John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under
the GPL.
Actually, the later is not completly true.
The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:24:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote:
The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his own
copyright. Therefore, he does not if he adds code not distributable
under the GPL. Unless the license of the non-GPL code prohibits this
combination, everything is ok for
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code.
No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it
explicitly allows it.
Well, _I_ did already explain why this is the case.
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license.
Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations.
Don't believe people who do not discuss
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims
in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between
the work and the whole source.
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL
library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers.
Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL
library and
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work:
- You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL.
You are basing all of your reasoning on
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL
code.
No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it
explicitly allows it.
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL
library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers.
Of course. But the *combined
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 11/8/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to
appear in GPL projects, but
STYLIANOU Konstantinos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People,
Excuse me for braking into this conversation of yours, but I believe
this exchange of wit between you does not serve the interests of this
lists anymore. Representing only myself, I would kindly ask you not to
flood the list any
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:44:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 11/8/07, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Of course, that still leaves the question of whether the CDDL code is
being used in such a way that the GPL would require it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes:
The GPL requires to publish all from the work to be published under the
GPL but not more.
- The build scripts in many cases are not part of the work.
This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf.
This is true for all
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes:
The GPL requires to publish all from the work to be published under the
GPL but not more.
- The build scripts in many cases are not part of the work.
This is true for all software that e.g.
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 02:05:05PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe the above interpretation is mistaken. See the recent
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. It
says, regarding both GPL version 2 and version 3:
Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims
in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between
the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work.
I do not know if you are right or not but it is not what matter. Debian
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:27:55 +1100, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those following along with this thread, Jörg has either chosen not
to respond to Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL:http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED], or is not
reading the list in which this discussion is taking
Yes, I apologised to Joerg at one point for cc-ing him as well as the
list and he said that's what he wanted anyway.
John
On 09/11/2007, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:27:55 +1100, Ben Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those following along with this thread, Jörg
I do not know if you are right or not but it is not what matter. Debian
and other distributor may distribute a forked version for whatever
reason even for a bad one. I do not believe you will succeed to make
I get the impression that you are not aware of the real problem.
There is no license
The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that
harm the reputation of the Author. The Debian fork is full of extreme bugs
and many people are thus completely unable to use the fork at all.
You should be aware of the possibility that I (as the Author) could disallow
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license.
Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations.
Don't believe people who do not discuss specific license problems.
And above all, don't
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:07 -0800, Yuhong Bao a écrit :
That is exactly why the code, not just the build scripts, are CDDL in
current versions of cdrtools. Now the remaining problem is about the
GPLed library that the CDDL mkisofs links to. Removing HFS support
would solve this problem.
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims
in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between
the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work.
Yes,
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under
the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work:
- You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL.
You are basing all of your reasoning on the assumption that a program
that uses a
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:46 -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit :
If you want my services as an English teacher, you'll
have to ask me for a quote; otherwise, finding the errors in your logic is
your problem, not mine.
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 17:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Is this
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
there is a problem in wodim.
The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that
harm the reputation of the Author.
There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation
of
Shriramana Sharma writes:
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source
necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries,
compilation scripts, and so on.
Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct!
The GPL does require you to
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts
themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL),
and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because that would breach
the terms of the CDDL.
Please read the GPL:
The GPL
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 12:27:56PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts
themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL),
and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 07/11/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL forbids GPL code to
appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in
GPL
projects.
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 12:27:56PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts
themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL),
and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
You have been aked to proove _your_ claima many time but you did not do.
Let us safely asume that as long as you are not able to proove the converse
that my claims (being aligned with
People,
Excuse me for braking into this conversation of yours, but I believe
this exchange of wit between you does not serve the interests of this
lists anymore. Representing only myself, I would kindly ask you not to
flood the list any more, because it is getting annoying. I am sure you
are
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
You have been aked to proove _your_ claima many time but you did not do.
Let us safely asume that as long as you are not able to proove the converse
that my claims (being aligned with lawyer statements) are true.
You can assume
Not anymore. Now almost all of the program is CDDL, except 2 libraries, one
GPL, and one LGPL. mkisofs links to the GPL library, and that is the
remaining problem.
And it can be solved by removing HFS support.
Yuhong Bao
_
R U
The build scripts are considered to be part of the source code (GPL2 §3,
GPL3 §1), and therefore must be under the GPL or a compatible licence; the
CDDL is neither (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses#CDDL). That is exactly
why the code, not just the build scripts, are CDDL in current
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 11/8/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to
appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes:
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to
appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be
distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence
for that non-GPL
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:44:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
On 11/8/07, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Of course, that still leaves the question of whether the CDDL code is
being used in such a way that the GPL would require it to be licensed
under the GPL. I'm not in a
On 07/11/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GPL forbids GPL code to
appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL
projects.
As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in
GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be
I talked to someone on IRC and looks like the only license issue concerns
mkisofs. This links to both GPL and CDDL code and this is illegal.
This is of course a lie:
None of the programs in cdrtools has license problems.
cdrecord and other programs are 100% CDDL.
mkisofs is GPL but
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:38:39PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
mkisofs is GPL but uses CDDL library code. This is intentionally
allowed by the GPL as the GPL is a highly asymmetric license. The
GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows
non-GPL code to appear in GPL
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:38:39PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
mkisofs is GPL but uses CDDL library code. This is intentionally
allowed by the GPL as the GPL is a highly asymmetric license. The
GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project,
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:38:39PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I talked to someone on IRC and looks like the only license issue concerns
mkisofs. This links to both GPL and CDDL code and this is illegal.
This is of course a lie:
None of the programs in cdrtools has license problems.
The CDDL-licensed code is not included in the GPL program; the CDDL only
applies to the build scripts.
Not anymore. Now almost all of the program is CDDL, except 2 libraries, one
GPL, and one LGPL. mkisofs links to the GPL library, and that is the remaining
problem.
Yuhong Bao
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes:
The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL
code.
Please point out exactly where the GPLv2 explicitly permits this.
On the contrary, in section 2b, the GPLv2 explicitly requires
redistribution under the terms of the GPLv2.
I talked to someone on IRC and looks like the only license issue concerns
mkisofs. This links to both GPL and CDDL code and this is illegal.
In particular, I just got an email from the author of cdparanoia that he has
already given permission to the author of cdrtools to use the cdparanoia code
49 matches
Mail list logo
