From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 08:52:42 -0700
Message-ID: <40A0F6CA.10900@namesys.com>
References: <1084025633.28080.196082736@webmail.messagingengine.com>	 <200405110004.05704.reiser@namesys.com> <1084269555.22047.138.camel@jeff>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-18609-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <1084269555.22047.138.camel@jeff>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Jeff Davis <reiser-list@empires.org>
Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com, debian-legal@lists.debian.org

Jeff Davis wrote:

>
>
>As far as Debian is concerned, I don't think you give them quite enough
>credit. Those people just want a base of freedoms which a normal person
>can understand that covers all the software. It's very helpful to have
>an OS where you don't have to turn a development project into a legal
>investigation, tracking down hundreds of licenses. 
>
There is truth to this, let me acknowledge it.

>Now, that "base of
>freedoms" may not be agreeable to everyone, but we can't ignore the
>value of consistant licensing in an OS. And many of the problems with
>DFSG are mitigated by having a well-integrated non-free section
>(unfortunately that doesn't solve the problems for reiserfs, which needs
>to be in the OS install).
>
>Regards,
>	Jeff
>
>
>
>
>  
>