Re: fvwm(1): replace GPL-licensed code, fix bugs and add improvements
Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> Mon, 3 Aug 2026 22:25:11 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.openbsd.tech |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2026/08/03 17:12, David Uhden Collado wrote: > Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2026/08/02 23:23, David Uhden Collado wrote: > > > I separated this work because the provenance and independence of the > > > replacement implementations require more careful review than ordinary > > > bug fixes. > > > > What _is_ the provenance of the replacement code implementations? > > > Robert Nation, Tom LaStrange, Charles Hines, Brady Montz, Dan Espen, Steve > Robbins, Paul Smith, Jason Tibbitts, Dominik Vogt, Bob Woodside, Maciej > Stachowiak, Greg J. Badros, and Andrew T. Veliath are free to pursue the > matter through the proper legal channels if they genuinely believe that I > have infringed their copyright. Since none of them appears to be based in > Spain, they would also have to establish jurisdiction and pursue the > corresponding international proceedings. > > A claimant would still need to prove ownership of the specific code at > issue, identify the allegedly copied expression, demonstrate actual > infringement rather than mere functional similarity, and establish > measurable damages caused by my non-commercial work. Unsupported accusations > and speculative threats are not evidence. > > I have no intention of being intimidated into abandoning independently > rewritten code merely because somebody invokes the GPL without demonstrating > what was supposedly copied, who owns it, or what legally actionable harm > occurred. If anyone believes they have a valid claim, they can present it > formally and prove it. Huh? Just asking where the code in your jumbo diff came from. I was hoping for something like "I wrote it myself" (although half expecting "some LLM wrote it"). This very defensive rules-lawyer-ish statement does not fill me with confidence that this is code which OpenBSD can incorporate. Also there's your earlier "In order for FVWM to remain in the base system, a fork must be created and maintained" - well no. It could also remain how it is now...