reiserfsck infinite loop at pass2 (built by Debian).

reiserfsck infinite loop at pass2 (built by Debian).

[Vitaly Fertman]

Hi all, 

while investigating the problem with infinite loop at pass2 of reiserfsck, 
what seemed to be reported by people using reiserfsprogs built by Debian, 
we found a debain patch against reiserfsprogs-3.6.4 (introduced in 3.6.4-2), 
what was the problem. Tests with this patch revealed the problem - bitops 
were changed and have not worked properly anymore. 

The reason why bitops were changed is that reiserfsprogs did not work 
correctly on big endian platforms that time. It was also fixed now and 3.6.5 
should work correctly. If you are going to use 3.6.5 do not forget about the 
patch 'reiserfsprogs-3.6.5-flush_buffers-bug.patch' or wait a few days for 
3.6.6 release. The latest reiserfsprogs and the patch can be obtained from
    ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/

-- 
Thanks,
Vitaly Fertman

Re: reiserfsck infinite loop at pass2 (built by Debian).

[Dieter Nützel]

Am Freitag, 18. April 2003 14:04 schrieb Vitaly Fertman:
> Hi all,
>
> while investigating the problem with infinite loop at pass2 of reiserfsck,
> what seemed to be reported by people using reiserfsprogs built by Debian,
> we found a debain patch against reiserfsprogs-3.6.4 (introduced in
> 3.6.4-2), what was the problem. Tests with this patch revealed the problem
> - bitops were changed and have not worked properly anymore.
>
> The reason why bitops were changed is that reiserfsprogs did not work
> correctly on big endian platforms that time. It was also fixed now and
> 3.6.5 should work correctly. If you are going to use 3.6.5 do not forget
> about the patch 'reiserfsprogs-3.6.5-flush_buffers-bug.patch' or wait a few
> days for 3.6.6 release. The latest reiserfsprogs and the patch can be
> obtained from ftp://ftp.namesys.com/pub/reiserfsprogs/

Vitaly,

what about the "double" checking during bootup since 3.6.5+patch (3.6.6-pre1)?
I get two check sequences since the latest version.

First round from fsck.reiserfs (-a/-p) but sadly not logged and then the 
below.

<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,3)) for (sd(8,3))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>VFS: Mounted root (reiserfs filesystem) readonly.
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,2)) for (sd(8,2))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,5)) for (sd(8,5))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,6)) for (sd(8,6))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,7)) for (sd(8,7))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,8)) for (sd(8,8))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,17)) for (sd(8,17))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,21)) for (sd(8,21))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,22)) for (sd(8,22))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,23)) for (sd(8,23))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names
<4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
<4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
<4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,24)) for (sd(8,24))
<4>Using r5 hash to sort names

Thanks and Happy Easter!

-Dieter
-- 
Dieter Nützel
Graduate Student, Computer Science

University of Hamburg
Department of Computer Science
@home: Dieter.Nuetzel at hamburg.de (replace at with @)

Re: reiserfsck infinite loop at pass2 (built by Debian).

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 05:10:23PM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote:

> what about the "double" checking during bootup since 3.6.5+patch (3.6.6-pre1)?
> I get two check sequences since the latest version.
> First round from fsck.reiserfs (-a/-p) but sadly not logged and then the 
> below.

What led you to think you have two check sequences?
One (unlogged) run is from fsck.
The quote below lists kernel messages that are printed during mount.

> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,3)) for (sd(8,3))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>VFS: Mounted root (reiserfs filesystem) readonly.
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,2)) for (sd(8,2))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,5)) for (sd(8,5))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,6)) for (sd(8,6))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,7)) for (sd(8,7))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,8)) for (sd(8,8))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,17)) for (sd(8,17))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,21)) for (sd(8,21))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,22)) for (sd(8,22))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,23)) for (sd(8,23))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,24)) for (sd(8,24))
> <4>Using r5 hash to sort names

Bye,
    Oleg

Re: reiserfsck infinite loop at pass2 (built by Debian).

[Dieter Nützel]

Am Freitag, 18. April 2003 17:11 schrieb Oleg Drokin:
> Hello!
>
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 05:10:23PM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote:
> > what about the "double" checking during bootup since 3.6.5+patch
> > (3.6.6-pre1)? I get two check sequences since the latest version.
> > First round from fsck.reiserfs (-a/-p) but sadly not logged and then the
> > below.
>
> What led you to think you have two check sequences?
> One (unlogged) run is from fsck.

OK, yes.

> The quote below lists kernel messages that are printed during mount.

Yes, you are right.
But two (one useless) journal replay rounds.
Could this be avoided?

> > <4>reiserfs: found format "3.6" with standard journal
> > <4>reiserfs: using ordered data mode
> > <4>reiserfs: checking transaction log (sd(8,3)) for (sd(8,3))
> > <4>Using r5 hash to sort names
> > <4>VFS: Mounted root (reiserfs filesystem) readonly.

-Dieter

Re: reiserfsck infinite loop at pass2 (built by Debian).

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 05:26:28PM +0200, Dieter N?tzel wrote:

> > The quote below lists kernel messages that are printed during mount.
> Yes, you are right.
> But two (one useless) journal replay rounds.
> Could this be avoided?

It is avoided.
if fsck replayed the journal, then kernel _checks_ the log,
and found it is empty, then does nothing ;)

Bye,
    Oleg

plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Hans Reiser]

Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions 
from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.

You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including 
clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long 
time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL out 
the door.

By the way, does Debian support as a matter of principle the decrediting 
of Stallman and KDE by RedHat?  I had really expected this from RedHat, 
not Debian, when I wrote those clauses.

In the academic world, this is called plagiarism.  In the academic 
world, knowledge is shared but fairly credited.  The GPL is born of the 
academic tradition.

