Sorry for the late reply, but surprisingly Mr. Bloch did remove me from the
Cc: list.
The power of a license lies in it's written down terms and not in what someone
think's it says, or in their personal opinion or point of views.
To put things right: My only interest with Mr. Bloch is to put his
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Sat, Apr 01 2006, 04:46:48PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for this clarification.
>
> Unfortunately it does not include a translation for an important part found
> in
> the German text:
The translation has been sent to you and did not r
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you for this clarification.
Unfortunately it does not include a translation for an important part found in
the German text:
> Punkt 4:
>
> Es liegt ebenfalls keine Vertragsverletzung beim Vertrieb weiterer sich im
> Archiv cdrtools befindlichen Werk
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Mon, Mar 27 2006, 06:13:06PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Da es offenbar Missverstaendnisse gibt und English fuer das Diskutieren
> von Lizenz/Urherberrechtsproblemen nicht geeignet ist (anderes Rechtssystem)
> nun in einer Sprache die jeder versteht
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Da es offenbar Missverstaendnisse gibt und English fuer das Diskutieren
von Lizenz/Urherberrechtsproblemen nicht geeignet ist (anderes Rechtssystem)
nun in einer Sprache die jeder versteht
> > So please reply to my mail instead of adding unrelated new s
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Wed, Mar 22 2006, 03:16:26PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > #include
> > * Joerg Schilling [Mon, Mar 20 2006, 11:21:30PM]:
> >
> > > It seems that you never did read and understand the GPL :-(
> > >
> > > The GPL is as holey as a Swiss cheese when
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Joerg Schilling [Mon, Mar 20 2006, 11:21:30PM]:
>
> > It seems that you never did read and understand the GPL :-(
> >
> > The GPL is as holey as a Swiss cheese when talking about the compile
> > environment:
>
> ...
>
> Joerg, could you plea
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Eduard Bloch [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 05:32:17PM]:
>
> > And finally, in the last mail I have already presented the exact chain
> > of conclusions, including the intent of the OP. I expect you (as
> > programmer knowing how logic works) to be able
#include
* Eduard Bloch [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 05:32:17PM]:
> And finally, in the last mail I have already presented the exact chain
> of conclusions, including the intent of the OP. I expect you (as
> programmer knowing how logic works) to be able to find the wrong link
> there -- so would you consi
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Mon, Mar 20 2006, 11:21:30PM]:
> It seems that you never did read and understand the GPL :-(
>
> The GPL is as holey as a Swiss cheese when talking about the compile
> environment:
...
Joerg, could you please stay ontopic and not flame? We try to discuss
with you...
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeez, you have ways of finding "similarities". I would hardly translate
> that as "rubbish" especially because of the context - it has been on the
> same polemic levels as your claims about gcc because of beeing less
> pervasive than Sun's compiler. Even t
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:10:55PM]:
> > > 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 remem
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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 n
#include
* 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
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
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 04:05:49PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > #include
> > * Joerg Schilling [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 01:09:03PM]:
> > > The cdrtools distribution is compiled from several
> > > different "works".
> > >
> > > One complete and separate work
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Joerg Schilling [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 01:09:03PM]:
> > The cdrtools distribution is compiled from several
> > different "works".
> >
> > One complete and separate work is the Schily Makefilesystem.
> > It is independent of a specific project a
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 01:09:03PM]:
> The cdrtools distribution is compiled from several
> different "works".
>
> One complete and separate work is the Schily Makefilesystem.
> It is independent of a specific project and published under th CDDL.
You are free to double-lic
The cdrtools distribution is compiled from several
different "works".
One complete and separate work is the Schily Makefilesystem.
It is independent of a specific project and published under th CDDL.
If you believe that the GPL is violating the Debian Social Contract
(see http://www.us.debian.or
Package: cdrtools
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.3
In cdrtools 2.01.01a03 license of several makefiles have been changed to a
custom version of CDDL, which is a non-GPL-compatible license. These
makefiles are used to build GPL-licensed binaries, which is a violation of
paragraph 3 of th
20 matches
Mail list logo
