[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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,


Reply to: