On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 09:20:56AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
It seems an apt description of how some XFree86 developers reacted to
questions. They went dumb. Other XFree86 developers were helpful, but
they are not the reason I plan to stop using it, so I do not
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:56:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-03 15:24:00 +0100 Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rememer that an ad-clause usually does not render a work non-free,
just incompatible with the GPL. [...]
An ad-clause usually applies to documentation or advertising
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 08:50:26AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
I would really like Debian to understand the difference between credits
and ads. Credits describe someone's contribution to the project. Ads
describe some product for you to buy. Very different things.
Adds can be for people,
In fact, on first glance, I'm not sure that I understand the difference
between Debian's inclusion of software which triggers GPL 2c (such as bc)
and a similar clause for non-interactive programs. Maybe I'm missing some
previous discussion?
Here is an example of a 2(c) notice:
[EMAIL
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to understand the difference between credit and
advertisement as advertisements are credits for those you dislike.
You seem to understand the difference between modification and
plagiarism as plagiarism is a
Hans Reiser wrote:
They often don't realize that I am
responsible for basic architectural features, like the idea of
aggregating small files together rather than always page aligning them,
Doesn't NTFS (invented in the early '90s) do this?
--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL, IANADD
Hans Reiser wrote
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to understand the difference between credit and
advertisement as advertisements are credits for those you dislike.
You seem to understand the difference between modification and
Dawson, Larry wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to understand the difference between credit and
advertisement as advertisements are credits for those you dislike.
You seem to understand the
Hans Reiser wrote
Dawson, Larry wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to understand the difference between credit and
advertisement as advertisements are credits for those
you dislike.
Burnes, James wrote:
It disturbs me that such a great piece of software engineering like
ReiserV3 and V4 is sullied by licensing arguments about whether someone
is going to plagiarize them.
I imagine that nearly all software engineers would be horrified at the
thought of stealing the
Hans Reiser wrote:
Burnes, James wrote:
Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
Credits that users must take action to
Russ Allbery wrote:
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find it unlikely that people intelligent enough to write software as
complex as Apache, Sendmail, Linux, Thunderbird, etc. would license
their software under a license they haven't fully read, or don't fully
understand. I (and,
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Burnes, James wrote:
3. Is it that you simply want an efficient mechanism for cataloging
efforts of the major contributors to a project? If that's the case why
don't we just come up with some sort of credits standard to be macro
embedded in the
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-04 18:47:02 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable
in the view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Can someone give a conclusive statement of what actually happened? The
Joe Wreschnig wrote:
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:54, Hans Reiser wrote:
When you go to the opera, they don't come on stage and say buy XYZ, but
they do say something prominent on the brochure like we thank the
generous ABC corporation for making this evening happen. Debian should
follow
Hans Reiser writes:
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-04 18:47:02 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable
in the view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Can someone give a conclusive
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:16:50PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Burnes, James wrote:
3. Is it that you simply want an efficient mechanism for cataloging
efforts of the major contributors to a project? If that's the case why
don't we just
A typical example:
/sbin/mkreiserfs -V
mkreiserfs 3.6.9 (2003 www.namesys.com)
A pair of credits:
Alexander Zarochentcev (zam) wrote the high low priority locking code,
online
resizer for V3 and V4, online repacker for V4, block allocation code,
and major
parts of the flush code, and
Vitaly, change the paragraph Nikita complained of to:
Continuing core development of ReiserFS is mostly paid for by Hans
Reiser from
money made selling licenses in addition to the GPL to companies who
don't want
it known that they use ReiserFS as a foundation for their proprietary
product.
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
A couple comments (that I may not be remembering properly) seemed to
imply that these credits are part of a revenue generating model. Folks
who wish to require users to see their name in conjunction with ReiserFS
may purchase this control over what ReiserFS users see
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:34:46PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Please consider my distinction between a credit (public television in
the USA has them), and an ad (for profit broadcast television has them).
