Marcel Weber wrote: > I think Hans has a good point. The inclusion of credits is something > that should be respected. Free software does not mean that you can do > what you want with a piece of code, but that you're allowed to use, > modify and redistribute it freely, respecting it's license. IMHO a) It is unfortunate that copyright in the doc dir doesn't list the full copyright (at least in my version) that is in README, but only mentiones GPL. Also, I think that the credits should be put somewhere in the doc directory. b) The licensing information certainly ist misleading: The first line says GPL 2, period. Then there's lengthy information for assigning copyright of patches. After that, there is that funny "nothing ... shall be interpreted to allow you to fail to fairly credit me, or to remove my credits ...", which I'd probably interpret as "you cannot distribute without something that says...". c) Someone running fsck because he has trouble with his hard drive probably doesn't want to see the history of mankind from the beginning to the creation of reiser v3. The patches to the source seem to be making reiserfsck behave more like other fsck (e.g. adding -y), so I can understand why someone would remove them. (In fact, if I have a (insert your favorite language items here) broken reiserfs I probably don't want to know who sponsored the breakage and lose ** lines of scrollback messages for that.) So it's only reasonable to move the stuff. No other author of any piece of GPL'd software I know of has such obnoxious sponsorship messages. In fact, they are hindering usability of the tools. d) At least the noninclusion of README is probably an honest mistake and a friendly email would 100% suffice. Cheers T.
Description: PGP signature