It disturbs me that such a great piece of software engineering like ReiserV3 and V4 is sullied by licensing arguments about whether someone is going to plagiarize them.
I imagine that nearly all software engineers would be horrified at the thought of stealing the Reiser3 and 4 code and representing them as their own. It would be tantamount to a random civil engineer trotting the blueprints to the Golden Gate bridge out as their own design. The social and professional repercussions would be immediate, highly negative and totally incompatible with the motivation for contributing to FOSS systems. I'd like to get an idea of what the major concerns are surrounding "plagiarism" and FOSS. l. Is it that you believe the John Q Software is going to rip off your software and represent it as their own work. That would be plagiarism and I think very very rare in the FOSS community. 2. Are you unhappy with the fact that a few of the major distros are charging money for support and representing the software itself as their own creation? Wouldn't that already be in contravention of GPL V2? Are you unhappy with the fact that some distros make *a lot* of money and fail to credit the FOSS people that made it possible? Arguably the market determines whether their support and package integration are worthy of financial support, just as the DOD determines whether V4 is worth of their support. The relative discrepancy in reward vs. effort is an economic discussion beyond the scope of this. 3. Is it that you simply want an efficient mechanism for cataloging efforts of the major contributors to a project? If that's the case why don't we just come up with some sort of credits standard to be macro embedded in the binaries? That way anyone could view the credits by running a 'credits' shell command against the binary/library/kernel etc. Obviously the macros would be viewable in source. 4. How about this for a self-referential solution to the problem. In ReiserV4, you could view the ReiserV4 credits by simply looking at the credits meta properties in reiser4.o or any other software. Sounds like a good idea for a plugin or default behavior. The ability to view credits like this might make software engineers recommend V4 for this reason alone. ;-) 5. It would probably be easy enough to put hooks in the Gnome and KDE help subsystems so that the Help/Credits menu item would scan the binary for attributions. 6. I've said this before, but if the 'credits' program doesn't find the exact 'attributions' structure in the binary, it can do a multi-part diff/MD5 and then match it to the closest known version. This algorithm might be similar to the rsync or advanced binary diff algorithms. That way if there are no attribution macros or someone intentionally strips or alters attributions you could track it. I'm sure some digital signature technique could be used to guarantee non-alteration. What if the team members each digitally signed the their source modules? Anyway, these are all possible technical solutions to a human problem. People would like attribution for the hard work they do. Naturally. Is there a better mechanism? Hopefully the issue doesn't devolve into an argument about forcing people to read the credits, nagware like, during the execution of the code. That would simply not scale at all and would aggressively de-select your software free or otherwise from an open environment. Think about it, (1) Everytime the kernel invokes kmod, the kmod team brays about how great they are. (2) Everytime someone opens a dynamic library, it shouts about how great it is. (3) Everytime your email program starts up, it delays for 20 seconds while it advertises for the team. Of course if you buy support, this message goes away. Hmmm.... (4) Everytime a particular SMTP service starts up it announces it's version and a random contributor. For people trying to hack into systems, this is very bad as it can be used to determine whether there are vulnerabilities. (5) By this time, we begin experiencing a very low coefficient of static friction on the development slope. There has to be a better way, or FOSS software wouldn't exist. In short, can you guys give some real examples where developers intentions have been abused or are likely to be abused by GPL V2? Thanks, jim burnes
