Marko Vojinovic <vvma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> While Joerg certainly knows better... I think the issue was that
> cdrtools could be built only with the schilly-toolchain (or whatever
> the exact name), and that was *not* GPL. So according to some
> interpretations of the GPL, while cdrtools was claiming to be
> GPL-licensed, there was no GPL-compatible way to build the binaries
> from that source, which arguably made it violate GPL. That's why Debian
> folks attacked, as far as I understood.
If such false claims are published on a license and the license steward does
not correct them, the licence needs to be seen as a weak license and avoided
because it causes a high risk of being sued for no reason.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
