From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751849Ab2KKJeW (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:34:22 -0500 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([66.63.167.143]:42710 "EHLO bedivere.hansenpartnership.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750785Ab2KKJeU (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 04:34:20 -0500 Message-ID: <1352626456.6524.46.camel@dabdike> Subject: Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation From: James Bottomley To: Andy Grover Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" , target-devel , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Marc Fleischmann , Nicholas Bellinger Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:34:16 +0000 In-Reply-To: <509A915B.30105@redhat.com> References: <509A915B.30105@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 08:50 -0800, Andy Grover wrote: > Nick, > > Your company appears to be shipping kernel features in RTS OS that are > not made available under the GPL, specifically support for the > EXTENDED_COPY and COMPARE_AND_WRITE SCSI commands, in order to claim > full Vmware vSphere 5 VAAI support. > > http://www.risingtidesystems.com/storage.html > http://www.linux-iscsi.org/wiki/VAAI > > Private emails to you and RTS CEO Marc Fleischmann have not elicited a > useful response. > > You are subsystem maintainer for the in-kernel SCSI target support > (drivers/target/*), and your company appears to be violating the GPL. > Please explain. Can we please cool it with the inflammatory accusations. Please remember that statements which damage or seek to damage the reputation of a company amount to libel even under US law ... and using phrases like "appears to" doesn't shield you from this. I also note that whatever their website says RTS OS isn't in VMware's certified compatibility list: http://www.vmware.com/resources/compatibility/pdf/vi_io_guide.pdf Plus it's a grey area what you actually have to support to make that list (especially as XCOPY has now been removed from SBC-3 in favour of token copy), so I'd say that the chain of reasoning you've used to come up with this hearsay allegation of copyright violation is tenuous at best. Anybody who does enforcement will tell you that you begin with first hand proof of a violation. That means obtain the product and make sure it's been modified and that a request for corresponding source fails. In this case, since I presume Red Hat, as a RTS partner, has a bona fide copy of the RTS OS, please verify it does indeed implement or issue the commands which are not in the public git repository and that whoever owns the copy makes a request for the source code. I would really appreciate it if the next email I see from you on this subject is either 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. James