Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 05:16:11PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > And I would still recommend a less ambiguous phrasing. > > I agree. I hope there is a chance to get it changed.
Hans seems to be willing to accept a better wording. So if someone can come up with a better wording speak up now. From the reiserfs mailinglist: Hans Reiser wrote: > Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > If this is the case may I suggest changing the text a bit then? If you > > release it under the GPL and add a statement like the one below things > > will be a lot more obvious. > > > > If you want to use reiserfs but can't due to its GPL license > > please contact Hans Reiser to discuss pricing for differently > > licensed source. > > Your phrasing does reflect the intent, except that some of my phrasing > makes unambiguous that which the GPL makes very ambiguous and lawsuit > inviting. > > That is, the whole proprietary kernel module issue, and what is a > derived work. What is a derived work is very difficult to define > independently of the software, which I think is why the GPL does not > attempt to do so. I think it isappropriate for an author of GPL > software to define what is considered a derivedwork in a manner that > other persons can reasonably rely on when making decisionsas to how to > properly and legally integrate it with non-GPL software. In the Linux > context I have to use Linus's interpretation in order to be a good > team member, elsewhere I can use Stallman's more constraining > interpretation. > > I am quite happy if folks suggest better phrasing than what I use. > Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
pgpVazxomYtrs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
