Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:15:53 -0700 | From | "Jeff V. Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: Reiserfs licencing - possible GPL conflict? |
| |
Dear Greg,
You've got a pretty foul mouth. I think more is better for Linux. Linux could use more FS's and features, and I think having a B++ tree tht overlays EXT2 is pretty cool. Also, a grep of the Linux source base for the name "Greg Maxwell" returns <NULL> which is how much weight I am going to give your comments. You can call Andrew McCullough at 801-222-9635 if you want to talk to our attorneys (since you asked for his phone #) if you need to understand his thinking about the GPL. He's 53 years old, and has been doing IP law for about 25 years. Hope this helps.
Jeff
Greg Maxwell wrote: > > "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote: > > > My attorneys have reviewed this license and they tell me that this means > > that the ReiserFS is ***NOT*** open sourced. Using it with this > > restriction makes any commercial vendors who want to ship it liable for > > damages claims, since the act of shipping it means they will integrate > > it with an OS. We thought of doing something similiar with NWFS, but > > our attorneys, after spending several weeks examining the GPL and > > reviewing case law for open source IP, advised us is that we either > > could "give it all away" or restrict it, but that if we placed any > > restrictions on it, it wasn't open sourced. If you place any use > > restrictions, then you are in essence not releasing as "open" source. > > As such, we opted for the full GPL with no restrictions, since they > > defeat the whole purpose under current US law. I know lots of folks > > want to maintain some control (which is not a bad thing if you are > > trying to turn a profit), but they should understand that a GPL+ license > > scheme defeats the whole point and makes the stuff less attractive ..... > > Jeff, cut the bullshit. This isn't the first time you've fudded > something on the list. Your lies are NOT appricated. (i.e. do a archive > search for your name and GPL). > > Legally there is NO such thing as 'open source'. There is the OSD, which > this should be completely okay with. > > I'd like to know the name of your attorneys as I can't believe that a > real attorney would make such a bold statement on just a few hours > consideration. Perhaps you should be looking for a new attorney? > > Furthermore, if you actually bother to read the poor english license of > the code, it's aparent that the language is intended to limit use but > distribution, as the GPL already does. It looks like all he is trying to > do is preventing someone like Netware (or netapp!) from just taking his > FS. > > I agree that Hans should clear it up. I'm sure he will real soon. > > Perhaps you are just afraid that new developments like ReiserFS are > making your efforts on the near dead NWFS increasingly pointless? > > I wonder why your wonderful attorneys forgot to warn you that you can > get in trouble for making false comments about a compeating product, and > advise you to keep your mouth shut? > > Strange.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |