On Mon, 4 Sep 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Could _you_ please stop your primitive FUD here?
Absolutely, but that would require you stop mis-representing the nature of
the CDDL, the GPL, and the certain conditions you've created that surround
cdrecord.
Everyone who reads e.g. http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77565
knows that this is definitely a campaign against OpenSolaris.
If there is a campaign against OpenSolaris and the CDDL, then it is you
who created it when you mis-represented the nature of the CDDL, the GPL,
and cdrecord to the debian-legal mailing list when they discussed the CDDL
and removal of cdrecord (separate discussions, IIRC)
You seem to be an agent provotative from Debian and spread obvious lies.
I currently do not use Debian and I am not even subscribed to any
Debian-related mailing list (official or unofficial, whatsoever). In fact,
I'm an OpenSolaris community member that is concerned about you are
mis-representing the community that I'm am a part of, not to mention the
licenses of several pieces of software that I use regularly.
Aprox. 4 years ago, there was a discussion with people from debian about
a few parts in cdrtools that may only be modified
in case you change the name of the beast.
At that time, there have been people at debian who have been able to have
rational decisions.....and accepted this as fully DFSG compatible.
You still added a condition that forbids a user to change certain lines of
code when the user chooses to distribute it. This is a (questionable)
extraneous condition.
Given the particular debian-legal thread I read started in approximately
April of 2005 (where this was brought up), this still seems to be an
issue.
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
