On Sunday 22 September 2002 23:15, Andreas Mueller wrote: > On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 22:47, Lourens Veen wrote: > > On Sunday 22 September 2002 22:30, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > > From: Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > [...] > > > > > However, as libedc is not GPLd the "viral" part of the GPL > > > does not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the > > > GPL. The problem is that Andreas did not make this clear > > > before. As a result of this "missing hint" other people did > > > believe that libedc is GPLd. > > > > Yes, the LICENSE file was removed from that directory. That's a > > mistake. And as you say the viral part of the GPL does not > > apply to libedc_ecc because it's not under the GPL. It does, > > however, apply to cdrdao. > > The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE file > (in fact no license file at all) at the time I fetched it. I was > in contact with Heiko at that time and he also did not mention > any restrictions. Of course this does not excuse my mistake - I > should have explicitly asked for placing it under GPL.
My apologies. I assumed it was the same code as in the libedc directory of cdrtools, which does have a LICENSE file. I assumed it had been cleaned up at some point by someone thinking it was just another copy of the GPL and that having one in the package would be enough. I didn't mean to imply you or anybody else removed it on purpose. > Regarding the license terms I think we should wait for Mike A. > Harris's answer to my question as he is an expert on this topic. > He clearly stated that GPLd software cannot have non GPLd parts. > The only open question is if they way cdrdao handles the > libedc_ecc code can count as linking in non GPLd libraries. > Depending on the answer I'll have to react... Yeah. I'm not an expert either. We'll see. Lourens -- GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
