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.
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
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 (i.e.,
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
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 Frber [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,
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]
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 think
* 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 both
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 moving
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 the
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
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 02:55:00PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
shareware, or freeware. Debian has freely chosen not to be involved
with distributing such works for various reasons.
It's really quite a shame that the best distro around is so rigid
as to not allow Reiser's minor, and
Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Saturday 01 May 2004 01:26, Michael Milverton wrote:
I would seem to think that if you strip credits and rename the actual
product itself, eg NOT a derivitave work then you are taking the
rights away
from the person who wrote it.
While I agree with your interpretation,
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 argue
Thanks much. This helps after getting a 1.8 million dollar ARDA Reiser6
proposal rejected because the reviewers thought that the GPL was some
sort of proprietary license. (Really they did. They also thought there
was no realistic chance of anyone using anything other than Windows in
the
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.
Whether
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
On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 12:12:04PM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
the main killer for 8 of the 9 reviewers, at least one of whom seemed to
think that it would make the project unlikely to get anywhere in the
Linux community ) I spent weeks on that proposal
ooops. Hans, don't get me
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 meaning.
I
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,
27 matches
Mail list logo