Both are ads. One just makes a poor attempt at failing to mention an
actual product
Chris Dukes wrote:
2) Get all of the reiserfs copyright holders to sign off on using the license.
I have licensing rights to all of reiserfs in all versions.
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:54:22PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Chris Dukes wrote:
2) Get all of the reiserfs copyright holders to sign off on using the
license.
I have licensing rights to all of reiserfs in all versions.
You do not have copyright on code contributions that came from
Chris Dukes wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 12:54:22PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Chris Dukes wrote:
2) Get all of the reiserfs copyright holders to sign off on using the
license.
I have licensing rights to all of reiserfs in all versions.
You do not have copyright on
Jamin W. Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:16:50PM +0200, Martin Dickopp wrote:
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Burnes, James wrote:
3. Is it that you simply want an efficient mechanism for cataloging
efforts of the major contributors to a
On 2004-05-06 19:53:10 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Show me the line in those credits where it said buy Coca-Cola
cheaper here.
They were credits, not advertisements.
Someone else has given the most extreme example of this. I thank them.
Can you supply their full verbatim
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to understand the difference between credit and
advertisement as advertisements are credits for those you dislike.
You seem to understand the difference between modification and
plagiarism as plagiarism is a modification that you dislike because it
On 2004-05-07 00:21:32 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to understand the difference between modification and
plagiarism as plagiarism is a modification that you dislike because
it
doesn't praise you enough.
To be fair, these
Lewis Jardine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I find it unlikely that people intelligent enough to write software as
complex as Apache, Sendmail, Linux, Thunderbird, etc. would license
their software under a license they haven't fully read, or don't fully
understand. I (and, in my opinion, any
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GPL is actually a rather interesting case here, since it *does*
require the preservation of credits, and in a way that I believe
Debian finds acceptably free.
2c of the GPL is actually somewhat controversial. I don't know whether
anyone actually
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
| of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
| distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
| above, provided that you also meet all of these
Le Tue, May 04, 2004, Ã 01:18:35PM -0600, Burnes, James a écrit:
4. How about this for a self-referential solution to the problem. In
ReiserV4, you could view the ReiserV4 credits by simply looking at the
credits meta properties in reiser4.o or any other software. Sounds like
a good idea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
First and foremost: Hans, this is your project. Someone willing to
replace entire APIs with things that feel like files is obviously not
afraid of creating something new. So at the end of the day, it
shouldn't matter too much that it's in Debian
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-03 22:53:05 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions about
^^^
Hey, can you do anything else but insult people?
I'm not sure what you
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
Sadly, your invariant section-inspired changes to the GPL cause
other problems, which seem similar to combining an ad-clause licence
with the GPL.
Rememer that an ad-clause usually does not render a work non-free,
just incompatible with the GPL.
On 2004-05-03 15:24:00 +0100 Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rememer that an ad-clause usually does not render a work non-free,
just incompatible with the GPL. [...]
An ad-clause usually applies to documentation or advertising supplied with
the software, not the software package itself,
On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:56:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-03 15:24:00 +0100 Claus Färber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rememer that an ad-clause usually does not render a work non-free,
just incompatible with the GPL. [...]
An ad-clause usually applies to documentation or advertising
Markus Törnqvist wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:35:12AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
No, that certainly is an option. Relocating the credits to somewhere
reasonable for a particular installer is just fine with me.
Let's see what the Debian people say about showing the complete
You miss the point. I get plenty of credit because of the filesystem
name. It is everybody else who gets shortchanged unless we print a
randomly chosen 1 paragraph credit at mkreiser4 time.
Hans
Chris Dukes wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:49:10PM +0300, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
It seems an apt description of how some XFree86 developers reacted to
questions. They went dumb. Other XFree86 developers were helpful, but
they are not the reason I plan to stop using it, so I do not blame them.
I understand why they lost interest in
On 2004-05-04 17:20:56 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understand why they lost interest in talking to persons who cannot
grasp
that distros removed mention of them from their man pages and this
was wrong.
That's actually irrelevant in that case. Their advertising clause is
There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable software.
The two are orthogonal concepts.
Debian wants software to be both free and plagiarizable. XFree86 and I
want our software to be free but not plagiarizable. In general, I want
software to not be plagiarizable, as I
* Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-05-04 09:20]:
I sent them a thanks for being brave enough to take on the task of
changing licensing mores and forcing distros to attribute, and I got
a response.;-)
I wonder if you're aware that virtually every distro is moving away
from XFree86.
--
On 2004-05-04 18:02:28 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable
software.
There is a difference between free software and forced-advert
software, too. There is also the difference between a duck.
Debian wants software to be
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You miss the point. I get plenty of credit because of the filesystem
name. It is everybody else who gets shortchanged unless we print a
randomly chosen 1 paragraph credit at mkreiser4 time.
I'm not a Debian developer. But I don't understand your
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-05-04 09:20]:
I sent them a thanks for being brave enough to take on the task of
changing licensing mores and forcing distros to attribute, and I got
a response.;-)
I wonder if you're aware that virtually every distro is
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable
software. The two are orthogonal concepts.
Debian wants software to be both free and plagiarizable. XFree86 and
I want our software to be free but not plagiarizable. In general, I
want
MJ Ray wrote:
XFree86 and I want our software to be free but not plagiarizable.
Great! I look forward to you both fixing your licences.
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable in
the view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Assault is
When you go to the opera, they don't come on stage and say buy XYZ, but
they do say something prominent on the brochure like we thank the
generous ABC corporation for making this evening happen. Debian should
follow that model, it works and is morally right to do.
On 2004-05-04 18:47:02 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable
in the
view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Can someone give a conclusive statement of what actually happened? The
bug report
On 2004-05-04 18:40:49 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Michlmayr wrote:
I wonder if you're aware that virtually every distro is moving away
from XFree86.
They don't want to attribute. It is contrary to the distro brand
awareness
monopilization interest.
I look forward to
On Tue, 2004-05-04 at 12:54, Hans Reiser wrote:
When you go to the opera, they don't come on stage and say buy XYZ, but
they do say something prominent on the brochure like we thank the
generous ABC corporation for making this evening happen. Debian should
follow that model, it works and
I think a bit of confusion's developed as to just what people are
after. That's silly stupid, so I'm going to try to be very precise
(anal, even) about language in this message. Be warned. ;)
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable
It disturbs me that such a great piece of software engineering like
ReiserV3 and V4 is sullied by licensing arguments about whether someone
is going to plagiarize them.
I imagine that nearly all software engineers would be horrified at the
thought of stealing the Reiser3 and 4 code and
Burnes, James wrote:
(1) Everytime the kernel invokes kmod, the kmod team brays about how
great they are.
(2) Everytime someone opens a dynamic library, it shouts about how great
it is.
(3) Everytime your email program starts up, it delays for 20 seconds
while it advertises for the team. Of
Markus Törnqvist wrote:
Probably, but I fail to see how allowing the user to turn off the
DARPA message decreases the end user's knowledge of who funded it.
Credits unread are credits unknown.
The problem is not the end user, the problem is that distros do it
without the end
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 18:04, Hans Reiser wrote:
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 22:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my knowledge)
in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz.
oh, well, that is almost as good
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 18:04, Hans Reiser wrote:
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 22:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my knowledge)
in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz.
Markus Törnqvist wrote:
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:11:29AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Credits unread are credits unknown.
The problem is not the end user, the problem is that distros do it
without the end user ever knowing that there was something to turn off.
Mayhaps. But
: reiser4 non-free?
Martin List-Petersen wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-02 at 22:55, Don Armstrong wrote:
Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my
knowledge)
in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz.
oh, well, that is almost as good as putting them on the dark side
Burnes, James wrote:
Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
Credits that users must take action to see are not effective
Hans Reiser said on Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:35:39AM -0700,:
Stallman is experimenting with methods of requiring crediting,
Huh? After terming the BSD-with advertising-clause license `obnoxious'?
credits. Actually, I think that requiring that the credits be
equally prominent and
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:49:10PM +0300, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
[SNEEPAGE]
Perhaps this is overly cynical but...
In this day and age people only seem to care about proper attribution
when either
1) Looking for another garbage novel to read.
2) Looking for someone to sue.
The former seems to be
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Markus Törnqvist wrote:
Also, if every software showed their credits, there would easily be
a ton of them.
This is bad why? They could be interesting for users to read while
the install proceeds.
Indeed, it would be far more interesting to read
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 18:41, Burnes, James wrote:
Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
That way you could simply do an MD5
On Mon, 03 May 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
I have never seen a journal reproduce another journal's article
while deleting the mention of the funding agency. That kind of
abuse seems reserved for linux distros to practice.
Yes, but one of the reasons why they don't have to is because people
On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 14:16, Mahesh T. Pai wrote:
Hans Reiser said on Mon, May 03, 2004 at 09:35:39AM -0700,:
credits. Actually, I think that requiring that the credits be
equally prominent and retain their wording is quite flexible for
that purpose already, but please inform
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Burnes, James wrote:
Is there any way to do an MD5 of either (1) each module in a software
subsystem or (2) each software version and then have a central registry
where interested developers and users can go to see the credits?
Credits that users must
This email spoke much about forcing. To me, forcing is almost always
compulsion. That's not really what Reiser or Debian can do to each
other. The only thing I see that can be compelled is for Debian not to
distribute Reiser's software at all, if it goes under totally
no-copying terms.
On
On 2004-05-03 17:35:39 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Copyright notices have
a specific place in Debian, and are always placed there.
Moving them would violate the law.
What law?
Furthermore, we expect copyright notices to also indicate the terms
under which they are (or are
On 2004-05-03 18:30:53 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Debian would pro-actively find effective and reasonably ways to
credit
authors, then the tension would come out of this situation
It is difficult to be pro-active when having to react to developers.
Also, reasonable is
On 2004-05-03 22:53:05 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions
about
^^^
Hey, can you do anything else but insult people?
I'm not sure what you mean. I've reread the
Steve Langasek wrote:
It doesn't add, it clarifies. i.e. if you build a clustered file
system that does stuff specific to reiserfs (e.g. use the reiser4
syscall), then that will be considered a derived work, and must be
distributable under the GPL.
Sure, you could go to court and
On 2004-04-30 18:13:09 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
You just ignored the bit where he forbids supression of the
credits
banner?
I am flexible on the phrasing of this, and can allow some phrasing
such as
credits must be kept equally prominent and extensive.
On 2004-04-30 18:07:08 +0100 David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| require attribution in a particular format and with a particular
text,
| that's fine, but non-free.
This seems entirely too black-and-white to me.
Fine, go debate it somewhere. This is off-topic for debian-legal and
MJ Ray wrote:
I don't know what RedHat and KDE have to do with Debian and ReiserFS.
I can look at them and I see red headwear and a cogged letter. Not
really informative. Various startups also has little to do with
debian, although if you discriminate against them just because they
are
Who the hell do you think you are to use market leveraging to force
developers to use licenses they don't want that leave them exposed to
dangers that endanger them not you?
Have you expended 2-3 million dollars and a decade of your life only to
find yourself 100,000 dollars in debt and
On Sun, 02 May 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
Who the hell do you think you are to use market leveraging to force
developers to use licenses they don't want that leave them exposed
to dangers that endanger them not you?
Could the personal attacks please be toned down?
We aren't in the business of
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:33:51PM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs?
None. There is no alternative actually.
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This
Someone posted the following on slashdot, presumably a debian someone:
Nobody's saying that your proprietary hardware will cease to work in
Debian. The packages will still exist; they'll just be in the
non-free section, separated out so that people who don't want any
non-free
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
So hopefully, Debian can print out some nice warning that Reiser4 is
not plagiarizable, and if the user indicates that they still want to
use it anyway, they can go forward.
We have to ascertain as well that we can even legally distribute
it. Assuming
On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 05:32, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
Also, a clustering file system built to work on top of this file
system shall be considered a derivative work for the purposes of
interpreting the GPL license granted herein. Plugins are also to be
considered derivative works. Share
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
So hopefully, Debian can print out some nice warning that Reiser4 is
not plagiarizable, and if the user indicates that they still want to
use it anyway, they can go forward.
We have to ascertain as well that we can even
I just want to add that I am very grateful to Domenico for the work he
has done in trying to aid integration.
It is a pity that Debian and Suse historically silently cut the
attributions (this was before Domenico got involved with us) rather than
engaging us in a dialogue about them first,
On 2004-04-30 13:02:19 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is a pity that Debian and Suse historically silently cut the
attributions
I think you will find that Debian would leave the copyright
attribution notices, warranty disclaimer and statement of licence.
Doing otherwise is a
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs?
None. There is no alternative actually.
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a
disagreement
On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 04:48 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
Putting Stallman's (or FSF's) work in the non-free section of your
distribution is the lack of respect and gratitude that I speak of.
No, that would be nothing to do with respect or gratitude; but a simple
licence problem. We require
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs?
None. There is no alternative actually.
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
which method of ensuring attribution is correct and
Is this the licencing in question?
###
Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
a front end that hides my credits from the user or renaming mkreiser4
to mkyourcompanyfs or even just make_filesystem,
On 2004-04-30 17:26:50 +0100 Michael Milverton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read this as meaning the following. Nobody is allowed to take the
product
that we produce and rename it into something else, thereby making it
look as
though it really belongs to someone else.
You just ignored the
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jeremy Hankins wrote:
Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a
disagreement about whether or not it is appropriate to force
attribution according
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
Just as, when you
require attribution in a particular format and with a particular text,
that's fine, but non-free.
Actually, I would be happy to use language not requiring a particular
format but requiring it to be equally prominent and extensive for all
Michael, you are much more eloquent than I am. Thanks for understanding.
Hans
Michael Milverton wrote:
Is this the licencing in question?
###
Finally, nothing in this license shall be interpreted to allow you to
fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits such as by creating
a front
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| It is entirely within your rights as copyright holder to push whatever
| social agenda you wish with your software license -- but debian-legal's
| position is that that will make the license non-free. If you wish to
| require that it not be used
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-04-30 17:26:50 +0100 Michael Milverton
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read this as meaning the following. Nobody is allowed to take the
product that we produce and rename it into something else, thereby
making it look as though it really belongs to someone else.
You
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Hans Reiser wrote:
Putting Stallman's (or FSF's) work in the non-free section of your
distribution is the lack of respect and gratitude that I speak of.
That perhaps is unfortunate, but we have expended extreme amounts of
effort in attempting to get both yourself and the
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Stewart Smith wrote:
It doesn't add, it clarifies. i.e. if you build a clustered file
system that does stuff specific to reiserfs (e.g. use the reiser4
syscall), then that will be considered a derived work, and must be
distributable under the GPL.
The clarification really
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, David Masover wrote:
I think there should be a similar option with licenses -- from
free to microsoft, including things in between such as djb or
reiser style licenses.
Right now, there's only free and non-free. If I am human and
sane, my _only_ choice is probably
David == David Masover [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
David Basically, by having free and non-free, you lump everything
David together into free as in absolutely, strictly, lilly-white,
David no-strings-attached freedom, while non-free covers everything
David from reiser (free, as above, with
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:34:11PM +1000, Stewart Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 05:32, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
Also, a clustering file system built to work on top of this file
system shall be considered a derivative work for the purposes of
interpreting the GPL license granted
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
