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" > with another document that is neither understood by you nor is really > your business.
Eduard, please stop your FUD. 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. Take it as a fact that nobody will believe you unless you proove your claims with real facts. > > Note that the Schily Makefilesystem is a different "work" and just published > > together the rest of the cdrtools. If the GPL _really_ insists in polluting > > I reallize that. Guess why I suggested double-licensing. Guess why I did suggest that you should find someone to explain you the background. Have a look at http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract and try to understand what section 9. "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software" means: The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. In our case, the "medium" is the tar archive that is used to publish cdrtools. But before you do that, it would make sense to think whether the claims of the OP make sense at all..... Note that the CDDL as used for the Schily Makefilesystem gives more freedom to the users of the cdrtools than the other projects that are covered under the GPL. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
