On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:13:59PM +0200, Anders Widman wrote: > >> all that was removed was *code* that gets compiled. If the maintainer > >> cannot arbitrarily change any code he wants, then it is not clear that > >> the program is DFSG-free. > > > Amen. Making part of the code immutable is not what I call free > > software. What if I want to use parts of the code and I respect the > > copyright and license...does that mean I also have to take this part of > > the code and output the credits? What if environment doesn't provide a > > way to output the credits. What if I am implementing the reiser tools on > > an embedded system that will never show any such output? > > > What about programs that execute the reiserfs tools (like bootup > > scripts)...are they not allowed to redirect or filter this output? > > > If any of this is questionable, then I suspect reiserfs tools isn't DFSG > > compliant and belongs in non-free with all it's flakiness. > > > Wow.. what an reaction :). Hans's original message was that the > credits were not included with the distributed files, nothing else. > Or am I completely mistaken?
Sorry, I had read into some other peoples comments and made a bad assumption about what this was refering to. So this is just about a file that is in /usr/share/doc/...? If so, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Just put the file back in. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
