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
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,
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
to Hans Reiser in the source code
when all the end user gets to see is that this software is called company X.
I think people need to be more sensitive to the feelings of people that put
such a huge amount of heart and soul into their software and not be so quick
in dismissing their concerns
what is written in the GPL.
and it is these people who are going against the spirit of the GPL.
What is the point of having the code copyrighted to Hans Reiser in
the source code when all the end user gets to see is that this
software is called company X.
It's a problem of degrees
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
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
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
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
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
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
of the novel.
The latter, it doesn't matter how well the credits are buried, the
presumed targets will be served.
So as a compromise can we have
hansreiserfs* as the prefix on all packages.
HANSREISER as the prefix on all executables, kernel symbols, fstypes...
Frequent use of bold and blink for the text HANS
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
think it works against the
societal interest to not attribute accurately. Saying that plagiarism
is an important freedom is like saying assault is something you must be
allowed to do if you are to be considered free.
Hans
MJ Ray wrote:
On 2004-05-04 17:20:56 +0100 Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED
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
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.
I just modified the Reiser4 license to be the following:
The Anti-Plagiarism License
Pre-amble:
At the time of writing (2004), distros commonly remove, diminish, or obscure
the credits of original authors from many programs so as to ensure that the
user has brand awareness primarily of the
I don't think my clarifications of what is a derivative work conflicted
with the GPL, they merely make it less vague as to what is a derivative
work. The notion that if something is linked determines whether it is
derivative has no basis in either copyright law or the GPL. rms,
correct me if
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
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
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
The License: The Anti-plagiarism license is the Gnu Public License Version 2
with the following modification: you may not modify, remove, or obscure any
credits in the software unless your modification causes those credits to
remain
equally
, and maintains the transaction manager code.
We give
him the stuff that we know will be hard to debug, or needs to be very
cleanly
structured.
BigStorage (www.bigstorage.com) contributes to our general fund every
month,
and has done so for quite a long time.
Nikita Danilov wrote:
Hans Reiser
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
(), the V3 alpha port,
part of
the V3 journal relocation code, and helped Hans keep the business
side of
things running.
Humberto Massa wrote:
@ 06/05/2004 15:29 : wrote Hans Reiser :
I just modified the Reiser4 license to be the following:
The Anti-Plagiarism License
etc.
Mr
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
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.
Humberto Massa wrote:
(and I'm assuming reiser4, for instance, is a derived work of the
linux kernel),
ReiserFS is not, it was created with the intent to port to other
operating systems, and at least one of our customers has done so for V3,
and I hope/expect others and I will do so for V4.
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
Humberto, I thought about it a bit more, and probably you are right in
your analysis of what makes things derived or not derived, and what the
legal consequence of that is.
Hans
Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just modified the Reiser4 license to be the following:
The License: The Anti-plagiarism license is the Gnu Public License
Version 2 with the following modification: you may not modify,
remove, or obscure any credits
is a modification that you dislike because it
doesn't praise you enough.
To be fair, these credits really do seem to be for others. Some of
them are credits *and* ads, and at least one is an ad for work for
Hans Reiser and Namesys, but they are credits as well, and most of
them for other people
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
Raul Miller wrote:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 09:23:10AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Q: Where is the limit between displaying the credits where the user won't
necessarily see them, and forcing the user to read them?
Likely Answer: Umm...
Actual Answer: ???
Other things to consider:
I think Humberto is correct in his analysis of what makes something
derivative. By the logic of that analysis though, reiserfs can be
distributed even if it is licensed differently from the rest of the kernel
because it is not derivative of it (It can be ported to other operating
systems, and
On Monday 10 May 2004 18:49, Walter Landry wrote:
So whenever the poll worker initializes the mini-CD, they have to
mentally remove the credits before they can parse the results of the
filesystem initialization. Poll workers are more likely to make
mistakes if they have to do this, so the
Jeff Davis wrote:
As far as Debian is concerned, I don't think you give them quite enough
credit. Those people just want a base of freedoms which a normal person
can understand that covers all the software. It's very helpful to have
an OS where you don't have to turn a development project
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I pondered the whole credits question for a bit last night, and I realized
that (a) I could account for at least the last 75 'mkfs' commands I had caused
to run, and (b) of those 75, exactly *one* did *not* have all of its output
swallowed by 'anaconda' during a
Burnes, James wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Yes, I believe that, and that is my concern.
I can understand that. That's why I'm working on the 'creditsd'
infrastructure. Decoupling the credit content from the visual aspect of
the program's performance makes the following
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 10:57:01 PDT, Hans Reiser said:
Random credits are the elegant answer. Displaying only the distro name
at boot time is morally wrong.
Would be nice - the RedHat/Fedora GUI installer already supports showing the
current install status
43 matches
Mail list logo
