From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 04:48:44 -0700 Message-ID: <40923D1C.3090003@namesys.com> References: <20040424193246.GA2490@raptus.homelinux.org> <4091DAFE.5030809@namesys.com> <20040430055619.GD7487@archimedes.ucr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20040430055619.GD7487@archimedes.ucr.edu> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed" To: Don Armstrong Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Don Armstrong wrote: >On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Hans Reiser wrote: > =20 > >>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. >> =20 >> > >We have to ascertain as well that we can even legally distribute >it. Assuming reiser4 is not a derivative work of any other GPLed code, >there shouldn't be a problem with it in non-free, but if it is, we >cannot distribute it at all, as the extra clarifications clearly are >not GPL compatible. > > =20 > >>I find Debian's aggressive behavior toward myself, and especially >>Richard Stallman and his GFDL, to be inappropriate and ungrateful, >> =20 >> > >Just to clarify, what you are seeing is individuals who may (or may >not) be associated with the Debian project, not Debian itself. [This >is no less different than conflating yourself with the University of >Erlangen-N=FCrnberg or Richard with the FSF.] > =20 > Putting Stallman's (or FSF's) work in the non-free section of your=20 distribution is the lack of respect and gratitude that I speak of. > =20 > >>I also understand that Debian is striving to define its morality, >>and that much of the world shares its rather asian attitude towards >>whether it is acceptable to not credit others for their >>contributions to science. I do not. I think the western approach of >>rigor in attribution has been of great value in stimulating >>innovation over the centuries, and think it should be applied to >>free software as much as it was to free science research. >> =20 >> > >I don't think anyone involved in Debian or in the larger Debian >community feels that you or Richard, or any other contributor to the >Free Software movement should fail to be properly recognized for their >voluminous contributions to the movement. > >What I, and others who also have contributed to this movement object >to is the abridging of freedoms to attain the secondary goal of >rigorous attribution. > >I know in my own scientific work I expect that people who use the >ideas that come from my work to cite and refer to the work which >spawned their ideas in an appropriate manner. > This happens due to peer reviewed journals in science. In free software=20 there is no such social mechanism affecting RedHat and preventing them=20 from removing the k from all the kde programs. In fact there is a=20 tradition among marketeers to debrand all inclusions into a product=20 which is the exact opposite of fairly attribute, and they act in=20 accordance with that tradition. This is a real problem. > However, I am loth to >define exactly how they refer to my work, as this can be as stifling >to their ability to build upon my work as me failing to publish or >communicate it. > >Rest assured that many of us are practitioners of rigorous attribution >and would not fail to attribute someone appropriately. > Uh no, you already did, you removed the credits from ReiserFS (none of=20 which are credits for me, please keep that in mind, I do not take this=20 stand for my personal benefit, my name is on the filesystem and that is=20 more than enough credit for me). > However, we are >also well aware that the nature of attribution changes from medium to >medium, and that a form of attribution rigorously defined by license >would necessarily interfere with the ability of the end user to modify >the work in ways that are traditionally embraced by the Free Software >community at large. > =20 > What alternative do you offer to ensure that attribution occurs? None. =20 There is no alternative actually. Also, the end user is not the issue,=20 I think the current phrasing even defines that the end user can remove them. >As always, if I can assist you in finding a method to bring your >wishes in harmony with the DFSG and Debian, please don't hesitate to >let me know. > > >Don Armstrong > > =20 >