-- 
Hans

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Ben Collins]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:07:03PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions 
> from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.
> 
> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including 
> clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long 
> time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL out 
> the door.
> 
> By the way, does Debian support as a matter of principle the decrediting 
> of Stallman and KDE by RedHat?  I had really expected this from RedHat, 
> not Debian, when I wrote those clauses.
> 
> In the academic world, this is called plagiarism.  In the academic 
> world, knowledge is shared but fairly credited.  The GPL is born of the 
> academic tradition.

I'd hardly call it plagiarism. Your copyright is, by will of our own
policy and to abide by authors wishes, distributed with the tools in
/usr/share/doc/<pkg>/copyright.

Now, I've never heard of such a copyright clause in your tools and I am
quite sure that the individual maintainer of the package did not
intentionally go against such clauses. Not to mention that the acts of
that single maintainer of the software you wrote is not the will of the
entire Debian project.

Now I hope you stop with your trolling and consider speaking
respectfully to us. I am pretty sure that if you emailed the maintainer
of the package and pointed out the facts to him, he would revert the
change.



-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Marcel Weber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi

First I have to say, that I even did not realize, that the credits had 
been removed.

I think Hans has a good point. The inclusion of credits is something 
that should be respected. Free software does not mean that you can do 
what you want with a piece of code, but that you're allowed to use, 
modify and redistribute it freely, respecting it's license.

Even a credit that goes into the direction of a commercial has to be 
respected, if the license forbids it's removal. The same way we (the 
debian population) insist on the proper use of the most common GPL V2, 
so other licences have to be respected as well. How would we complain 
if a company like Microsoft would include GPL based software in their 
products without mentioning and crediting it. And anyone who fears that 
free software could become commercial sponsored software must exclude 
this kind of software from the distribution instead of violating 
licences.

Hans, I hope that the removal of these credits was a mistake and that 
they're going to be included in future releases of testing. ReiserFS is 
a really fine piece of software and anyone who helped with it's 
development should have the right to be credited if he or she wants so.

Perhaps someone should file a bug against this.

Regards

Marcel

Am Samstag, 19.04.03, um 18:07 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Hans Reiser:

> Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions 
> from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.
>
> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including 
> clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long 
> time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL 
> out the door.
>
> By the way, does Debian support as a matter of principle the 
> decrediting of Stallman and KDE by RedHat?  I had really expected this 
> from RedHat, not Debian, when I wrote those clauses.
>
> In the academic world, this is called plagiarism.  In the academic 
> world, knowledge is shared but fairly credited.  The GPL is born of 
> the academic tradition.
>
> -- 
> Hans
>
>
>
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-testing-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact 
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
>
- -------------------

PGP / GPG Key:	http://www.ncpro.com/GPG/mmweber-at-ncpro-com.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE+oY821EXMUTKVE5URAqQrAKCvtbJ/cP1B6J0ZzB2b1KtFPdP4YQCeIyY/
ls+MGfkxc3Kpt+Soe/31hjs=
=zc6y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Florian Weimer]

Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> writes:

> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
> time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL
> out the door.

Oh, I think it's natural to assume that these clauses are superfluous
because the GPL explicitly states that a distributor "may not impose
any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
granted herein".  If these clauses were of any legal relevance, your
software wouldn't be redistributable at all.

Just don't use the GPL for your software if you don't like it, but
don't complain if anyone misunderstands your homemade license
mishmash.

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Jarno Elonen]

> I'd hardly call it plagiarism. Your copyright is, by will of our own
> policy and to abide by authors wishes, distributed with the tools in
> /usr/share/doc/<pkg>/copyright.

Ah.. I guess Hans is referring to the author list in README?
The package maintainer probably looked at COPYING (contains GPL, as usual) and 
AUTHORS (an empty file) and didn't realize that README was actually an 
important addendum to the license and omitted the file from the package by 
mistake.

To prevent such problems in the future, perhaps the ReiserFS project could 
move the deviations from GPL from README to the beginning of COPYING and move 
the author list to AUTHORS?

Additionally, it might be a good idea to provide a shoreter list of authors in 
addition to the detailed one for easier copying to 'standard copyright files' 
like 'copying' in Debian.

- Jarno

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Travis Crump]

Marcel Weber wrote:
> Hans, I hope that the removal of these credits was a mistake and that 
> they're going to be included in future releases of testing. ReiserFS is 
> a really fine piece of software and anyone who helped with it's 
> development should have the right to be credited if he or she wants so.
> 
> Perhaps someone should file a bug against this.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marcel


You mean a bug report like 
<http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=152547>?  Oh, wait... 
  What if someone wanted to write a gtk frontend to mkreiserfs?  The 
credit would be similarly removed from the user's sight.  It would 
probably me right to put the message in the about window of this 
hypothetical program, but it wouldn't have the same visiblity as the 
credit now has since users rarely look at the about window.  Ultimately, 
all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled.  If the maintainer 
cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that 
the program is DFSG-free.

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Matt Ryan]

> Now I hope you stop with your trolling and consider speaking
> respectfully to us. I am pretty sure that if you emailed the maintainer
> of the package and pointed out the facts to him, he would revert the
> change.

Dude,

    You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened your
mouth and stuck your foot in when there really wasn't any need to. Take a
Valium and do something less stressful.


Matt.

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Lukas Geyer]

Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:

> Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> writes:
> 
> > You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
> > clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
> > time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL
> > out the door.
> 
> Oh, I think it's natural to assume that these clauses are superfluous
> because the GPL explicitly states that a distributor "may not impose
> any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
> granted herein".  If these clauses were of any legal relevance, your
> software wouldn't be redistributable at all.
> 
> Just don't use the GPL for your software if you don't like it, but
> don't complain if anyone misunderstands your homemade license
> mishmash.

Well, usually we also try to use common sense, syllogism and rocket
science to find out what the author's intent was. Fortunately Hans
Reiser made his intent clear by posting this statement to
debian-devel. The only consequence I can see is to move reiserfsprogs
to non-free. For those who have not followed the discussion and such,
the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
this unduly restricts the freedom to distribute modified versions.

Cheers,
Lukas

P.S.: Cc'ed to debian-legal, which is probably the better place to
discuss this.

-- 
Give a man an answer, and he's satisfied today. Teach him to program,
and he will be frustrated for the rest of his life. 

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Ben Collins]

> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled.  If the maintainer 
> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that 
> the program is DFSG-free.

Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
software. What if I want to use parts of the code and I respect the
copyright and license...does that mean I also have to take this part of
the code and output the credits? What if environment doesn't provide a
way to output the credits. What if I am implementing the reiser tools on
an embedded system that will never show any such output?

What about programs that execute the reiserfs tools (like bootup
scripts)...are they not allowed to redirect or filter this output?

If any of this is questionable, then I suspect reiserfs tools isn't DFSG
compliant and belongs in non-free with all it's flakiness.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Ben Collins]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:24:21PM +0100, Matt Ryan wrote:
> > Now I hope you stop with your trolling and consider speaking
> > respectfully to us. I am pretty sure that if you emailed the maintainer
> > of the package and pointed out the facts to him, he would revert the
> > change.
> 
> Dude,
> 
>     You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened your
> mouth and stuck your foot in when there really wasn't any need to. Take a
> Valium and do something less stressful.

Are you talking to me?

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Ben Collins]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:13:59PM +0200, Anders Widman wrote:
> >> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled.  If the maintainer 
> >> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that 
> >> the program is DFSG-free.
> 
> > Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
> > software. What if I want to use parts of the code and I respect the
> > copyright and license...does that mean I also have to take this part of
> > the code and output the credits? What if environment doesn't provide a
> > way to output the credits. What if I am implementing the reiser tools on
> > an embedded system that will never show any such output?
> 
> > What about programs that execute the reiserfs tools (like bootup
> > scripts)...are they not allowed to redirect or filter this output?
> 
> > If any of this is questionable, then I suspect reiserfs tools isn't DFSG
> > compliant and belongs in non-free with all it's flakiness.
> 
> 
>  Wow..  what  an  reaction  :).  Hans's  original message was that the
>  credits  were  not included with the distributed files, nothing else.
>  Or am I completely mistaken?

Sorry, I had read into some other peoples comments and made a bad
assumption about what this was refering to. So this is just about a file
that is in /usr/share/doc/...? If so, I can't see what all the fuss is
about. Just put the file back in.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Anders Widman]

>> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled.  If the maintainer 
>> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that 
>> the program is DFSG-free.

> Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
> software. What if I want to use parts of the code and I respect the
> copyright and license...does that mean I also have to take this part of
> the code and output the credits? What if environment doesn't provide a
> way to output the credits. What if I am implementing the reiser tools on
> an embedded system that will never show any such output?

> What about programs that execute the reiserfs tools (like bootup
> scripts)...are they not allowed to redirect or filter this output?

> If any of this is questionable, then I suspect reiserfs tools isn't DFSG
> compliant and belongs in non-free with all it's flakiness.


 Wow..  what  an  reaction  :).  Hans's  original message was that the
 credits  were  not included with the distributed files, nothing else.
 Or am I completely mistaken?


--------
PGP public key: https://tnonline.net/secure/pgp_key.txt

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Andreas Dilger]

On Apr 19, 2003  16:55 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled.  If the maintainer 
> > cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that 
> > the program is DFSG-free.
> 
> Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
> software. What if I want to use parts of the code and I respect the
> copyright and license...does that mean I also have to take this part of
> the code and output the credits? What if environment doesn't provide a
> way to output the credits. What if I am implementing the reiser tools on
> an embedded system that will never show any such output?

I'm sure all the FSF/Debian folks would be thrilled if someone changed the
code in [x]emacs to not output anything about the GPL at startup, or if vim
didn't include any info about helping Ugandan orphans.

I'm not saying that I've ever liked the verbosity of the messages in
mkreiserfs, but at the same time I wouldn't ever remove them out of
courtesy to the author, regardless of whether it is in the license or not.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Chris Cheney]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 04:25:57PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2003  16:55 -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled.  If the maintainer 
> > > cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that 
> > > the program is DFSG-free.
> > 
> > Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free
> > software. What if I want to use parts of the code and I respect the
> > copyright and license...does that mean I also have to take this part of
> > the code and output the credits? What if environment doesn't provide a
> > way to output the credits. What if I am implementing the reiser tools on
> > an embedded system that will never show any such output?
> 
> I'm sure all the FSF/Debian folks would be thrilled if someone changed the
> code in [x]emacs to not output anything about the GPL at startup, or if vim
> didn't include any info about helping Ugandan orphans.

First of all emacs is pure bloat so who cares what it does... Vim has
one line about Ugandan orphans at startup, until now I didn't even
notice it was there. If had been pages of crap like what is spewed from
mkfs.reiserfs it would have probably been removed as well, unless it
was against Vim's license, which happens not to be GPL. As far as I can
tell if it annoyed someone enough it is legal under Vim's license to 
remove the Uganda message as well, they only require the license text
itself to remain with the application.  A GPLv3 allowing spamware would
be very annoying, I hope it doesn't happen. If anything this stupid
reiserfs spamware should be spewed before the program runs, not after,
so that the user can see what actually occured without having to scroll
back up, which depending on their console type might be difficult.

Chris

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Wouter Verhelst]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2060 bytes --]

Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> this unduly restricts the freedom to distribute modified versions.

Uhm.

From the GPL, section 2:

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Otherwise put: if the program shows the 'no warranty' clause from the
GPL at startup, you may not remove it. Although a 'no warranty' message
is certainly not the same as a list of sponsors, they both require some
messages being printed for legalese reasons. I, personally, see nothing
wrong with that; it certainly doesn't result in software being non-free.

That said, the screenfull of messages indeed is a nuisance; could they
be replaced by a reference to them? I'd think of something like
'development of ReiserFS was sponsored by multiple third parties; please
see <compile-time defined filename> for details', or maybe 'development
of ReiserFS was sponsored by <list of names of third parties>; please
see <compile-time defined filename> for details' if your contracts don't
allow for removal of those names from the output...

-- 
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.

[-- Attachment #2: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal gesigneerd --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Marcel Weber]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Am Sonntag, 20.04.03, um 01:06 Uhr (Europe/Zurich) schrieb Chris Cheney:
>
> First of all emacs is pure bloat so who cares what it does... Vim has
> one line about Ugandan orphans at startup, until now I didn't even
> notice it was there. If had been pages of crap like what is spewed from
> mkfs.reiserfs it would have probably been removed as well, unless it
> was against Vim's license, which happens not to be GPL. As far as I can
> tell if it annoyed someone enough it is legal under Vim's license to
> remove the Uganda message as well, they only require the license text
> itself to remain with the application.  A GPLv3 allowing spamware would
> be very annoying, I hope it doesn't happen. If anything this stupid
> reiserfs spamware should be spewed before the program runs, not after,
> so that the user can see what actually occured without having to scroll
> back up, which depending on their console type might be difficult.
>
> Chris
>
>

All I can say to this is: use what you like, resp. if you don't like 
bloated software or spamware do not use it. My point is, that it should 
be a right of the original authors of the software to include credits. 
If someone else does a complete rewrite of the software, okay than we 
can discuss it, but if the rewrite means only the removal of the 
credits it is questionable.

But first of all, before we continue this discussion: What exactly has 
been removed? A readme file, the outputs during boot time, the outputs 
of mkfs.reiserfs? Has this output any impact on the usability of the 
software, so that there were good reasons the remove it? Has the 
license been violated by removing the credits?

Marcel

- -------------------

PGP / GPG Key:	http://www.ncpro.com/GPG/mmweber-at-ncpro-com.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin)

iD8DBQE+oe6k1EXMUTKVE5URAnmyAKCTpeRYv6c45/3NpK7/jFZvxa6hIACgw8OX
VFGEUd3wnUNsuzu0JQTAXcY=
=ZQWW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:07:03PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:

> Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions 
> from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.

It appears that, in all likelihood, the credits were inadvertently omitted,
and not intentionally removed.  In the reiserfsprogs distribution, there is a
file COPYING which contains as the software license a verbatim copy of the
GPL, while these credits are in a separate README.  I am confident that if
you contact the maintainer of the package (Ed Boraas <ed@debian.org>,
reiserfsprogs@packages.debian.org, or via the bug tracking system), he will
gladly observe your wishes and include this file with the documentation.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:18:54PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:07:03PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:
> 
> > Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions 
> > from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.
> 
> It appears that, in all likelihood, the credits were inadvertently omitted,
> and not intentionally removed.  In the reiserfsprogs distribution, there is a
> file COPYING which contains as the software license a verbatim copy of the
> GPL, while these credits are in a separate README.  I am confident that if
> you contact the maintainer of the package (Ed Boraas <ed@debian.org>,
> reiserfsprogs@packages.debian.org, or via the bug tracking system), he will
> gladly observe your wishes and include this file with the documentation.

After reading further into this thread, I see that I misunderstood which
content you were referering to (a specific reference would have been
helpful).  This seems to relate to Debian bug #152547.

-- 
 - mdz

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Glenn Maynard]

Trimmed CC: little; I can't imagine why this should go to -testing ...

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:49:36AM +0200, Marcel Weber wrote:
> All I can say to this is: use what you like, resp. if you don't like 
> bloated software or spamware do not use it. My point is, that it should 
> be a right of the original authors of the software to include credits. 
> If someone else does a complete rewrite of the software, okay than we 
> can discuss it, but if the rewrite means only the removal of the 
> credits it is questionable.

This is irrelevant.  We're not questioning whether Hans Reiser has the
right to license his own software to prohibit the removal of large
messages.  The questions being asked are:

1. Is software licensed in the manner Hans intends DFSG-free?  That is,
is it DFSG-free to require that interactive programs output a full
page of sponsorship information?  (That's a question for debian-legal.)
If not, it can not be distributed in Debian and will be relegated to
non-free.

2. Is the software licensed consistently?  If not, it's probably not
legally safe to distribute at all, and will be removed entirely unless
Hans clarifies the licensing.

Another question that comes to mind: has ReiserFS used code from projects
licensed under the GPL?  If so, he can not, in fact, place this extra
restriction, as it would be in violation of GPL clause 6.  This isn't a
special issue for programs under completely different licenses; they know
they're not GPL-compatible and don't use GPL code.  However, when people
use "modified" GPL licenses, they often don't realise that they can no
longer use code from other GPL projects.

> But first of all, before we continue this discussion: What exactly has 
> been removed? A readme file, the outputs during boot time, the outputs 
> of mkfs.reiserfs? Has this output any impact on the usability of the 
> software, so that there were good reasons the remove it? Has the 
> license been violated by removing the credits?

It's been suggested that the removed message is the one referenced in
this bug report:

  http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=152547

Impact and "good reasons" don't matter.  Debian requires that users be
granted the right to do certain things regardless of whether they have
"good reasons".  If Hans doesn't want to grant those rights to users,
that's may be his choice, but Debian won't distribute his software.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Manuel Krause]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3369 bytes --]

On 04/20/2003 05:41 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> Trimmed CC: little; I can't imagine why this should go to -testing ...
> 
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:49:36AM +0200, Marcel Weber wrote:
> 
>>All I can say to this is: use what you like, resp. if you don't like 
>>bloated software or spamware do not use it. My point is, that it should 
>>be a right of the original authors of the software to include credits. 
>>If someone else does a complete rewrite of the software, okay than we 
>>can discuss it, but if the rewrite means only the removal of the 
>>credits it is questionable.
> 
> 
> This is irrelevant.  We're not questioning whether Hans Reiser has the
> right to license his own software to prohibit the removal of large
> messages.  The questions being asked are:
> 
> 1. Is software licensed in the manner Hans intends DFSG-free?  That is,
> is it DFSG-free to require that interactive programs output a full
> page of sponsorship information?  (That's a question for debian-legal.)
> If not, it can not be distributed in Debian and will be relegated to
> non-free.
> 
> 2. Is the software licensed consistently?  If not, it's probably not
> legally safe to distribute at all, and will be removed entirely unless
> Hans clarifies the licensing.
> 
> Another question that comes to mind: has ReiserFS used code from projects
> licensed under the GPL?  If so, he can not, in fact, place this extra
> restriction, as it would be in violation of GPL clause 6.  This isn't a
> special issue for programs under completely different licenses; they know
> they're not GPL-compatible and don't use GPL code.  However, when people
> use "modified" GPL licenses, they often don't realise that they can no
> longer use code from other GPL projects.
> 
> 
>>But first of all, before we continue this discussion: What exactly has 
>>been removed? A readme file, the outputs during boot time, the outputs 
>>of mkfs.reiserfs? Has this output any impact on the usability of the 
>>software, so that there were good reasons the remove it? Has the 
>>license been violated by removing the credits?
> 
> 
> It's been suggested that the removed message is the one referenced in
> this bug report:
> 
>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=152547
> 
> Impact and "good reasons" don't matter.  Debian requires that users be
> granted the right to do certain things regardless of whether they have
> "good reasons".  If Hans doesn't want to grant those rights to users,
> that's may be his choice, but Debian won't distribute his software.
> 

I find this discussion quite annoying. I thought war is over now?! This 
discussion seems to come up every year now.


Can someone finally clearify why mkreiserfs _must_ advertise?


I use mkreiserfs from namesys ftp. And I use it every month running a 
script within a Konsole that I later search for errors. I know the 
mkreiserfs message by mind now. And I cut the unneeded lines 
(advertising ones) always while pasting the important lines of output to 
the logs. This would be simplified by a small patch not violating 
previous content nor function...

" ...Do You aggree with the Terms & Conditions before installation... 
YES/No (Don't forget to type YES each time for sponsor A, B & C)."
I don't want that kind of "progression" in any reiserfsprog!


Happy holidays and some wunderful sunny days,

Manuel

[-- Attachment #2: patch.mkreiserfs.extra-short.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3412 bytes --]

diff -urN shared/SPECIAL_THANKS shared.c/SPECIAL_THANKS
--- shared/SPECIAL_THANKS   Thu Jan  1 01:00:00 1970
+++ shared.c/SPECIAL_THANKS Sun Apr 20 07:00:43 2003
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+ SPECIAL SPONSORING
+====================
+
+The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the primary sponsor of
+Reiser4. DARPA does not endorse this project; it merely sponsors it.
+
+Continuing core development of version 3 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.
+And my lawyer asked 'People pay you money for this?'.  Yup.  Hee Hee.  Life is
+good.  If you buy ReiserFS, you can focus on your value add rather than
+reinventing an entire FS.  You should buy some free software too....
+
+SuSE pays for continuing work on journaling for version 3, and paid for much of
+the previous version 3 work.  Reiserfs integration in their distro is
+nconsistently solid.
+
+MP3.com paid for initial journaling development.
+
+Bigstorage.com contributes to our general fund every month, and has done so for
+quite a long time.
+
+Thanks to all of those sponsors, including the secret ones.  Without you, Hans
+would still have that day job, and the merry band of hackers would be missing
+quite a few....
+
+Have fun !!!
+
diff -urN shared/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c shared.c/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c
--- shared/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c  Tue Mar 25 11:50:37 2003
+++ shared.c/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c    Sun Apr 20 07:55:46 2003
@@ -714,30 +714,9 @@
  
    if (DEBUG_MODE)
        return 0;
-   printf ("\nThe Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the primary sponsor of"
-           "\nReiser4. DARPA does not endorse this project; it merely sponsors it."
-           "\n"
-           "\nContinuing core development of version 3 is mostly paid for by Hans Reiser from"
-           "\nmoney made selling licenses in addition to the GPL to companies who don't want"
-           "\nit known that they use ReiserFS as a foundation for their proprietary product."
-           "\nAnd my lawyer asked 'People pay you money for this?'.  Yup.  Hee Hee.  Life is"
-           "\ngood.  If you buy ReiserFS, you can focus on your value add rather than"
-           "\nreinventing an entire FS.  You should buy some free software too...."
-           "\n"
-           "\nSuSE pays for continuing work on journaling for version 3, and paid for much of"
-           "\nthe previous version 3 work.  Reiserfs integration in their distro is"
-           "\nconsistently solid."
-           "\n"
-           "\nMP3.com paid for initial journaling development."
-           "\n"
-           "\nBigstorage.com contributes to our general fund every month, and has done so for"
-           "\nquite a long time."
-           "\n"
-           "\nThanks to all of those sponsors, including the secret ones.  Without you, Hans"
-           "\nwould still have that day job, and the merry band of hackers would be missing"
-           "\nquite a few...."
-           "\n"
-           "\nHave fun.\n"); 
+   printf ("\nSPECIAL_THANKS go to: DARPA, Hans Reiser, SuSE, MP3.com, Bigstorage.com and"
+       "\n>                     all the generous secret sponsors..."
+       "\nPlease, read SPECIAL_THANKS in the ReiserFS Documentation for further information!");
     return 0;
 }
 

[-- Attachment #3: patch.mkreiserfs.short.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3732 bytes --]

diff -urN shared/SPECIAL_THANKS shared.b/SPECIAL_THANKS
--- shared/SPECIAL_THANKS   Thu Jan  1 01:00:00 1970
+++ shared.b/SPECIAL_THANKS Sun Apr 20 07:00:43 2003
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+ SPECIAL SPONSORING
+====================
+
+The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the primary sponsor of
+Reiser4. DARPA does not endorse this project; it merely sponsors it.
+
+Continuing core development of version 3 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.
+And my lawyer asked 'People pay you money for this?'.  Yup.  Hee Hee.  Life is
+good.  If you buy ReiserFS, you can focus on your value add rather than
+reinventing an entire FS.  You should buy some free software too....
+
+SuSE pays for continuing work on journaling for version 3, and paid for much of
+the previous version 3 work.  Reiserfs integration in their distro is
+nconsistently solid.
+
+MP3.com paid for initial journaling development.
+
+Bigstorage.com contributes to our general fund every month, and has done so for
+quite a long time.
+
+Thanks to all of those sponsors, including the secret ones.  Without you, Hans
+would still have that day job, and the merry band of hackers would be missing
+quite a few....
+
+Have fun !!!
+
diff -urN shared/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c shared.b/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c
--- shared/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c  Tue Mar 25 11:50:37 2003
+++ shared.b/mkreiserfs/mkreiserfs.c    Sun Apr 20 07:37:46 2003
@@ -714,30 +714,15 @@
  
    if (DEBUG_MODE)
        return 0;
-   printf ("\nThe Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the primary sponsor of"
-           "\nReiser4. DARPA does not endorse this project; it merely sponsors it."
-           "\n"
-           "\nContinuing core development of version 3 is mostly paid for by Hans Reiser from"
-           "\nmoney made selling licenses in addition to the GPL to companies who don't want"
-           "\nit known that they use ReiserFS as a foundation for their proprietary product."
-           "\nAnd my lawyer asked 'People pay you money for this?'.  Yup.  Hee Hee.  Life is"
-           "\ngood.  If you buy ReiserFS, you can focus on your value add rather than"
-           "\nreinventing an entire FS.  You should buy some free software too...."
-           "\n"
-           "\nSuSE pays for continuing work on journaling for version 3, and paid for much of"
-           "\nthe previous version 3 work.  Reiserfs integration in their distro is"
-           "\nconsistently solid."
-           "\n"
-           "\nMP3.com paid for initial journaling development."
-           "\n"
-           "\nBigstorage.com contributes to our general fund every month, and has done so for"
-           "\nquite a long time."
-           "\n"
-           "\nThanks to all of those sponsors, including the secret ones.  Without you, Hans"
-           "\nwould still have that day job, and the merry band of hackers would be missing"
-           "\nquite a few...."
-           "\n"
-           "\nHave fun.\n"); 
+   printf ("\nSPECIAL_THANKS go to:"
+       "\n* DARPA, primary sponsor of Reiser4"
+       "\n* Hans Reiser, selling licences in addition to the GPL for extended FS applications"
+       "\n* SuSE, for paying for initial work and further journaling development in v3"
+       "\n* MP3.com, for initial journaling development"
+       "\n* Bigstorage.com, for gerneral and continous funding!"
+       "\n> great thanks remain to all the generous secret sponsors..."
+       "\n"
+       "\nPlease, read SPECIAL_THANKS in the ReiserFS Documentation for further information!");
     return 0;
 }
 

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Manuel Krause]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3681 bytes --]

On 04/20/2003 08:17 AM, Manuel Krause wrote:
> On 04/20/2003 05:41 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> 
>> Trimmed CC: little; I can't imagine why this should go to -testing ...
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:49:36AM +0200, Marcel Weber wrote:
>>
>>> All I can say to this is: use what you like, resp. if you don't like 
>>> bloated software or spamware do not use it. My point is, that it 
>>> should be a right of the original authors of the software to include 
>>> credits. If someone else does a complete rewrite of the software, 
>>> okay than we can discuss it, but if the rewrite means only the 
>>> removal of the credits it is questionable.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is irrelevant.  We're not questioning whether Hans Reiser has the
>> right to license his own software to prohibit the removal of large
>> messages.  The questions being asked are:
>>
>> 1. Is software licensed in the manner Hans intends DFSG-free?  That is,
>> is it DFSG-free to require that interactive programs output a full
>> page of sponsorship information?  (That's a question for debian-legal.)
>> If not, it can not be distributed in Debian and will be relegated to
>> non-free.
>>
>> 2. Is the software licensed consistently?  If not, it's probably not
>> legally safe to distribute at all, and will be removed entirely unless
>> Hans clarifies the licensing.
>>
>> Another question that comes to mind: has ReiserFS used code from projects
>> licensed under the GPL?  If so, he can not, in fact, place this extra
>> restriction, as it would be in violation of GPL clause 6.  This isn't a
>> special issue for programs under completely different licenses; they know
>> they're not GPL-compatible and don't use GPL code.  However, when people
>> use "modified" GPL licenses, they often don't realise that they can no
>> longer use code from other GPL projects.
>>
>>
>>> But first of all, before we continue this discussion: What exactly 
>>> has been removed? A readme file, the outputs during boot time, the 
>>> outputs of mkfs.reiserfs? Has this output any impact on the usability 
>>> of the software, so that there were good reasons the remove it? Has 
>>> the license been violated by removing the credits?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's been suggested that the removed message is the one referenced in
>> this bug report:
>>
>>   http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?archive=no&bug=152547
>>
>> Impact and "good reasons" don't matter.  Debian requires that users be
>> granted the right to do certain things regardless of whether they have
>> "good reasons".  If Hans doesn't want to grant those rights to users,
>> that's may be his choice, but Debian won't distribute his software.
>>
> 
> I find this discussion quite annoying. I thought war is over now?! This 
> discussion seems to come up every year now.
> 
> 
> Can someone finally clearify why mkreiserfs _must_ advertise?
> 
> 
> I use mkreiserfs from namesys ftp. And I use it every month running a 
> script within a Konsole that I later search for errors. I know the 
> mkreiserfs message by mind now. And I cut the unneeded lines 
> (advertising ones) always while pasting the important lines of output to 
> the logs. This would be simplified by a small patch not violating 
> previous content nor function...
> 
> " ...Do You aggree with the Terms & Conditions before installation... 
> YES/No (Don't forget to type YES each time for sponsor A, B & C)."
> I don't want that kind of "progression" in any reiserfsprog!
> 
> 
> Happy holidays and some wunderful sunny days,
> 
> Manuel
> 

Addon: Shouldn't we moreover help on general performance or usability 
issues?!

e.g. fix the error-predicted  "-f" // "-ff" setting of recent mkreiserfs':


[-- Attachment #2: rfs.mkreiserfs.out.3.6.6-pre1.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1206 bytes --]

 # mkreiserfs

<-------------mkreiserfs, 2003------------->
reiserfsprogs 3.6.6-pre1

Usage: mkreiserfs [options]  device [block-count]

Options:

  -b | --block-size N              size of file-system block, in bytes
  -j | --journal-device FILE       path to separate device to hold journal
  -s | --journal-size N            size of the journal in blocks
  -o | --journal-offset N          offset of the journal from the start of
                                   the separate device, in blocks
  -t | --transaction-max-size N    maximal size of transaction, in blocks
  -h | --hash rupasov|tea|r5       hash function to use by default
  -u | --uuid UUID                 store UUID in the superblock
  -l | --label LABEL               store LABEL in the superblock
  --format 3.5|3.6                 old 3.5 format or newer 3.6
  -f | --force                     specified once, make mkreiserfs the whole
                                   disk, not block device or mounted partition;
                                   specified twice, do not ask for confirmation
  -d | --debug                     print debugging information during mkreiser
  -V                               print version and exit

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Marcelo E. Magallon]

[ I wrote this yesterday when I first saw Hans' message on -devel, but
  postponed it to let the people who have actually had something to do
  with this to speak up.  But it seems that I was right when I assumed
  people wouldn't really know what this is about.  So, stamp a big FYI
  on this post.  Don't Cc me, I'll follow the discussion on -devel.
  Thanks. ]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 08:07:03PM +0400, Hans Reiser wrote:

 > Please explain your reasons for removing the credits and attributions
 > from the reiserfs utilities in violation of our copyright.

 Just for the benefit of people who don't have any idea what Hans is
 talking about, the following text is printed by (upstream's but not
 Debian's) mkreiserfs before exiting:

        The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the
        primary sponsor of Reiser4. DARPA does not endorse this project;
        it merely sponsors it.

        Continuing core development of version 3 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.  And my lawyer
        asked 'People pay you money for this?'.  Yup.  Hee Hee.  Life is
        good.  If you buy ReiserFS, you can focus on your value add
        rather than reinventing an entire FS.  You should buy some free
        software too....

        SuSE pays for continuing work on journaling for version 3, and
        paid for much of the previous version 3 work.  Reiserfs
        integration in their distro is consistently solid.

        MP3.com paid for initial journaling development.

        Bigstorage.com contributes to our general fund every month, and
        has done so for quite a long time.

        Thanks to all of those sponsors, including the secret ones.
        Without you, Hans would still have that day job, and the merry
        band of hackers would be missing quite a few....

        Have fun.

 > In the academic world, this is called plagiarism.  In the academic
 > world, knowledge is shared but fairly credited.  The GPL is born of
 > the academic tradition.

 JFTR:

  plagiarism
       n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else
            and is presented as being your own work
       2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as
          if they were your own [syn: {plagiarization}, {plagiarisation},
           {piracy}]

 Marcelo

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Matt Ryan]

> > Dude,
> >
> >     You really need to calm down. Twice now recently you have opened
your
> > mouth and stuck your foot in when there really wasn't any need to. Take
a
> > Valium and do something less stressful.
>
> Are you talking to me?

You are the one with the foot hanging out of your mouth so by a process of
elimination it has to be you. Really we don't need to alienate upstream
software authors with flame responses. Point out that he can file a bug and
leave it at that.


Matt.

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Oleg Drokin]

Hello!

On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:05:16PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
> You mean a bug report like 
> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=152547>?  Oh, wait... 
>  What if someone wanted to write a gtk frontend to mkreiserfs?  The 

Last time we spoke with EVMS folks about this kind of stuff, we agreed that they'd open
a pipe to mkreiserfs and then will show the mkreiserfs' output in separate window.
(in fact not only mkreiserfs's output, but output of all tools they run).

Flames to /dev/null.

And there are (were?) another set of tools for making/modifying reiserfs filesystems
(except that there is no fsck) called progsreiserfs. (not being developed anymore, I think, but it
works as is). Use that, if you like it more.

Bye,
    Oleg

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Yury Umanets]

Oleg Drokin wrote:

>Hello!
>
>On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 03:05:16PM -0400, Travis Crump wrote:
>  
>
>>You mean a bug report like 
>><http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=152547>?  Oh, wait... 
>> What if someone wanted to write a gtk frontend to mkreiserfs?  The 
>>    
>>
>
>Last time we spoke with EVMS folks about this kind of stuff, we agreed that they'd open
>a pipe to mkreiserfs and then will show the mkreiserfs' output in separate window.
>(in fact not only mkreiserfs's output, but output of all tools they run).
>
>Flames to /dev/null.
>
>And there are (were?) another set of tools for making/modifying reiserfs filesystems
>(except that there is no fsck) called progsreiserfs. (not being developed anymore, I think, but it
>works as is). Use that, if you like it more.
>
>Bye,
>    Oleg
>
>
>  
>
It is developed yet, but more slowly than before :)

-- 
Yury Umanets
"We're flying high, we're watching the world passes by..."

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[bscott]

On Sat, 19 Apr 2003, at 8:30pm, fw@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
>> You'll note that ReiserFS anticipated the GNU GPL V3 by including
>> clauses that forbid removal of credits in its license, and for a long
>> time I have been telling Stallman that he needs to get V3 of the GPL
>> out the door.
> 
> Oh, I think it's natural to assume that these clauses are superfluous
> because the GPL explicitly states ...

  Properly, ReiserFS is using a "modified GPL", not the original GPL, given
said clauses.

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott@ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Walter Landry]

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@grep.be> wrote:
> Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> > the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> > remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> > this unduly restricts the freedom to distribute modified versions.
> 
> Uhm.
> 
> From the GPL, section 2:
> 
>     c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
>     when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
>     interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
>     announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
>     notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
>     a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
>     these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
>     License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
>     does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
>     the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
> 
> Otherwise put: if the program shows the 'no warranty' clause from the
> GPL at startup, you may not remove it. Although a 'no warranty' message
> is certainly not the same as a list of sponsors, they both require some
> messages being printed for legalese reasons. I, personally, see nothing
> wrong with that; it certainly doesn't result in software being non-free.

Actually, what Hans Reiser should do is assign copyright for parts of
the work to all of his sponsors.  Then, an "appropriate copyright
notice" would list all of their names.  That would be fully within the
letter of the GPL.

Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Brian M. Carlson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3246 bytes --]

[subscribed to -legal, not to -devel; Cc: accordingly]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 01:24:09AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op za 19-04-2003, om 22:51 schreef Lukas Geyer:
> > the issue seems to be the fix of #152547. If we are not allowed to
> > remove a screenful of advertising from the output of a program, then
> > this unduly restricts the freedom to distribute modified versions.
> 
> Uhm.
> 
> From the GPL, section 2:
> 
>     c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
      ^^^^^^^^

I tried mkreiserfs out (I use good old ext2!) and the only "command" it
reads interactively is a "y" or "n" when asked to continue formatting my
test file which is not a block special device.

>     interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
>     announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
>     notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
>     a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
>     these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
>     License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>     the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Let's assume for a second that the yes-or-no response *is* a command
(which is debatable). GPL 2c only requires that one print or display 1)
a copyright notice; 2) a notice of warranty or the lack thereof; 3) a
notice that redistribution is permitted under the GPL; and 4) how to
view the GPL. It does not require that one spew almost an entire
screenful of advertisement. And, because neither mkreiserfs nor
reiserfsck even display a copyright notice, it falls under the
exception.

> Otherwise put: if the program shows the 'no warranty' clause from the
> GPL at startup, you may not remove it. Although a 'no warranty' message

Which it doesn't.

> messages being printed for legalese reasons. I, personally, see nothing
> wrong with that; it certainly doesn't result in software being non-free.

I do. DFSG 3 requires that "[t]he license must allow modifications and
derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms
as the license of the original software." GPL 2c passes muster only
because it displays license material. Even that is controversial on this
list. debian-legal has consistently held that license material can be
immutable and still free. I have never seen debian-legal say that
advertisements and conversations with one's lawyer can be immutable and
still free. If you disagree, please show me a reference.

-- 
Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 0x560553e7
"Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare
 to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it
 after all." --Douglas Adams

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 648 bytes --]

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Anthony DeRobertis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 829 bytes --]

On Sat, 2003-04-19 at 23:41, Glenn Maynard wrote:

> 1. Is software licensed in the manner Hans intends DFSG-free?  That is,
> is it DFSG-free to require that interactive programs output a full

NON-interactive programs. mkreiserfs is not interactive. It is passed
arguments on the command line, makes a file system, and exits.

If there actually is a page full of credits in that usage, then there
are very good reasons to remove it. It makes it very difficult to use in
shell scripts. It makes it difficult to use on terminals w/o limitless
scroll back. It makes it difficult to find error messages, both from it
and other commands.

There is a serious problem with $CMD if the common usage of $CMD turns
out to be:
    $CMD $ARGS > /dev/null 2>&1
If I can't legally fix $CMD, I doubt that $CMD is DFSG-free.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Hans Reiser]

Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for 
its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to 
prominently crediting those who have contributed.

-- 
Hans

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 11:17, Hans Reiser wrote:
> Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for 
> its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to 
> prominently crediting those who have contributed.

I'm very happy to hear that this has been resolved amicably.

Re: plagiarism of reiserfs by Debian

[Adam Heath]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, Hans Reiser wrote:

> Ed has graciously agreed to restore the credits, and I thank Debian for
> its respect for the wishes of the original author in regards to
> prominently crediting those who have contributed.

Again, what does Debian(as a community/organization) have to do with a
maintainer fixing a minor bug?