Le jeu 22 juin 2006 19:50, Joerg Schilling a écrit : > > > - The ability to use port numbers below 1024 > > > > You don't need that to burn a CD. > > You are obviously uninformed about cdrecord. > > Try: > > man cdrecord > /remote/ > > or read README.rscsi > > or call cdrecord cdrecord dev=help > > in order to find out why cdrecord needs this privilege.
what I read here, is that rscsi needs to be setuid root (wich is not even proved, but well, whatever). and I don't see why a feature that is maybe used for 0.1% of the users or in 0.001% of the cdrecord runs all over the world, would need cdrecord to be setuid root for everyone. > The CDDL is a first class OSI approved license because it is open, > free and allows to mix CDDL code with code from other OSI licenses. > > The GPL is a second class OSI license because it does not allow GPL > code to appear in other OSI approved projects. The GPL is even > asymmetric as it allows code with any license (even closed source) to > appear inside a GPLd project (*). > > If you like to have a license related discussion with me, please don't > insult me and first read both the GPL and the CDDL as well as > http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php and > http://www.us.debian.org/social_contract You're not only arrogant, but also wrong: it's not only Josselin personnal view on the subject, but also the debian project point of view about it. CDDL does not meets the DFSG [1]. Debian metric to determine if a license is free or not is not OSI, but the DFSG, which I assume that beeing such a license expert, you already know. So please don't insult the project that has read the CDDL license, discussed about it, and reached a public consensus about it. You can disagree with that, but calling people names won't make any progress. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00037.html -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpX6vg0VCevi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
