Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 30 17:38:40 2001
> It does not include Source! Remove the binary immediately or add source. Actually I think that if the source is available (yes, we can debate exactly what that means) they are in compliance. I assume that source will be available, otherwise I agree that they are not in compliance. > In addidion, I don't like modified versions to float around with the same name > as the original. Either change the name or make it otherwise clear that this > is _not_ the original cdrecord. Another reasonable request. It is very poor form to have a private copy not clearly marked as such. > In this special case it is particulary bad because the hack does not > add new things to cdrecord but is a different implementation for a feature > that is available from me for 3.5 years. If you don't make it clear, that this > is _not_ the official cdrecord-ProDVD I am forced to change the license > so that it is no more 100% GPL :-( I would really like to see this have a more amicable tone, and I certainly think changing the license is the wrong direction, I would enforce it if possible. I doubt that there is any intentional abuse here, and I hope that the name will be clearly changed post haste. -- -bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the last possible moment - but no longer" -me -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
