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 o
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
> 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 PRO
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,
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 a
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 di
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 differenc
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
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 mod
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
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 beca
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 p
"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 c
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
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
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 12:34:46PM -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 maki
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 (i.e
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.
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 maint
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
> >> d
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 gi
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 th
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
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
>> embedde
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
>> understan
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 tak
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
-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 N
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 ide
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
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
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
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 cour
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 representin
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 plagiariza
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
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 t
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 1525
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.
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
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
> w
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:
> 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 ea
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]> [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.
--
M
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 think
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
a
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 talk
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:
[SNEEPAGE]
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 credi
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
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
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.
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 n
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 e
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"
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 n
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
OK, so say RedHat did bad. I don't use RedHat for years, which is the
only way users can effectively respond. I plan to stop using XFree86
because of its dumb developers who won't answer simple questions about
^^^
Hey, can
On Mon, 03 May 2004 09:58:30 +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Markus
=?UNKNOWN?Q?T=F6rnqvist?=) said:
> It's really quite a shame that the best distro around is so rigid
> as to not allow Reiser's minor, and understandable, addition in
> his licensing.
The idiomatic phrase for this is "slippery slope"
MJ Ray wrote:
[at least 3 insults snipped]
>>> Surely there is! If we (or RedHat) were to do such a thing, our very
>>> users and developers would be quite vocal about it, and rightly so.
>
> On 2004-05-02 22:02:38 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> They did it and nothing happene
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 2
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 us
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
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
wri
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
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
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 c
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 an
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 cre
.org; reiserfs-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Fwd: 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)
&g
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 it'
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.
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,
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 user
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 of
the moon a credit
Don Armstrong wrote:
The end user can choose to read it, or they can choose not
to. Regardless, they should not be assaulted by the credits or forced
to read them. Going back to journal articles, is the funding grant
number emblazoned in 24 point font above the article title?[1]
funding agen
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 of
> > the moon a credit read by no one has no mean
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
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 return
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 st
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
unwe
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.
W
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 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
Mr. Reiser, I am a gread admirer of your work; I am a great admirer of
Reiserfs, both versions 3 and 4; and I am a great admirer of the
concepts in Reiser4; that stated, I disagree with you in what regards to
its licensing, so would you please clarify some points to me?
@ 30/04/2004 14:27 : wr
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 gra
> "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 (f
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
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 r
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 F
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 ju
-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 i
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 en
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
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
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
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,
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 c
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 t
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
