From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:13:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:12:59 -0400 Received: from smtp3.cern.ch ([137.138.131.164]:47841 "EHLO smtp3.cern.ch") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:12:47 -0400 To: Ricky Beam Cc: Alan Cox , Subject: Re: Qlogic/FC firmware In-Reply-To: From: Jes Sorensen Date: 22 Aug 2001 15:12:24 +0200 In-Reply-To: Ricky Beam's message of "Wed, 22 Aug 2001 01:19:58 -0400 (EDT)" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.070096 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.96) Emacs/20.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> "Ricky" == Ricky Beam writes: Ricky> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Alan Cox wrote: >> At the time a) I didnt realise the sparc setup was so anal, and b) >> I didnt know about the firmware update. Ricky> So basically, you had no fucking clue what kind of instability Ricky> you were about to introduce into the current "stable" line of Ricky> kernels, but did it anyway simply because of the wording (and Ricky> your interpretation thereof) of the license on a firmware Ricky> "data" file. Wording that has been unchanged since the day the Ricky> file was entered into the tree. If there were objections, Ricky> questions, or other concerns, they should have been raised then Ricky> and not months or years later. And there should have been at Ricky> least some discussion before removing the file and seeing who Ricky> notices. (If I missed this discussion, then I apologize.) Wording as interpreted by lawyers and anybody who is capable of reading English. As to your argument about raising the concerns when the thing went in. We (as in the kernel developers) made a mistake, we noticed it we fix it ... see it's really that simple. Jes