From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans Reiser Subject: Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free? Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 10:03:41 -0700 Message-ID: <409529ED.4030909@namesys.com> References: <20040424193246.GA2490@raptus.homelinux.org> <200405010026.59064.camel78@iprimus.com.au> <200405010223.51457.jstubbs@gentoo.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: <200405010223.51457.jstubbs@gentoo.org> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: Jason Stubbs Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com 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, the strict *legal* interpretation > differs to this statement. The GPL basically says that anything that was > created by way of another's GPL'd code needs to be released under the > GPL if > released. There are no other restrictions regarding what specific > parts were > used to create the "new" product or anything with regards to > attribution. It > is my understanding that this is what will be addressed in "GPL v3". That had been my understanding until recently, and I was waiting for V3, but Stallman has backed away from that except for the GFDL. GFDL has been rejected by debian...... If you want it to be legally clear that you will to not be rebranded as RedHatFS, you must use something like my anti-plagiarism license or the XFree86 license. Stallman is not going to cure the problem for software, only for documentation, which makes no sense to me. I think he has trouble coping with the reality that people will eagerly and aggressively take away credit from others. > > Regardless of what the intent of the GPL is, (from what I've heard) > Debian > folk have always been about what's legally acceptable. It is a real shame > that legalities are always open to such vast interpretation. I will > find it > very interesting to see if the alleged attribution-restricted "GPL v3" > will > be accepted as being free. > > Regards, > Jason Stubbs