>From: Andreas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>At the end, my conclusion is to not change the license of cdrdao which
>gives me following two options:
>1. Freeze the project until the affected sources are replaced by a GPL
> compliant version.
>2. Release a cdrdao version which temporarily omits the affected
> sources until a GPL compliant version is available.
>To save some work I'll go with the first option and start implementing
>the required Reed-Solomon coder.
>I've removed all releases from sf.net.
It looks like I need to point out the consequences of your decision:
You have the right to change the license of cdrdao to make it
compatible to the license of libedc.
You did not. Instead you decided to completele remove all releases and
to announce the license problems.
As a result of your decision, no Linux distribution may legally include cdrdao.
This applies e.g. to RedHat Linux and to SuSE Linux.
I am sorry, but it looks like you like to punish cdrdao users for unknown
reason.
Note: the GPL does not inlcude a "healing clause". As section 6 in the GPL is
not legal when a program is linked against libedc, the GPL is completely void
in this case. This results in the fact that old copies of the cdrdao source
which are floating around have no license at all. If there was a healing clause
in the GPL, this would have resulted in cdrdao de-facto being licensed under
LGPL.
Jörg
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
