From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: MJ Ray Subject: Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free? Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 18:38:00 +0100 Message-ID: <4e8e742dc62e0e2f9a9008ee20ddd437@bouncing.localnet> References: <4097CCA4.4060707@namesys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Generated by Pantomime 1.1.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <4097CCA4.4060707@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com On 2004-05-04 18:02:28 +0100 Hans Reiser wrote: > There is a difference between free software and plagiarizable > software. There is a difference between free software and forced-advert software, too. There is also the difference between a duck. > Debian wants software to be both free and plagiarizable. Debian has not expressed that view, to the best of my knowledge. > XFree86 and I want > our software to be free but not plagiarizable. Great! I look forward to you both fixing your licences. > In general, I want software > to not be plagiarizable, as I think it works against the societal > interest to > not attribute accurately. I agree. > Saying that plagiarism is an important freedom is > like saying assault is something you must be allowed to do if you are > to be > considered free. No-one has said that. You seem to be constructing straw men. In case you missed it, the problem which makes XFree86's latest licence definitely non-free (not just GPL-incompatible) is independent of their advertising clause. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing