
