Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Brian T. Sniffen]

>> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed 
>> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions 
>> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it.  It is simply a 
>> matter of respect that is due the author.
>
> Respect is due; but it is up to Debian to decide how to show respect.

To be clear, Debian isn't talking about removing the GNU Manifesto
from even a single package.  The only question is what permissions are
granted to Debian and its users.  That none of us have any intention
of taking advantage of freedom to injure the original authors of this
software does not prevent us from recognizing whether we have such
freedom.

-Brian

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Nikita Danilov]

Hans Reiser writes:
 > Oleg Drokin wrote:
 > 
 > >Hello!
 > >
 > >On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:25:11PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
 > >
 > >  
 > >
 > >>If someone wants to create a boot program and/or screensaver that picks 
 > >>a random OS component to describe the authors of at boot time, that 
 > >>would be nicest of all.
 > >>
 > >>
 > >
 > >BTW, I just thought about it again and the screensaver code is here already 
 > >;)
 > >There is screensaver that displays random fortunes (executes fortune(6)).
 > >Create fortune's database consisting of credits information and you are 
 > >done.
 > >Also lots of systems execute fortune at login time.
 > >Insert credits database in the list of default databases (or run fortune -a)
 > >and you will get credits info for random stuff from time to time ;)
 > >Now we need to convice all the distromakers and create a way in
 > >which programs being installed add their credits to the common database.
 > >
 > >Bye,
 > >Oleg
 > >
 > >
 > >  
 > >
 > Would debian be willing to do this as the default screensaver?  I think 
 > it would be great if it did.
 > 

You also may want to take a look at
/usr/X11R6/lib/xscreensaver/phosphor, man 1 phosphor.

 > -- 
 > Hans
 > 
 > 

Nikita.

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Martin Schulze]

Hans Reiser wrote:
> Would debian be willing to do this as the default screensaver?  I think 
> it would be great if it did.

There is no such thing as a default screensaver except the console blanker.

Regards,

Joey

-- 
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it.  -- Donald E. Knuth

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Milan P. Stanic]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:50:35PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> >There is screensaver that displays random fortunes (executes fortune(6)).
> >Create fortune's database consisting of credits information and you are 
> >done.
[...]
> Would debian be willing to do this as the default screensaver?  I think 
> it would be great if it did.

Can I propose name Super-Ego for this screensaver if it doesn't have
one already? ;) 
 
Milan

Credits (Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...)

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:46:56PM +0400, Oleg Drokin wrote:

> BTW, I just thought about it again and the screensaver code is here
> already ;) There is screensaver that displays random fortunes (executes
> fortune(6)).  Create fortune's database consisting of credits information
> and you are done.  Also lots of systems execute fortune at login time.

This isn't an entirely silly idea.  It sounds like a good excuse for a
parseable copyright file.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Hans Reiser]

Oleg Drokin wrote:
Hello!
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:25:11PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
 

If someone wants to create a boot program and/or screensaver that picks 
a random OS component to describe the authors of at boot time, that 
would be nicest of all.
   

BTW, I just thought about it again and the screensaver code is here already 
;)
There is screensaver that displays random fortunes (executes fortune(6)).
Create fortune's database consisting of credits information and you are done.
Also lots of systems execute fortune at login time.
Insert credits database in the list of default databases (or run fortune -a)
and you will get credits info for random stuff from time to time ;)
Now we need to convice all the distromakers and create a way in
which programs being installed add their credits to the common database.
Bye,
   Oleg
 

Would debian be willing to do this as the default screensaver?  I think 
it would be great if it did.

--
Hans

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 12:25:11PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:

> If someone wants to create a boot program and/or screensaver that picks 
> a random OS component to describe the authors of at boot time, that 
> would be nicest of all.

BTW, I just thought about it again and the screensaver code is here already ;)
There is screensaver that displays random fortunes (executes fortune(6)).
Create fortune's database consisting of credits information and you are done.
Also lots of systems execute fortune at login time.
Insert credits database in the list of default databases (or run fortune -a)
and you will get credits info for random stuff from time to time ;)
Now we need to convice all the distromakers and create a way in
which programs being installed add their credits to the common database.

Bye,
Oleg

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Hans Reiser]

Andrew Saunders wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:24 +0400
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 

One could argue that if the "thief" had been unable to re-brand the
code, they never would have used it. If they had to have a prominent
notice advertising "We did not write this, Hans Reiser did" (only 24
times as long) every time their application started, they wouldn't touch
the code with a barge pole. Thus, the code is now in places where it
wouldn't have been before. This means greater penetration, albeit by the
back door.
If they want to leave off the credits, they can pay me for the 
privilege, or live with only the credit they deserve for their work.  
People who can't live with my credits on work they sell to others should 
pay.

 

Look at how many companies ripped off squid.
   

And yet, to the best of my knowledge, Squid have not changed their
license to prevent this recurring in the future.
There is no need to change the license, the companies violated the GPL, 
they didn't just strip the credits.  The need is to enforce the license, 
and nobody is bothering.  UC Santa Cruz University lawyers are not very 
interested in earning their living.  I reported it to them some time 
ago



--
Hans

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Andrew Saunders]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:24 +0400
Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> persons like me 
> are concerned that vendors will strip all information about who wrote 
> ReiserFS out except for copyright notices that none of their users
> will see, slap their brand identity onto it, and ship, depriving me of
> all credit for my work on their product. 

We seem to have slalomed across from talking about documentation to
about code, again. Ok.

Whilst I'm not personally advocating taking and re-branding code
(especially if its against upstream's wishes) the "ripping off" that you
speak so vehemently against isn't quite so bad as it may appear. In
fact, it can often be very advantageous to a project.

One could argue that if the "thief" had been unable to re-brand the
code, they never would have used it. If they had to have a prominent
notice advertising "We did not write this, Hans Reiser did" (only 24
times as long) every time their application started, they wouldn't touch
the code with a barge pole. Thus, the code is now in places where it
wouldn't have been before. This means greater penetration, albeit by the
back door.

"Depriving you of all credit" is an exaggeration. There's always going
to be some recognition gained. They cannot remove the copyright notice,
as you say. And again, since the code would not have been used at all if
large, blatant credits were a requirement, the alternative is zero
recognition because they would have done something else instead. They
might gain _more_ reputation from their immediate user-base than you,
but you still gain. And the more clueful hacker types will be the ones
who will read the copyright notices, anyway, and most probably come and
seek you out on their own.

Additionally, having taken the code and rebranded it, a prudent person
is highly unlikely to want to go to the trouble of maintaining the
codebase on their own. Even if they're being especially selfish and
don't want to contribute anything back, they'll definitely file bug
reports on any problems that they or their users find, because they'll
want them to be fixed. Again, net gain through increased testing.

Please note, I don't say that your view is invalid, merely that there is
an alternative view that seems to be quite widely spread. The above
involves sacrificing some very prominent visibility to the users of
those that do accept the more onerous licensing terms, in the hope of
garnering greater penetration, utilisation and development of the code
in the long term. 

> Look at how many companies ripped off squid.

And yet, to the best of my knowledge, Squid have not changed their
license to prevent this recurring in the future. I wonder why?

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Hans Reiser]

Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 11:00, Hans Reiser wrote:
 

Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
   

[...] could
apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts
that are unconscionable to the original author. [...]
 

(Note: I gave a specific example that involved insulting the original
author of the software)
 

Why is this a problem? [...]
   

At least too me, it seems to defeat the purpose of copyleft. If I didn't
mind if the document was made such that I couldn't use the
modifications, I would license it under a much simpler, much more direct
license like the MIT X11 one. Or just disclaim copyright interest in it
(i.e., put it in the public domain).
If I were to use the GFDL, my choices would be to not be able to use the
changes (so much for copyleft) or start an invariant section war, where
I add an invariant rebuttal.

 

That would give you a lot of incentive to write code that others would 
want to keep.  Sounds good to me.;-)

You have a choice of incentives:
1) money
2) ego
3) none.
You are choosing 3).  I know you won't choose 1).  I suggest you choose 
2), for all the reasons articulated in the Cathedral and the Bazaar.

If you are feeling sympathetic you might consider that persons like me 
are concerned that vendors will strip all information about who wrote 
ReiserFS out except for copyright notices that none of their users will 
see, slap their brand identity onto it, and ship, depriving me of all 
credit for my work on their product.  I say this, because that is 
exactly what slimy marketeers at startups do, and they do it a lot.  
Look at how many companies ripped off squid.

--
Hans

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op wo 23-04-2003, om 17:00 schreef Hans Reiser:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 
> >
> >Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could
> >apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
> >document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts
> >that are unconscionable to the original author. Something like an
> >invariant section on how the original author's coding style resembles
> >the intelligence of the infamous paper clip. And a cover text that
> >"Linux Sucks".
> >
> Why is this a problem? Seems to me that it is their right to do so, if 
> they make a contribution that nobody else wants to be without, they have 
> earned the moral right to insult the original author.

Well, it's your right to think so. But you have to understand that not
everyone feels that way; the fact that the GFDL can potentially be
abused into making the manual non-free *is* a problem.

In fact, this whole argument started because 'someone' felt insulted.

-- 
wouter at grep dot be
"An expert can usually spot the difference between a fake charge and a
full one, but there are plenty of dead experts." 
  -- National Geographic Channel, in a documentary about large African beasts.


signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal gesigneerd

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 11:00, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > [...] could
> >apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
> >document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts
> >that are unconscionable to the original author. [...]

(Note: I gave a specific example that involved insulting the original
author of the software)

> Why is this a problem? [...]

At least too me, it seems to defeat the purpose of copyleft. If I didn't
mind if the document was made such that I couldn't use the
modifications, I would license it under a much simpler, much more direct
license like the MIT X11 one. Or just disclaim copyright interest in it
(i.e., put it in the public domain).

If I were to use the GFDL, my choices would be to not be able to use the
changes (so much for copyleft) or start an invariant section war, where
I add an invariant rebuttal.

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Hans Reiser]

Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could
apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts
that are unconscionable to the original author. Something like an
invariant section on how the original author's coding style resembles
the intelligence of the infamous paper clip. And a cover text that
"Linux Sucks".
Why is this a problem? Seems to me that it is their right to do so, if 
they make a contribution that nobody else wants to be without, they have 
earned the moral right to insult the original author.


--
Hans

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 02:08, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge 
> him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who 
> use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits 
> who are discomforted.

Our current activities on the GFDL involve writing up a list of
objections to the license, to present to the FSF. We are doing this
before removing the software from Debian. I think this shows great
respect for Mr. Stallman and the FSF that we are spending a fair amount
of time forming a consensus about what we feel needs changing in the
GFDL, writing that down clearly, and sending it to him, all while
ignoring our own principles, spelled out in the DFSG, in the meantime.

It has nothing to do with wanting to remove the GNU Manifesto from the
EMACS manual; Debian, as a whole, certainly has no hatred of RMS or his
views. We even have a 'vrms' package in the distro. -legal just has a
disagreement with him over some details of the GFDL.

Consider that an Evil Company, say, starting with the letter 'M', could
apparently make its changes to the documentation of a GFDL-licensed
document near-proprietary by adding invariant sections and cover texts
that are unconscionable to the original author. Something like an
invariant section on how the original author's coding style resembles
the intelligence of the infamous paper clip. And a cover text that
"Linux Sucks".

> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed 
> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions 
> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it.  It is simply a 
> matter of respect that is due the author.

That the list of credits was completely removed from reiserfsprogs was
surely a mistake. I'm sure Ed will, or already has, fixed it, given that
Debian may continue to distribute reiserfsprogs. It should of been
included in /usr/share/doc.

However, the 20+ lines of credits on every run of mkreiserfs was
certainly removed on purpose and needed to be. There are a lot of
24-line terminals, not all with scroll back, and that makes a 20+ line
message a major problem. Especially since the time the admin is running
it is probably during major system maintainance or recovery, when stress
is quite high, and where being able to see what he has done already is
quite important. Especially since the credit message, being last would
cause the important technical messages, warnings, errors, etc. to scroll
off screen. 

