From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1768680Ab2KOSVn (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:21:43 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41623 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1768572Ab2KOSVm (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:21:42 -0500 Message-ID: <50A5328C.800@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:21:00 -0800 From: Andy Grover Reply-To: andy@groveronline.com Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.7) Gecko/20120825 Thunderbird/10.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, target-devel@vger.kernel.org, kcopenhaver@choate.com, Richard Fontana , Marc Fleischmann , Nicholas Bellinger , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, tytso@mit.edu, andy@groveronline.com Subject: Re: scsi target, likely GPL violation References: <509A915B.30105@redhat.com> <509B117A.6070708@genband.com> <509BE460.6010404@redhat.com> <1352405111.29589.476.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <509C22B2.8010600@redhat.com> <1352426896.29589.512.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20121109110336.41833034@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <14c701cdc059$d6fd28b0$84f77a10$@rosenlaw.com> In-Reply-To: <14c701cdc059$d6fd28b0$84f77a10$@rosenlaw.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, First, I do not, and did not, have access to the proprietary OS, which has been referred to. Otherwise, I would have checked it. Second, I appreciate that my questions and tentative inferences may not have been perfect, given that I did not have the complete facts, but I did try to obtain them from RTS before raising questions in this forum. But I was not successful. Third, in retrospect, I think a more measured approach to the dialog may have been a better course. I am interested in understanding the situation. My primary goal was to avoid duplicating a lot of work, if RTS plans to open-source the new features they have added to the proprietary version. Fourth, my questions about the GPL’s requirements in this context remain. Finally, I was, in this thread, speaking on my behalf alone and at my initiative-- not Red Hat’s, as some may have incorrectly concluded. I'll be using a personal email account (CC'd) for this issue in the future, in order to make this more explicit. Regards -- Andy