On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:28:37 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >
> >> Don't count much on dvdrtools, it has no active upstream at all
> >> (no, I don't mean the guys whoes only heroic act was the
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
>> Don't count much on dvdrtools, it has no active upstream at all (no, I
>> don't mean the guys whoes only heroic act was the replacement of the
>> Schilly build system with autodev-stuff).
>
> T
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
[...]
> > I used to hope that "ignoring upstream insane statements" doesn't
> > include ignoring DFSG-freeness issues with the package, though!!
> > :-(
>
> Relax. Let's expect a
#include
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
> > >> D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord
> > >contains > invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using
> > >device > names), so it
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just use dvdrtools instead.
>> >
>> > ITYM dvd+rw-tools,
>>
>> That's wh
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >
> >> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
> >> >
> >> > I need a bit support to c
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
>> >
>> > I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build
>> > system.
>> >
>> > Summary: a whi
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
> >
> > I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build
> > system.
> >
> > Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
> > cop
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:12:25 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> > And since it does print such an announcement by default then it
> > should be kept. However, I disagree on the level appropriateness -
> > stuff like "This is a broken Linux system" does not belong to the
> > disclaimer/copyright categ
#include
* Anthony DeRobertis [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 11:42:58AM]:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
> >
> >
> Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
> is in main?
I am waiting for the answer of its maintainer
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
is in main?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eduard Bloch wrote:
---BEGIN QUOTE---
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Mns Rullgrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060319 01:14]:
>> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
>> > work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
>> > der
* Mns Rullgrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060319 01:14]:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
> > work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
> > derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the bui
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #include
> * Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
>> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
>> long lines, but that's how it's written):
>>
>> ---BEGIN QUOTE---
>> /*
#include
* Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
> long lines, but that's how it's written):
>
> ---BEGIN QUOTE---
> /*
>* Begin restricted code for quality assura
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> A work can't be derived from another work without including some
>> piece of it
>
> This is actually not the case; including output of a work (or
> generated by a work) in another work can make that work a der
On 3/19/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
> work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
> derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the build system.
Yeah, and your car is a deriv
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> A work can't be derived from another work without including some
> piece of it
This is actually not the case; including output of a work (or
generated by a work) in another work can make that work a derivative
work of the first work.
> Is a printed book
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
>> working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
>> convenience than a necessity to build a program.
>
> You could extend
On 3/19/06, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
> > have legal effect, are they?
>
> I guess JS is as thoroughly confused about legal matters as he is
> about device naming
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
If that is the case, wouldn't the simplest course of action be simply
to strip the build system from the tarball and replace it with a free
one written by the maintainer?
Oops, missed where Don mentioned this earlier in thread. Sorry!
Benjamin
signature.asc
Desc
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
> working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
> convenience than a necessity to build a program.
You could extend this argument to any segment of sourcecode in the
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
is
"Andrew Donnellan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
> have legal effect, are they?
I guess JS is as thoroughly confused about legal matters as he is
about device naming.
> (Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
have legal effect, are they?
(Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Australia's 1999 constitutional referendum - the 'no' case says that
the preamble could have had legal effect.)
andrew
On 3/19/06, Måns Rul
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
> I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
> headers in the files of his build system inside of t
Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
>> invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using device
>> names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
>
> Oh? How is it in
It also contains a file whose location can't be legally changed. In my
opinion it has always been non-free since the clauses were added. It's
not really GPL.
andrew
On 3/19/06, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> > Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdr
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
>> > GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
>> > is not a derivative work
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using device
names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
Oh? How is it in main then?
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PG
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It's not that they have to be available, it's just that they have
> > to be compatible. [Moreover, JS violation of the GPL isn't
> > interesting because he's presumably the copyright holder, and can
> > theref
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
>> copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
>> cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
>>
>> In #350739,
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
> copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
> cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
Can we just fork from a version of the build system which did no
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
> license? See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for details.
The CDDL and GPL are incompatible.
> We have the option of splitting the source package into code (GPLed)
> an
#include
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:44:54PM]:
> On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
> > license?
>
> And what's the scale and gradations for "GPL-compatibility" in your
> brainwashed
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
>
> I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
>
> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
> headers in the files of his build system inside of the cdrtools packag
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
> license?
And what's the scale and gradations for "GPL-compatibility" in your
brainwashed (linking triggers "GPL-incompatibility") mind? I just
wonder. "hahaha"
rega
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
headers in the files of his build system inside of the cdrtools package
with references to a CDDL license context.
In #35
39 matches
Mail list logo