Should the remove have been done in a different way? Quote possibly. An
alternative that springs to mind would be adding a --credits flag, and a
short (one-line) message to inform the user of that option.

I guess the basic question now is, does the license reiserfsprogs is
distributed under allow the above change?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Russell Coker]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:44, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:25:11 +0400, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> > for their actors.
>
>   Now imagine if ls or grep wanted the list of contributors to
>  be scrolled past, slowly, on every invocation, and insisted that
>  Debian was being disrespectful is not all the thousands of people who
>  have contributed to the GNU fileutils package be given due and proper
>  visibility for their stellar contribution to the free software
>  community.

I've contributed code to several POP servers.  Why can't we have a POP server 
put an email in every user's account with a list of everyone who contributed?  
:-#

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Michael Banck]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 08:07:19AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> Well, I certainly hope he doesn't want the kind of visibility that the
> studio and producer have. Can you imagine it?
> 
> # mkreiserfs
> 
> [clear screen]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N   A   M   E   S   Y   S
[...]

Dude, he should just link statically to aalib and present the credits
like any other movie. That could make for a nice visualization of
progress, too.

Michael

-- 
"However, this an unbelievably side issue even for -devel."
-- Daniel Martin

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:25:11 +0400, Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> for their actors. 

Now imagine if ls or grep wanted the list of contributors to
 be scrolled past, slowly, on every invocation, and insisted that
 Debian was being disrespectful is not all the thousands of people who
 have contributed to the GNU fileutils package be given due and proper
 visibility for their stellar contribution to the free software
 community. 

manoj
-- 
Bus error -- please leave by the rear door.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 10:08:57AM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge 
> him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who 
> use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits 
> who are discomforted.

> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed 
> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions 
> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it.  It is simply a 
> matter of respect that is due the author.

Thank you for making your position clear.  If it is your intention that
the license of your software be understood to prevent third parties from
removing this advertising material from the output of the program, I'm
sure that Debian will be more than willing to comply with your wishes by
removing your non-free software from our distribution.

> I will be happy to work with the FSF in recruiting other software 
> authors to this task of stemming plagiarism and political bowlderization 
> by distros before it becomes a bigger problem than it is now.

Get over yourself.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpigv5ly9KNX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Craig Dickson]

Florian Weimer wrote:

> Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> > for their actors.
> 
> So you are concerned with the missing ad when mkreiserfs runs?
> 
> In this case, your analogy is wrong.  The message does not give proper
> credit to developers (actors), but those who help to fund the
> development (the film studio, the producers or some VCs).

Well, I certainly hope he doesn't want the kind of visibility that the
studio and producer have. Can you imagine it?

# mkreiserfs

[clear screen]




N   A   M   E   S   Y   S


  and


H   A   N   S  R   E   I   S   E   R


  in association with


  M   P   3   .   C   O   M


present


  a


H   A   N   S  R   E   I   S   E   R


  production


of  a


H   A   N   S  R   E   I   S   E   R


   program



   M   K   R   E   I   S   E   R   FS

etc. etc. etc.


pgprJBDlSuJqd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[OT]Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[iain d broadfoot]

* Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:25, Hans Reiser wrote:
> > I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for
> > their actors.
> 
> 30 seconds after the movie ends the cinema is 95% empty and the credits are 
> only just started.  Only the first few names get seen, and those are the ones 
> that advertised the movie on the billboard (because most people only watch 
> movies that have well known actors).

personally, i always make a point of staying to the end of any credits -
apart from anything else, some films put 'bonus' footage after the
credits. :D

iain

-- 
wh33, y1p33 3tc.

"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly owned if it is
not shared." -St. Augustine

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Russell Coker]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 18:25, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for
> their actors.

30 seconds after the movie ends the cinema is 95% empty and the credits are 
only just started.  Only the first few names get seen, and those are the ones 
that advertised the movie on the billboard (because most people only watch 
movies that have well known actors).

> If someone wants to create a boot program and/or screensaver that picks
> a random OS component to describe the authors of at boot time, that
> would be nicest of all.

Sounds like a good idea.

But in the mean time could we summarise the list in one or two 80 column 
lines?

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Thomas Hood]

[Subject line shortened and cc: list cut down]

On Mon, 2003-04-21 at 08:08, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge 
> him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who 
> use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits 
> who are discomforted.

I, for one, am not ungrateful for the contributions that Richard
Stallman and you -- Hans Reiser -- have made.

If, however, you are saying that Debian can only use your work on the
condition that Debian becomes your mouthpiece, then I find that an
unacceptable demand.  No gratitude is due for software that comes
with such conditions attached.  Such a tainted offer should be
politely declined.

(By the way, I don't think that "suits" have a lot of influence over
what happens in Debian.  Debian developers are concerned, above all,
with making a free operating system.)

> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed 
> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions 
> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it.  It is simply a 
> matter of respect that is due the author.

Respect is due; but it is up to Debian to decide how to show respect.

The central question is this.  If you are not satisfied by Debian's
show of respect, what are you going to do about it?

Consistently with freedom you can write to the Debian maintainer,
complain on a mailing list, and so on.  Fine.  Hopefully an 
accommodation can be found.

If, on the other hand, you assert a legal right to be shown respect
in a way that you determine, then it becomes clear that your work
is not DFSG-free and so not distributable by Debian.

> ReiserFS will be converting to the Gnu Free Doc License for its 
> documentation. 
>
> I look forward to the release of GPL V3 which will hopefully cover fair 
> crediting of code as well as documentation, and stem this rising tide of 
> plagiarism and political bowlderization by distros.

I think it is altogether reasonable to require that the authors
of software be credited.  However, it must be up to Debian to
decide how to give that credit.

Bowlderization is the removal of content from works.  The issue
there is freedom of speech, not software freedom.  Free speech is
indeed important in all areas of life.  Debian should not interfere
with anyone's freedom of speech.  Notwithstanding this, Debian's
role is not that of soapbox for politically active programmers.
So, while Debian might choose to distribute this or that text
(unbowlderized!) as a service to its users, IMHO it should not under
any circumstances allow itself to be *compelled* to distribute any
text verbatim, no matter how attractive the software to which that
text is attached.  An exception is made for license texts.

DFSG 4 determines how far Debian can go to accommodate an author's
demand that his or her code be distributed unchanged.  Yes, Debian
will agree to distribute the original code, but only if the code
can be patched for building.  So, in the case of mkreiserfs: Yes,
Debian will agree to distribute the original code with its
excessively verbose credits message, but only if the message can
be omitted from the running program.  Out of respect for the
authors, Debian should also include the message in the doc directory
and under --version.  But if I were the maintainer I wouldn't go
any further than that.

> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies
> give for their actors.  I don't want the distro choosing how
> they are displayed because some distros do things like create
> boot time splash screens that tell about themselves instead
> of the authors, and so I have to say that their track record
> demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with that task.
> I think the authors should be the ones to decide how to list
> the credits.  Any end user should of course be free to delete
> all the credits he wants to.

It is becoming clearer that your software is not DFSG-free.

-- 
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Jarno Elonen]

> ["About" menu item]
> First time users go to them expecting to find out what
> the program does, and instead they get the name of the author and remain
> just as puzzled about what the program itself is for as they were
> before. I hate them.

I see.. :) It has become a GUI idiom though, so most people probably know 
already what an "About" box is.

> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for
> their actors.

An interesting point. However, a movie goer is prepared for five minutes of 
credits with entertaining music in the background before 2 hours of the 
actual movie but a person running a disk utility will probably find it quite 
distracting to see a lot of stuff unrelated to the task at hand. What she 
appreciates, is information about the process.

There are always quite a few programs involved in almost any task you make in 
Unix. If the kernel, disk driver, shell, sed, readline and disk utilities all 
wrote their credits while formatting a disk, the operating system would be 
nearly unusable. In that perspective, I hope you can understand why a Debian 
developer striving to put together a quality OS may consider it necessary to 
trim the output. A small amount of credits (perhaps pointing to a complete 
author list) is usually fine  but if it's more than, say, 5 lines.. It's a 
balancing act between respecting the original work of the software authors 
and the wishes and needs of the users.

