Re: reiser4 non-free?

Re: reiser4 non-free?

[Humberto Massa]

Mr. Stallman:

First of all, I would like to state that I have nothing but deep respect
and admiration for your ideals, and all your work. Thank you for
everything.

That said, I humbly disagree with your e-mail:

RMS wrote:
>> It's the same case as Windows NDIS drivers loading on linux. They
>> were created in a different environment, and would exist as they are
>> even if linux did not exist. Provided GPL'd glue code, you can load
>> them in the linux kernel, and they are _not_ derivative works.
>
>The idea that "glue code" makes it ok to combine GPL-covered code with
>non-free code has no basis in the GPL. The GPL applies to the entire
>combination of code that is combined into a larger program. If a.o is
>under the GPL and talks to b.o which talks to c.o, the GPL covers all
>three files, if all three are combined as one program.
>
>Linus has implicitly and sometimes explicitly given permission for some
>kinds of non-free dynamically loaded modules; perhaps the concept of
>"glue code" is relevant in terms of the permission he has given.  I'm
>not the one to ask about that kind of issue.

No, this idea has basis in copyright law. I specifically mentioned
Brazilian copyright laws in my e-mails, because that's what I have some
knowledge of, but the Berne convention is also reasonably clear, if you
think about it.

Brazilian copyright (author's rights, in truth) law says: a derived work
is the result of the transformation of an original work, that is an
intellectual creation on its own standing (best translation I can do).
So, a good rule of thumb a Brazilian copyright lawyer would use to
eliminate the possibility of a work be derived for another is to ask
himself: would work D exist (in the same form it currently exists) if
work O did not exist? Ellaborating a little bit more than I did in my
previous e-mails, if the answer is _yes_, it would exist, in the same
form it exists currently, even if work O did not exist, then D _IS_
_NOT_ a derived work from O. If the answer is _no_, it would not exist
in the same current form, then you'll have to dig deeper.

In the case of a NDIS driver, the driver itself is without doubt NOT a
derived work on the linux kernel. It would exist as-is even if linux did
not exist; the glue code IS (also without doubt) a derived work on the
linux kernel. The question is: "is there any license/copyright
infringement?". The answer is: no, under no circumstances. When the glue
code writer wrote the glue code, he was making a permitted modification
on the linux kernel (of which he had a GPL license), and of course I
suppose he is abiding the other terms of the GPL for distribution of the
glue code (p.ex., distributing it under the terms of the GPL also). When
the user linked the glue code with the NDIS driver code, he was doing
something inherent to the *use* of the kernel, the glue code, and the
NDIS driver code, which we know is quite out of reach of copyright law.
In the worst case, he would be in violation of some EULA for the NDIS
driver code.

This is not a Linus/Linux exemption, is just the application of the law.
What Linus did was to dig into copyright law (USofAn copyright law - USC
17) and find out the following (excerpt from Linus' lkml post):

>There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard
>system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that
>isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is
>clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not
>derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is
>just doesn't matter.
>
>And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the
>same.  The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a
>result, anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that
>simple.
>
>Now, the "derived work" issue in copyright law is the only thing that
>leads to any gray areas. There are areas that are not gray at all: user
>space is clearly not a derived work, while kernel patches clearly _are_
>derived works.
>
>But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was
>originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a
>derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become
>a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?
>
>THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe
>that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply
>because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special
>Linux behaviour.
>
>Basically:
> - anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_
>   works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a
>   derived work.
> - anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
>   Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck
>   around with core code, you're derived, no question about it.
>
>Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem
>module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in
>the first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived
>just because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS
>interface to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I
>could make that judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it
>clearly is a gray area.
>
>Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing
>to tell the AFS guys so.
>
>Does that mean that any kernel module is automatically not a derived
>work?  HELL NO! It has nothing to do with modules per se, except that
>non-modules clearly are derived works (if they are so central to the
>kenrel that you can't load them as a module, they are clearly derived
>works just by virtue of being very intimate - and because the GPL
>expressly mentions linking).
>
>So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just
>one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't
>derived.
>
Now, Linus is NAL, nor am I, and absolutely TINLA, but, I think it's not
up to the GPL (or any other license) to decide what is a derived work; a
license can clarify, for instance, like the kernel clarification, what
the copyright holder _exempts_ from being a derived work. That is, a
license can _relax_ what copyright law would consider a derived work,
not _tighten_ it. The process of "relaxing" the definition goes more or
less like "yeah, I know X _could_ be considered a derived work on my
work, but I am promising I do not consider it to be, meaning basically I
will not sue over this". IIRC, this is where *estoppel* applies.

I hope I have contributed to this discussion,

Humberto Massa

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin

Re: reiser4 non-free?

[Richard Stallman]

I think we are having two misunderstandings at the same time.

You seem to be talking about the specific case of modules for Linux,
based on the specifics of the extra permission that Linus gave.
That case is different and what I say does not apply to it.

You are focusing on the definition of "derived work", but that is not
really the issue.  Copyright also covers use of a work as part of a
larger combined work.

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[Hans Reiser]

I think Humberto is correct in his analysis of what makes something 
derivative.  By the logic of that analysis though, reiserfs can be 
distributed even if it is licensed differently from the rest of the kernel 
because it is not derivative of it (It can be ported to other operating 
systems, and was created with the intention of performing such porting.  I 
did not expect Linux to be effective in earning money relative to sales to OS 
companies like Sun way back in 1993 when we started, and Linux was not 
intended to be the primary income source for Namesys.....).  By his
legally correct analysis, that the kernel all gets linked together is not
relevant.

However, it is also important to understand when a stance is morally and 
logically correct but not effective due to being beyond the herd's 
understanding.  

It is also important to understand one's priorities, and carefully choose 
which fights one will struggle hard enough at to win despite difficulty.

I sense that free software has become institutionalized, and has grown beyond 
the point where diversity can be tolerated by its institutions.  Innovation 
in licensing is now verbotten.  Free expression and creativity is anathema
to those trying to coalesce into coherent herd thought.

Richard has indicated that he views my license as being free software (but GPL 
incompatible), and said that the GPL restrains changes to credits in some 
ways also, but Debian seems to be growing beyond Richard which is a pity in 
some ways.

To create a license better than the GPL for your product, is like having 
unshined shoes when fighting on the front lines.  Sure, it makes you less 
likely to be shot by the enemy if your shoes are unshined, but this can be 
outweighed in importance by the persons to your rear who don't really  
comprehend much about frontlines fighting technique, and really care about 
your shoes being shiny like theirs quite enough to stop you from getting food 
and ammo unless you do it.

Debian's efforts to make licensing into inflexible dogma are bad, based on a 
lack of understanding of the tradeoffs inherent in licensing, and deserve 
opposition.  However, in all teams there is a need to give ground even when 
one is right, and fighting Microsoft is my priority much more than fighting 
Debian.  If Debian offers to provide credits in practice but not theory, and 
there is some possibility of getting into a debian installer in the near 
future, then I can probably lose a little and risk a little and put both 
progs and kernel code into GPL V2 for now despite it being a license with  
flaws that beg for fixing.

I will sidestep the GFDL vs. XFree86 style vs. GPLV2 docs issue by making GPL 
V2 docs that consist of a URL to our website.  Vitaly, see to that, and make 
sure we have good docs on our website....  That solution should make everyone 
except the users happy.  Sigh.  GFDL would be better, but I don't want to 
deal with that fight....  

Debian has done many wonderful things for Linux users.  Licensing is not one 
of them, but still I am grateful for the other things, and consider them much 
more important.

Peace be with you,

Hans

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[Jeff Davis]

> Debian's efforts to make licensing into inflexible dogma are bad, based on a 
> lack of understanding of the tradeoffs inherent in licensing, and deserve 
> opposition.  However, in all teams there is a need to give ground even when 
> one is right, and fighting Microsoft is my priority much more than fighting 
> Debian.  If Debian offers to provide credits in practice but not theory, and 
> there is some possibility of getting into a debian installer in the near 
> future, then I can probably lose a little and risk a little and put both 
> progs and kernel code into GPL V2 for now despite it being a license with  
> flaws that beg for fixing.
> 

I have read most of this discussion in the mail archives. I support your
position no matter whether you chooses plagarizable or not. Even if the
license allows potential to create non-free software, the fact is that,
to me as a user, software from Namesys (and contributors) is free. Until
Namesys (and contributors) uses the license to prevent me from using,
modifying (by myself or hiring someone else), or distributing the
software how I want to, it always will be free.

The freedom of software is the combination of the license, the software
itself, and the developers.

People can even abuse the GPL to a degree, and much GPL software is less
free than reiserfs. Some code is constructed in a very convoluted way
that only the initial developers understand. Some projects have made
architectural choices that, for all practical purposes, eliminate the
ability to make a certain kind of change (a common example is software
for which porting is virtually impossible). Some groups make it
difficult for outsiders to contribute. Some people put their modified
GPL software on their own servers, never distribute the changes, and
then just allow people network access to those servers.

The GPL is a powerful and valuable tool, but if the developers don't
want it to be free, it won't be, even if it's GPL.

I suppose experimentation is required, since people did raise some
interesting questions (such as language translation of credits). You are
in the rare position in which you can change licenses as you wish; most
projects don't have the ability to experiment with licenses.

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. 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

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[mjt]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 02:59:15AM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> Debian.  If Debian offers to provide credits in practice but not theory, and 
>> there is some possibility of getting into a debian installer in the near 
>> future, then I can probably lose a little and risk a little and put both 
>> progs and kernel code into GPL V2 for now despite it being a license with  
>> flaws that beg for fixing.

Please, please, Debian people, make this happen!

>The GPL is a powerful and valuable tool, but if the developers don't
>want it to be free, it won't be, even if it's GPL.

That is so true.

>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).

If the non-free is not split away from Debian ;)

Besides, there's non-free and there's non-free.

There's non-free like DJB's software, that's free for most intents and
purposes but a bitch to redistribute.

There's non-free like Java, which should be illegal in most countries.

Debian is a little too black-and-white here, imo.
Non-free would benefit from some shades of black, even if I sort of
understand not having any shades of white.

-- 
mjt

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[Hans Reiser]

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
>
>
>
>
>  
>

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> I think Humberto is correct in his analysis of what makes something 
> derivative.  By the logic of that analysis though, reiserfs can be 
> distributed even if it is licensed differently from the rest of the kernel 
> because it is not derivative of it (It can be ported to other operating 
> systems, and was created with the intention of performing such porting.  I 
> did not expect Linux to be effective in earning money relative to sales to OS 
> companies like Sun way back in 1993 when we started, and Linux was not 
> intended to be the primary income source for Namesys.....).  By his
> legally correct analysis, that the kernel all gets linked together is not
> relevant.

  "We wrote A as an appendix to B, but we intend to also find some C
  and have it be an appendix to that as well."

I can see at least two issues with this line of thought.  Email me
privately if you feel it important to know how I look at this.

> Debian's efforts to make licensing into inflexible dogma are bad, based on a 
> lack of understanding of the tradeoffs inherent in licensing, and deserve 
> opposition.

Maybe Debian has made some signfificant mistakes.  I'm not sure
specifically what they would be, but most people make mistakes sooner
or later.  I'll agree that some of the arguments made to express Debian's
issues have not been expressed very coherently.

However, the "inflexibility" you are talking about is an artifact of the
underlying legal environment.  Debian's "inflexibility" has been directed
at retaining some community ability to distribute/maintain/develop
software despite that environment.

And, given that the worst Debian can do is say "we won't deal with this",
I think you're being a bit harsh in your charactarization of the project.
[I'm not saying Debian is beyond criticism, mind you -- I'm saying that
I think your criticisms are not as helpful as they could be.]

> I will sidestep the GFDL vs. XFree86 style vs. GPLV2 docs issue by making GPL 
> V2 docs that consist of a URL to our website.  Vitaly, see to that, and make 
> sure we have good docs on our website....  That solution should make everyone 
> except the users happy.  Sigh.  GFDL would be better, but I don't want to 
> deal with that fight....  

You can, of course, make this available under multiple licenses.

> Peace be with you,

And with you,

-- 
Raul

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[Paul Wagland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1842 bytes --]


On May 11, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote:

> On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 12:04:05AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
>> I think Humberto is correct in his analysis of what makes something
>> derivative.  By the logic of that analysis though, reiserfs can be
>> distributed even if it is licensed differently from the rest of the 
>> kernel
>> because it is not derivative of it (It can be ported to other 
>> operating
>> systems, and was created with the intention of performing such 
>> porting.  I
>> did not expect Linux to be effective in earning money relative to 
>> sales to OS
>> companies like Sun way back in 1993 when we started, and Linux was not
>> intended to be the primary income source for Namesys.....).  By his
>> legally correct analysis, that the kernel all gets linked together is 
>> not
>> relevant.
>
>   "We wrote A as an appendix to B, but we intend to also find some C
>   and have it be an appendix to that as well."
>
> I can see at least two issues with this line of thought.  Email me
> privately if you feel it important to know how I look at this.

I think a more correct analogy (from Han's point of view at least) 
would be:

'We wrote this explanatory work "A" about work "B", it is also relevant 
to work "C" which is on the same topic as "B"'

Look at it from a QT point of view, written and distributed freely for 
Linux, but also relevant (and paid for) on other OS'es... Given that 
they have sold reiser3 to other unnamed companies, I think that the 
argument can quite easily be made that reiser4 would also exist without 
linux, but that linux is the "first target". But, as always, I am not a 
lawyer ;-)

FWIW, I would like to publicly thank Hans for his decision to release 
the whole shebang under a GPLv2 license. It makes me even happier that 
I earlier sent a donation to namesys.

Cheers,
Paul

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[mjt]

On Tue, May 11, 2004 at 09:09:47AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>
>You can, of course, make this available under multiple licenses.

When talking about experimenting with licenses in general, this is
a superb idea.

Consider, double licensing for all Reiser4, kernel- and userland stuff,
GPLv2 and Anti-Plagiation.

Would be interesting to see which license version is adopted by whom.
My guess is that most people would stick to GPLv2 and not touch the
credits and some revolutionaries would take the anti-plagiation license.

-- 
mjt

Re: reiser4 non-free? (I throw in the towel)

[Michael Milverton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 681 bytes --]

Hans,
	 I think that you made the right decsision under the circumstances and I can 
hear all those in the ranks behind you sighing a big sigh of relief that you 
are going to shine your shoes :). 

It always takes more courage to take a step backward on an issue like this 
than it does to fight on, so the fact that you have done so is commendable. 

It is better to lose a battle and win the war rather than win a battle and 
lose the war and in this case debians support is important and is a battle 
worth losing so that greater objectives can be accomplished. 

Thankyou
Michael Milverton
-- 
GNU/Linux: Secure, Stable, Free
Michael <camel78@iprimus.com.au>

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 307 bytes --]