On Monday 23 September 2002 12:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Preface: I am sorry, but it seems that you don't know much about
> Copyright issues :-( Many of your statements are completely
> wrong and none of your mails from the last night has been
> helpful.
>
> For a decent discussion
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> I think Andreas decision to replace the GPL incompatible code
> with new code, is the right thing to do.
Indeed. Why are people still complaining about licensing since it's now a
100% moot point with cdrdao?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa o
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Julián Muñoz wrote:
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:07:06 + (GMT)
>From: Julián Muñoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Andreas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: cdwrite list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be change
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Åsmund Skjæveland wrote:
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:15:33 +0200
>From: Åsmund Skjæveland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
> protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="liOOAslEiF7prFVr"
>Subject: Re: Licens
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Julián Muñoz wrote:
>Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:36:34 + (GMT)
>From: Julián Muñoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
>
>
>Although it is an interest
On 23 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote:
> 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
Hi all,
wow, that was an interesting discussion today. Unfortunately I could not
follow it directly since my real job currently takes most of my time.
After digging throw most of the thread I see following points that
are relevant for my current problem:
- Cdrdao cannot be GPLd as long as parts
EE's do it 'til it Hz 8-)
~~John D. Zitterkopf~~
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zittware.com
_
Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B)These email
address may
> This is how the GPL protects freedom of the code, by ensuring
> that when you've got GPL'd code, no one can remove any of the
> rights that the GPL provides you with. They cannot restrict you
> in any way beyond what the GPL license states. That means that
> they can not say "This program
NEW features of cdrtools-1.11a34:
Please have a look at the German open Source Center BerliOS at www.berlios.de
BerliOS will continue to support free hosting of cryptography projects even
when US laws change and don't allow to host cryptography projects in the USA.
Also look at sourcewell.berlios
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 01:02:13PM +0200, Lourens Veen wrote:
> On Monday 23 September 2002 12:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Preface: I am sorry, but it seems that you don't know much about
> > Copyright issues :-( Many of your statements are completely
> > wrong and none of your mails fr
subscribe cdwrite
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Preface: I am sorry, but it seems that you don't know much about
>> =09Copyright issues :-( Many of your statements are completely
>> =09wrong and none of your mails from the last night has been
>> helpful.
>>
>> For a decent discussion on this topic it
Although it is an interesting topic, most of the time peope say their
opinions. But, could someone say something I can believe ?
Give me an url where all this is documented (ie laws, by coutries), and
redirect me to a forum where I could learn more about this.
:-)
--
__o
_ \<_
On Monday 23 September 2002 12:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Preface: I am sorry, but it seems that you don't know much about
> Copyright issues :-( Many of your statements are completely
> wrong and none of your mails from the last night has been
> helpful.
>
> For a decent discussion
>From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Having thought about it some more, I think we're both correct.
>>cdrdao cannot be published under the GPL, because then linking it
>>to libedc would violate the license. It would however be possible
>>to put a license on it that has everything the
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
>From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE fi
>From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>If you are the author you may put the under whatever license you like.
>You can put code that you have written under whatever license(s)
>you like. However, when you accept code contributions from other
>people into your source code, they are the
>From: "Mike A. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>without the "viral" component, then as far as I can see it would be=20
>>>possible. This would however change the license terms for the rest=20
>>>of cdrdao as well (it would effectively turn into an LGPL license I=20
>>>think).
>>
>>It will not as t
Preface: I am sorry, but it seems that you don't know much about
Copyright issues :-( Many of your statements are completely
wrong and none of your mails from the last night has been helpful.
For a decent discussion on this topic it is important that we use
correct verbalizations
Hi,
> Anyway... hopefully an amiable solution comes up that everyone
> thinks is cool. cdrdao is one of those must-have applications,
> and since we ship it [doesn't everyone? ;o) ], any potential GPL
> related licensing isses scare me. ;o)
I told Andreas, I would put my code under GPL, if I s
21 matches
Mail list logo
