Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> > >>
> >> No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
> >> need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
> >> you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
> >> clear to everyone else. It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
> >> perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
> >> use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.
> >
> > Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related
> > licenses.
> >
> > What problem do you have with fully legal code?
>
> The problem is that it can't be used as a component of a larger work
> if any other components are GPL-covered. As you know very well.
You know very well that you are writing a false claim here.
Cdrtools is fully legal and can be rightfully redistributed in source or binary
form. This has been verified by three independent teams of lawyers.
If you have wishes that go bejond legality, I cannot help you.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
