On 2004-05-04 18:47:02 +0100 Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Our licenses are free and not plagiarizable. GPL V2 is plagiarizable
in the
view of folks at debian who felt free to remove the credits.
Can someone give a conclusive statement of what actually happened? The
bug report 152547 looks like someone moved an advert into the docs
accompanying, rather than removed any attribution. Now, if you call
that advert "the credits" then I think you have a different view to
many people.
Assault is the wrong analogy, lying is what plagiarism is.
Sure, but you've not shown any of these by debian yet.
Having a license
that prevents lying about who did what is not a restriction on
freedom any
more than laws against fraud restrict freedom of speech.
Yes, that seems true and saying "you must attribute this to me, not
you" would be fine, if redundant. Putting in the licence "you must
include this report of a conversation between Hans Reiser and his
lawyer" would not really prevent lying about who did what.
I agree.
So support those who do something to stop plagiarism.
I do. I also support those who do things to promote free software.
In case you missed it, the problem which makes XFree86's latest
licence
definitely non-free (not just GPL-incompatible) is independent of
their
advertising clause.
What problem do you speak of?
Their new condition clause 4, which says you cannot use their name,
even for accurate reporting. Normally, this would just be a false
statement, but this licence makes it a condition of the grant. I've
not seen that mistake committed by anyone else yet.
And call it a credit clause, not an advertising clause.
Advertisements sell
products, credits describe who made the project happen.
No, it is advertising for the XFree86 Project, Inc. In addition to
acknowledging their copyright (the credit), that advert may have to
appear.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
