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 modific
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
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 differen
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
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 softwar
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.
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 legally d
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, thus
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 interpretatio
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 gove
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.
Wheth
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
unwelcom
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 start
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
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 w
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 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, 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 understandabl
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 FÃrber <[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
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 credits
i
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]
P
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 talking
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
actu
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.
--
M
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 movin
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 wro
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.
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
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
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 152547
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
bug r
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 that
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
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 maintain
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. W
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., t
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
