On Sun, 02 May 2004, Hans Reiser wrote: > Who the hell do you think you are to use market leveraging to force > developers to use licenses they don't want that leave them exposed > to dangers that endanger them not you? Could the personal attacks please be toned down? We aren't in the business of forcing developers to do anything. Developers make their own decisions on how their work is licensed, and are quite free to make their work available in a proprietary product, shareware, or freeware. Debian has freely chosen not to be involved with distributing such works for various reasons. > Don Armstrong wrote: > >The patch that you're refering to is currently not even > >applied. What it actually did was add a -quiet option to suppress > >the outputing of the DARPA sponsorship message. > > and what made you think it was your place to do that? My place? I'm not the one who applied it. Presumably it was applied because an end user requested that it be applied. Clearly it's perfectly reasonable to have an option for a program that enables it to be used in non-interactive ways. Would you object to us having a shell that allows users to do the equivalent of "foo > /dev/null"? > In a democracy, funding programs which are not known by the public > to have provided much benefit get their funding cut. Probably, but I fail to see how allowing the user to turn off the DARPA message decreases the end user's knowledge of who funded it. > >Furthermore, the list of credits are still included (to my knowledge) > >in /usr/share/doc/resierfsprogs/README.gz. > > oh, well, that is almost as good as putting them on the dark side of > the moon.... a credit read by no one has no meaning. The end user can choose to read it, or they can choose not to. Regardless, they should not be assaulted by the credits or forced to read them. Going back to journal articles, is the funding grant number emblazoned in 24 point font above the article title?[1] > >Copyright requires that appropriate attribution occurs. > > It requires not removing the copyright notice which usually mentions > the copyright holder is (me), and you know, I don't really fancy > changing the mount type to "mount -t > copyrighthansreiser2001200220032004 /dev/hda /home". Everyone else > but me gets completely shafted. Uh, that wouldn't be a proper copyright notice. Copyright notices have a specific place in Debian, and are always placed there. [They are also often included in the --version output for most programs.] Furthermore, we expect copyright notices to also indicate the terms under which they are (or are not) licensed. > >1: I personally have travelled to meet with individuals at FSF to > >work on bringing the GFDL issue to an amicable conclusion, > > It isn't your place to force a license on software you did not > write. I *CANNOT* force a license on software that I do not own the copyright to.[2] To claim that I am (or have) is reprehensible. This is in effect claiming that I (in my capacity as an individual!) have extorted (or blackmailed) the FSF. I have done no such thing, nor have any other members of the GFDL committee. Don Armstrong 1: For those of you unfamiliar with journal articles, the funding grant number is generally included at the very end of the article before the references in a normal font size. [This is also where acknowledgements (like my major professor's to Dr. Smirnoff) are generally placed.] 2: At least not without committing a felony and a extreme breech of my personal ethics. -- It seems intuitively obvious to me, which means that it might be wrong -- Chris Torek http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature