#include <hallo.h> * Joerg Schilling [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 07:16:46PM]: > Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If the GPL is a free license acording to the Debian Social Contract > > > there is no need to do this...... > > > > Joerg, please stop that. You have already proved by your recent actions > > that you DO NOT understand the GPL. Don't try to justify your "claims" > > with another document that is neither understood by you nor is really > > your business. > > Eduard, please stop your FUD.
I see no FUD. Please look in a lexicon for the usual meaning of this term. > You did write (easy to proof as) false claims many times in the past. > Just remember the case where you did call Sun Studio C "rubbish" just because > it flags bad code that GCC let's pass. He? I cannot remember writting this, and I would not use the word "rubbish". > Take it as a fact that nobody will believe you unless you proove your claims > with real facts. Do you have an answer robot? What exactly did I claim that could not prooved easily or has already been prooved? Or do you refer to some old (or even incorrect) memory, including the "rubbish Sund Studio C" mentioned above? WTF? > > > Note that the Schily Makefilesystem is a different "work" and just > > > published > > > together the rest of the cdrtools. If the GPL _really_ insists in > > > polluting > > > > I reallize that. Guess why I suggested double-licensing. > > Guess why I did suggest that you should find someone to explain you the > background. > > Have a look at http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract and try to understand > what section 9. "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software" means: > > > The license must not place restrictions on other software that is > distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license > must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium > must be free software. > > In our case, the "medium" is the tar archive that is used to publish cdrtools. Hear, hear. And what does the file "COPYING" with the GPL license text do there, in the main directory of your "medium"? Is it not supposed to cover the whole thing, as in "placing restrictions on other software"? YOU placed the license file there and I interpret your statement as a direct proposal to separate the split the package into the "code" and "build system" parts. Correct? > But before you do that, it would make sense to think whether the claims of > the > OP make sense at all..... If you follow the extreme GPL-interpretation of the OP you are clearly violating the GPL and any contributor to cdrtools has the right to sue you. I do not read it that way and I know your role in the cdrtools development, but you do not make it easy :-( > Note that the CDDL as used for the Schily Makefilesystem gives more freedom to > the users of the cdrtools than the other projects that are covered under the > GPL. Sorry, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html presents it in a different light. However, it only refers to linking. I will ask our legal group for further details. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
