Re: fvwm(1): replace GPL-licensed code, fix bugs and add improvements

Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> writes:

> 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...

I am even more convinced now that this is LLM generated and should not
be merged because the provenance is even more fishy.