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 not use the word
> "rubbish".
Let me quote you:
---->
Das behauptest du EINFACH SO, weil dein Compiler ein Paar irrevelevante
Meldungen ausgespuckt hast? Amen.
<----
Looks similar to what I had in mind.....
> > 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.
>
> Hear, hear. And what does the file "COPYING" with the GPL license text
> do there, in the main directory of your "medium"? Is it not supposed to
> cover the whole thing, as in "placing restrictions on other software"?
> YOU placed the license file there and I interpret your statement as a
> direct proposal to separate the split the package into the "code" and
> "build system" parts. Correct?
???
> > But before you do that, it would make sense to think whether the claims of
> > the
> > OP make sense at all.....
>
> If you follow the extreme GPL-interpretation of the OP you are clearly
> violating the GPL and any contributor to cdrtools has the right to sue
> you. I do not read it that way and I know your role in the cdrtools
> development, but you do not make it easy :-(
Nice to see: Now we are back to the content of my first mail.....
Iff Debian would follow the extreme GPL-interpretation of the OP, Debian would
need to call the GPL clearly non-free because it then would violate the DFSG
Section 9.
As Debian calls the GPL "free", the claims of the OP obviously do not
apply from Debians view.
So let us close this for now, or do you like to start an endless discussion?
> Sorry, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html presents it in a
> different light. However, it only refers to linking. I will ask our
> legal group for further details.
Do you _really_ like to believe the claims from people that at the same
server call the GFDL a "free" license?
The CDDL is clearly accepted by OSI and I did not yet hear that Debian
DFSG rules have become different from the OSI rules.
Why should Debian have problems with the CDDL?
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
