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

Simon Wollwage <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
> 

I don't care if it is created by a LLM or not.  What bothers is who this
is coming from.  There was a rant which completely fails to understand
that the continued open-ness of our project depends upon known
provenance and correct attribution of every item, and then completely
turns the issue upside down.

I believe the cautious process going forward would be wariness,
and never allow anything large into the tree from David Uhden Collado.

I will not spend one second more on this.