From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger Subject: Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:33:51 +0200 Message-ID: <409271DF.5070708@gmx.net> References: <20040424193246.GA2490@raptus.homelinux.org> <4091DAFE.5030809@namesys.com> <20040430055619.GD7487@archimedes.ucr.edu> <40923D1C.3090003@namesys.com> <878ygdk10n.fsf@wasp.nowan.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <878ygdk10n.fsf@wasp.nowan.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Jeremy Hankins Cc: Hans Reiser , debian-legal@lists.debian.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Jeremy Hankins wrote: > Hans Reiser 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 correct and acceptable, but a > disagreement about whether or not it is appropriate to force attribution > according to some particular standard. > > 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 in nuclear facilities, fine: non-free. If > you require that people who use the software spend a moment to think > about the plight of the homeless, fine: non-free. Just as, when you > require attribution in a particular format and with a particular text, > that's fine, but non-free. Did you say this as an official debian spokesperson? Carl-Daniel