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 |
PGP signature
