All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
To: Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>
Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com
Subject: Re: Debian: reiser4 non-DFSG-free. !?!
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 12:26:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <409A914D.1020301@namesys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <409A90A5.30600@almg.gov.br>

Another example:

reiser@linux:~/reiser4progs-0.5.3> /sbin/mkreiserfs -V
mkreiserfs 3.6.9 (2003 www.namesys.com)

A pair of credits:
Edward Shushkin wrote the encryption and compression  file plugins,  and 
the V3
journal relocation code.

Vladimir Demidov wrote the parser for sys_reiser4(), the V3 alpha port, 
part of
the V3  journal  relocation code,  and helped  Hans keep  the business  
side of
things running.



Humberto Massa wrote:

> @ 06/05/2004 15:29 : wrote Hans Reiser :
>
>> I just modified the Reiser4 license to be the following:
>>
>> The Anti-Plagiarism License
>>  
>>
> etc.
>
> Mr. Heiser,
>
> I am a software developer, a paralegal, and a Debian user. Recently, 
> I've participated in various technical discussions in debian-devel and 
> in various licensing discussions in -legal. While I have sent you, 
> both by way of the lists and personally, some questions about the 
> reasoning of your licenses, you have up to the present moment 
> refrained to answer me.
>
> I stated in those e-mails that I am a great admirer of your work. I 
> stated, also, that I agree with your concerns about plagiarism. I 
> said, moreover, that I think that your work and the other reiser[34] 
> contributors' work is important. Important to Debian. Important to the 
> Linux community. Important to the Linux users. It's certainly 
> important to me.
>
> What I don't understand is _why_ are you doing this in such a 
> beligerant manner. I repeat: please, let's work our differences out. 
> Let us reach consensus and move forward.
>
> Reading all the lists archives and bug reports, it appears to me that 
> (at least part of) the problem is the following: some of your 
> filesystem utilities displayed, unconditionally, a big (by some 
> measure, but greater than 3 lines) attribution of credits. This was 
> too much to some package maintainers, and they transferred said text 
> to a file in the documentation directory for the package. You filed a 
> bug, the maintainer gave you the shoulder, flames ensued, etc.
>
> I don't agree with you that this is plagiarism. I'm sorry to say, but, 
> in my dictionary (and in the jurisdiction I live in) plagiarism would 
> be, for instance, remove *all* the credit attributions in the 
> packages, or substituting them for some credits crediting the wrong 
> person or persons. In this case, here in Brasil at least, the person 
> commiting such acts would be subject to one to four years in jail and 
> a fine.
>
> The legal part of this remembers me of another problem, with your old 
> "clarifications" over the GPL and with your new Anti-Plagiarism 
> License: it's a GPL-incompatible license ... for a work (reiser4) 
> which is derived from a GPL'd work (linux).
>
> This pretty much renders your product (reiser4) undistributable by any 
> person other than yourself. And, in principle, even by yourself. And I 
> think this is a very big loss.
>
> About the credits: if the credits attribution is too long to fit by 
> the standards of the package's maintainer (who is the proper authority 
> in the case, seemingly), what other solution there is? Just putting a 
> line like:
>
> "Many people contributed to this project. Please look: 
> /usr/share/doc/reiserfsprogs/CREDITS."
>
> is not enough? I mean, instead of the 20+ lines of the current display 
> in dispute? As someone noticed in debian-legal, many people leave the 
> theather before the credits roll. They know it's a (for instance) 
> George Lucas' movie, but they won't know the name of the cameramen. 
> Isn't it the same thing? If you want to see the credits, go and see 
> them. It's not like Debian did make them disappear.
>
> Now, I have only one question: is there a way you could back out in 
> your opinion and return to the old licensing for your products, 
> provided a consensus on moment and size of the credits attribution is 
> reached? If the answer is yes, I volunteer to mediate the discussions 
> between you and the affected package(s) maintainer(s).
>
Try running mkreiserfs and seeing if it really is all that bad, ok?

Thanks for caring.

Hans

  reply	other threads:[~2004-05-06 19:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <kkKLVD.A.2NF.qPomAB@murphy>
2004-05-06 19:23 ` Debian: reiser4 non-DFSG-free. !?! Humberto Massa
2004-05-06 19:26   ` Hans Reiser [this message]
2004-05-06 23:32     ` Matthew Palmer
2004-05-06 19:26 ` reiser4 non-free? Humberto Massa
     [not found] <cJN8yB.A.ZFE.UepmAB@murphy>
2004-05-06 20:24 ` Debian: reiser4 non-DFSG-free. !?! Humberto Massa
2004-05-07  6:19   ` Hans Reiser

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=409A914D.1020301@namesys.com \
    --to=reiser@namesys.com \
    --cc=debian-legal@lists.debian.org \
    --cc=humberto.massa@almg.gov.br \
    --cc=reiserfs-list@namesys.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.