What would you suggest as a solution?

> I don't want the distro choosing how they are displayed
> because some distros do things like create boot time splash screens that
> tell about themselves instead of the authors, and so I have to say that
> their track record demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with that
> task.

Mm.. I guess such splash screens are made mainly for two reasons: making their 
marketing easier and because novice users feel intimidated by screenfulls of 
text at startup. I agree that the first reason can be seen as a disrespectful 
act but the coin also has another side: compelling marketing of free 
operating systems helps giving them a wider audience, which is good for the 
distributed software, too.

> If someone wants to create a boot program and/or screensaver that picks
> a random OS component to describe the authors of at boot time, that
> would be nicest of all.

Yes, that's certainly a nice idea. (It would also mask the Linux driver's 
credits though, but at least they would get the same treatment as the rest of 
the system.)

- Jarno

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Florian Weimer]

Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give
> for their actors.

So you are concerned with the missing ad when mkreiserfs runs?

In this case, your analogy is wrong.  The message does not give proper
credit to developers (actors), but those who help to fund the
development (the film studio, the producers or some VCs).

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Hans Reiser]

Jarno Elonen wrote:
the frontend's "About" box?
 

"About" buttons are an abomination, like the term open source, they 
gutlessly pretend to be what they are not in an attempt to please by 
dissembling.;-)  First time users go to them expecting to find out what 
the program does, and instead they get the name of the author and remain 
just as puzzled about what the program itself is for as they were 
before.  I hate them.  I never click on them.

I want the same visibility of credits for reiserfs that movies give for 
their actors.  I don't want the distro choosing how they are displayed 
because some distros do things like create boot time splash screens that 
tell about themselves instead of the authors, and so I have to say that 
their track record demonstrates that they cannot be trusted with that 
task.  I think the authors should be the ones to decide how to list the 
credits.  Any end user should of course be free to delete all the 
credits he wants to.

If someone wants to create a boot program and/or screensaver that picks 
a random OS component to describe the authors of at boot time, that 
would be nicest of all.

--
Hans

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Jarno Elonen]

We are having a small debate about wheter a user has freedom to modify code of 
free software when it concerns where a long version of author & sponsor list 
is displayed. It has also been speculated that GPL v3 will have a say on 
this. Could elaborate what will be in it?

(The following message was first sent to RMS directly, but thankfully his old 
address bounced. There probably are others of you in the GNU project who can 
answer this as well.)



> (Hans Reiser wrote:)
> I look forward to the release of GPL V3 which will hopefully cover fair
> crediting of code as well as documentation, and stem this rising tide of
> plagiarism and political bowlderization by distros.

I think nobody here has anything against keeping all the credits in 
documentation or trying to take the credit for ReiserFS tools.
The problem now seems to be that:

  if the program outputs a long credits & thanks list in a very uncomfortable
  place such as startup, can a free software license really *prohibit
  modifying the code* so that the listing is moved behind a switch,
  "about" menu item or such?

IMHO, it is reasonable to demand that all credits must be "easily accessible" 
in derived works but not that a long list appears *before the program does 
anything useful* - it both hinders the usability of the program and severely 
restricts the freedom to modify the code.

Hans: Would you consider it a breach of your license if your program is 
modified so that the long credits list is shown in some other place than in 
the original works? Must graphical frontends also parse the output and popup 
a message box or something containing the credits OR would you be happy if 
they are listed in the frontend's "About" box?

RMS: Will GPL v3 take a new stance on this issue as has been speculated?

- Jarno

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Jarno Elonen]

> (Hans Reiser wrote:)
> I look forward to the release of GPL V3 which will hopefully cover fair
> crediting of code as well as documentation, and stem this rising tide of
> plagiarism and political bowlderization by distros.

I think nobody here has anything against keeping all the credits in 
documentation or trying to take the credit for ReiserFS tools.
The problem now seems to be that:

  if the program outputs a long credits & thanks list in a very uncomfortable
  place such as startup, can a free software license really *prohibit
  modifying the code* so that the listing is moved behind a switch,
  "about" menu item or such?

IMHO, it is reasonable to demand that all credits must be "easily accessible" 
in derived works but not that a long list appears *before the program does 
anything useful* - it both hinders the usability of the program and severely 
restricts the freedom to modify the code.

Hans: Would you consider it a breach of your license if your program is 
modified so that the long credits list is shown in some other place than in 
the original works? Must graphical frontends also parse the output and popup 
a message box or something containing the credits OR would you be happy if 
they are listed in the frontend's "About" box?

RMS: Will GPL v3 take a new stance on this issue as has been speculated?

- Jarno

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free...

[Thomas Viehmann]

Hi Hans.

How about setting the "feelings towards Stallman" issue aside for a moment an
focusing on the problem of how Debian handles the credits in you program.

I'm not sure whether, for example, moving the Credits to sponsors from being
displayed by the programs themselves to the man page and / or the
usr/share/doc/reiserfsprogs directory would be an option for Debian. Also, a
note about where to find credits could be displayed upon invocation of the
reiserfs tools. Another option would be displaying it with --version.
The reason those were removed from the executable seems to be usability. (I.e.
no displaying a whole page when - as in most cases those tools are used -
working in a critical (fs corruption or similar) environment.

Also, if you would ask specifically to include files a, b, c from the source
tarball (and the README file seems to be obmitted in the packages by an honest
mistake - in fact, obmitting documentation files from the tarballs root
directory is all too common in Debian), I'm 100% certain, that this would be
done very soon.

If you don't want you tools to be not distributed without displaying these
credits in all invocations, you should also clearly state this. Then Debian
could decide what to make of it, but right know they have the problem that they
don't know what you want, other than a vage "you don't give proper credit".
Generally, Debian makes every effort (the developers, that is) to ensure that
Copyright is respected.

While I can understand that you're upset about the present reiserfs packages in
Debian, I have to say that neither your nor the Debian peoples' messages have
done much to resolve the issue.

Now, if you prefer to debate the issue Debian has with the Gnu FDL, that's OK,
too, but doing so by complaining "why are all you guys disrespecting Stallman"
in a that *could* have been about properly including credits for reiserfs tools
doesn't help at all.

Cheers

T.


pgpnBwWhkqmAp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Russell Coker]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 16:08, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge
> him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who
> use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits
> who are discomforted.
>
> As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed
> for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions
> from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it.  It is simply a
> matter of respect that is due the author.

Hans, you are going way off-track here.

No-one in the Debian project has any desire to deny correct attribution to the 
people who deserve it.

However there are technical issues.  When recovering a system you have a 
limited scroll-back buffer that you don't want to have needlessly overrun by 
such material.

When you choose to discuss the matter politely with the right people then I am 
sure that you will be able to determine a suitable solution that gives 
appropriate credit where due in the minimum amount of screen space.

If you find that it is impossible to reach an agreement then you can forward 
the relevant paragraphs of their messages where you believe that they are not 
being reasonable to the appropriate mailing lists and then we can determine 
who is correct and act accordingly.

-- 
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/   My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/  Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/  My home page

If Debian decides that the Gnu Free Doc License is not free then I will be honored to join Stallman and the FSF in the not free section of your distro

[Hans Reiser]

I find it unspeakably ingrateful to Stallman that some of you begrudge 
him his right to express his (discomforting to some) views to all who 
use his software, and to ensure that they are not removed by those suits 
who are discomforted.

As far as I am concerned, I have no desire to have ReiserFS distributed 
for free by anyone who removes the GNU manifesto or similar expressions 
from Stallman's work (or my own) and redistributes it.  It is simply a 
matter of respect that is due the author.

ReiserFS will be converting to the Gnu Free Doc License for its 
documentation. 

I look forward to the release of GPL V3 which will hopefully cover fair 
crediting of code as well as documentation, and stem this rising tide of 
plagiarism and political bowlderization by distros.

I will be happy to work with the FSF in recruiting other software 
authors to this task of stemming plagiarism and political bowlderization 
by distros before it becomes a bigger problem than it is now.

Hans