Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?
Don Armstrong wrote:
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]
funding agencies are always mentioned on the original article but not
the citations of them, not sure what your point is?
I have never seen a journal reproduce another journal's article while
deleting the mention of the funding agency. That kind of abuse seems
reserved for linux distros to practice.
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.
Legally it most certainly would be.
Copyright notices have
a specific place in Debian, and are always placed there.
Moving them would violate the law.
[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.
The law does not require this, nor does the GPL.
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.
You as a group are attempting to coerce using the market leverage that
Debian genuinely does possess and seems willing and aggressively eager
to use. Are you going to claim that market leverage is not a very real
and potent form of coercion?
Stallman is experimenting with methods of requiring crediting, and you
are getting in the way of an effort to research and test new solutions
to real problems in current licensing techniques which you are not
concerned about because they put persons other than you and your
committee at risk. My experiments (slightly different from Stallmans
and I think slightly more to the point than documentation licensing) are
also being frustrated by you.
In regards to font size and all that, I have already said that it is
sufficient for me if the credits are equally prominent, and retain their
wording, and you are free to change their graphical presentation subject
to that. Sending them to /dev/null does not make them equally prominent
compared to the original form. I am quite willing to cooperate on all
matters of finessing things so that installs are smooth and elegant,
etc., and to develop any improved licensing wording that would enhance
freedom of installer writers while retaining the presentation of the
credits. Actually, I think that requiring that the credits be equally
prominent and retain their wording is quite flexible for that purpose
already, but please inform me if you see an issue I missed.
Reply to: