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 bedistributed 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 OScompanies like Sun way back in 1993 when we started, and Linux was not intended to be the primary income source for Namesys.....). By hislegally correct analysis, that the kernel all gets linked together is notrelevant."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.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part