From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Thomas Sniffen Subject: Re: reiser4 non-free? Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 22:12:44 -0400 Message-ID: <87vfj9ugrn.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> References: <4097CCA4.4060707@namesys.com> <87fzag139k.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <4099A868.9030406@slaphack.com> <20040506.083242.41632888.wlandry@ucsd.edu> <87k6zpy8ke.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <20040506143643.GB25505@raptus.homelinux.org> <877jvpy08v.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <409A7F98.7040609@namesys.com> <87d65hw4hb.fsf@aule.evenmere.org> <87brl1jalm.fsf@wasp.nowan.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <87brl1jalm.fsf@wasp.nowan.org> (Jeremy Hankins's message of "Thu, 06 May 2004 21:21:25 -0400") Resent-Message-ID: List-Id: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Reiser Cc: debian-legal@lists.debian.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com Jeremy Hankins writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen writes: >> Hans Reiser writes: > >>> A: No, credits describe the contribution made to a project. Ads >>> describe a product someone wants you to buy. Ads are not the same as >>> credits, and their preservation is not protected by this license. >> >> Debian's going to have to look really, really closely at every release >> of every piece of software under this license, then, and risk an >> argument -- in a courtroom -- with a copyright holder who considers >> some line to be a credit, or insufficiently prominent in its modified >> form. > > Fuzzy lines in a license are not a new thing. Debian isn't in the > litigation business, so we're not going to be trying to push the > boundaries anyway. Respecting the wishes of the author/licensor is a > policy of ours -- remember the pine business. > >>> Q: What in this license prevents persons from making their name >>> display excessively annoyingly throughout the running of the program? >>> Isn't that a flaw in the license? >>> >>> A: The shovel doesn't stop the digger from creating a pit in the road >>> that endangers other people. The license is a tool. Whether you make >>> an ass out of yourself using it on the software you write is up to >>> you. No compiler makes broken programs work.... >> >> In other words, some works under this license are free (for example, >> one containing no credits but the copyright notice) and others are >> non-free. > > Wouldn't such a work still be non-free? At the least, it definitely > goes much farther than the analogous clause in the GPL. You can't > include code (even optionally executed code) to suppress it, for > example. If there are no credits, the prohibition on removing credits is null. -- Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu