Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> And the LGPL is by design clearly GPL compatible. Even if you could
> find some fault in that the intention of the license is clearly to
> allow GPL and non GPL programs to link to an LGPL library and any such
> bug would get clarified by the FSF. Any such faults ple
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Well despite the claims from some people that try to prevent a solution,
> > there in fact is only a very minor disagreement. This disagreement is based
> > on
> > the attempt from some people to interpret some meaning into the "system
> > exception" that is no
Bill Unruh wrote:
> >> Well, no, there is a problem. Whether that problem is due to a misreading
> >> of
> >> the law, differing laws (Under US, the concept of derivative work is a very
> >> important and strong concept. Publishers have been successfully sued for
> >> using less than
> >> .3% o
Bill Unruh wrote:
> > Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> > changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
>
> Unfortunately it is not Debian who have to live with it, but the users around
> the world. Debian is not being particularly harmed, but the u
Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> > As a hint: "the work mkisofs" is the plain files that can be found in the
> > sub-directory "mkisofs" in the cdrtools source tree. Other sub-directories
> &
Bill Unruh wrote:
> > There is absolutely no problem with distributing mkisofs binaries that are
> > linked against CDDLd libs that are a "different work".
>
> Well, no, there is a problem. Whether that problem is due to a misreading of
> the law, differing laws (Under US, the concept of derivati
Darren Salt wrote:
> "End of discussion", as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying no more.
OK, wonderful to see that you no longer write non-fact based claims Once
you are willing to have a fact based discussion I am willing to continue.
For anyone who likes to know what to read before, it is:
Darren Salt wrote:
> [Mail-Followup-To set again. I note that the last one was ignored...]
>
> I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
>
> > Darren Salt wrote:
> >>> In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a
> >>
Darren Salt wrote:
> I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]
> > As the FSF is interested to see GPLd programs on OpenSolaris (*), the FSF
> > did confirm that there is no problem with linking a GPLd program like e.g.
> > GNU tar wi
Darren Salt wrote:
> > In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a sufficient
> > creation level. The simple act of compiling does of course not create a
> > derived work.
>
> By that argument, it seems to me that if I compile (and link) cdrtools, it's
> not a derived work; b
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:09:29PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
> > "incompatible" to GPL as the CDDL is "incomparible" to the GPL.
>
> Er?
Well, it seems t
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Mar 03 14:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
> > changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
>
> We do live with this change. We don't have cdrtools in the
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Mar 03 13:38, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Repeating false claims does not make them correct.
>
> Repeating that correct claims are false does not make them false.
>
> There is enough weight on the side that I have described that I bel
Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Tue Mar 03 11:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The rules of the GPL end at "work" limit and neither libc nor
> > libschily or libscg are part of the "work" mkisofs. For this reason,
> > there is no problem with the fact
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
>
> > As said, license compatibility needs to be discussed separately. If you
> > like
> > to allow to publish binaries from GPLd programs for _any_ OS that does not
> >
Bill Unruh wrote:
> I believe that you mean the above to apply to mkisofs, not to cdrtools, which
> is a bunch of different program. The programs which are purely CDDL I assume
> you have no problem with distributing (despite your discomfort with CDDL).
> Since it appears that mkisofs is the
>
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The "OS exception" in the GPL just allows you to omit things like
> > libc from "the complete source". The The "OS exception" in the GPL
> > does not allow you to treat lic
Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> Again, let us separate out the ill feelings from the issues under dispute. I
> realise that it is very hard to forget history but since both sides believe
> that it is the user that is most important, that is whom we should keep our
> attention on.
>
> Schilling here says t
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > If you did try to disallow GPLd programs to link against independent
> > non-GPL
> > libraries, you would make _any_ GPLd program undistributable in binary form.
>
> This is absolute bullshit. Of course it is forbidden to link GPL
> programs against non-GPL-compatibl
Bill Unruh wrote:
>Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are operating
>legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his software
>distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the opinion that there is
>no legal impediment to that happening. Debian is of the
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> If you don???t publish this email, we will simply not believe you, that???s
> all.
Using "majestetis pluralis" in this relation seems to be a bit absurd.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
Norbert Preining wrote:
> On So, 01 Mär 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
> > there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
> > mkisofs. These statements from Eben
George Danchev wrote:
> On Sunday 01 March 2009 18:31:36 Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news-team/2009-February/000413.h
> > >tml
> >
> > I prefer to listen to credible statements.
> >
> > The
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
> >
> > You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Note: you still haven???t fixed your email client.
>
> Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 13:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >
> > > Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> &
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did
> > under
> > the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
> > app
Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > William Pitcock wrote:
> >
> > > 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> > > cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fo
William Pitcock wrote:
> > > Generally it is considered to be bad taste when you change the licensing
> > > rules abruptly.
> >
> > It is generally considered bad taste to offend and to try to blackmail the
> > Copyright holder. As this has been done by the Debian package maintainer,
> > Debia
William Pitcock wrote:
> > are some "Debian maintainers" that rather attack software authors instead
> > of
> > colaborating.
>
> It is impossible to collaborate when you add invariant sections to the
> code. Well done.
This is a text that has been created in collaboration a former Debian
mai
William Pitcock wrote:
> > > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > > >
> > > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not
> > > > be
> > > > legally distributed.
> > >
> > > If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly
"Benjamin M. A'Lee" wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with
> > free
> > software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into troub
John Goerzen wrote:
> > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no
> > longer
> > because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
>
> When will you enumerate these?
>
> Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.
As long as
John Goerzen wrote:
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> >
> > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> >
> > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > legally distributed.
>
> If your code was Fre
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Please don???t forward private replies to a public mailing list: this is
> very rude behavior.
Well, this is an open discussion and I see no reason not to share your rude
replies with others.
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 17:08 +0100, Joerg Schillin
**
If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
**
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Josseli
Brett Parker wrote:
> On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > legally distributed.
>
> Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
> half of it to CDDL a
Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 09:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > >xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
> > >Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
> > >or something (apparently
>xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
>Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
>or something (apparently).
>So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
>or wodim?
You need to blame the people who are
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:09:33PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > This is of course a lie.or why don't you like to prove it:
>
> > http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/problems.html
>
> > Come back to rea
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you really believe that you are able to deflect from the main problem:
> >
> > The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
> > did write bug reports against the Debian version of cdrtools did already
> > switch to a
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Joerg Schilling [Sun, Aug 13 2006, 12:28:15PM]:
>
> > The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
>
> Most of that is true if and only if the users follow your
> recommendations and
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL (section 3) does restrict distributions of binaries ("object
> code or executable form", to use the words of the GPL, to be more
> accurate, since the GPL only uses the term "binary" once, and only to
> refer to a completely different issue) and sta
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
> >> distributi
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
> distributions have to fix by patching?
You should inform yourself about reality
The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
did write bug reports agai
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the author's official module). You say that I don't have the right to
> distribute this under the name PDF::API2 in Debian, do I understand
> correctly? Please tell me: This module is a Perl library. If I modify
> it to become PDF::API2::Debian, how will ou
Jean Parpaillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Beside the licensing issues, why do you care so much patched version of
> your software to be distributed with big WARNINGS, a different name and
> tutti quanti ?
Why do Linux distributions insist in applying patches that introduce bugs
into cdrtools
You did write:
...
>I have a general question about how the GPL is construed to cover the case of
>dynamic linking. According to the GPL, section 0:
...
I am sory to see that you did remove me from the Cc: list
you are the first person at Debian who starts to think the right
way...
If you
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, but the combined work (A+B) (i.e. a binary produced by linking
> module A with module B) is a "work based on" A, and hence (A+B) must be
> distributable under the terms of the GPL.
>
> Distributing the sources of A with the sources of B may be fine, bu
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the other side implicitely
> > claims
> > in his arrogant habbit that he knows more about cdrtools than I do. This
> > makes
> > it impussoble to cooperate with him.
>
> You know that this is "Rufschädigun
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > [1]
> > http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
>
> > [2]
> > http://debian-meeti
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> Reply-To and M-f-T set to my address, whoever answers please respect
> this and let this thread die on -devel, its the wrong medium for this
> discussion, thank you.
If we did agree o
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, how about the following (and please read it completly before you
> answer, it contains multiple options):
I am sorry, but I cannot believe that you like to make serious proposal
with the text you wrote.
Let me make a proposal that makes sense for no
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you don't know that you just need to use a clearly _different_ _name_
> > for such a fork, I can't help you. Read the preamble from the GPL
> > to understand your fault.
>
> So all we need to do to apeace you is to call is "debianrecord"?
>
>
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
> >> GFDL case, an
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 09 août 2006 à 15:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > You are again trying to intentionally tell us untrue things about my
> > software!
> >
> > The Debian project accepted the clauses in cdrecord ~ 4
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:44:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Indeed, you are not free to add whatever piece of crap to the Debian
> > > archive regardless of the license. Call it a non-free project if you
> >
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 10:56 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > My software is definitely free and has no license problems.
>
> You may think so, but the Debian project doesn't. For example, a recent
> GR stated t
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
> > > GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be acceptable for
> >
> > If Linux Distributions would not distribute bastardized versions of
> > cdrecord,
> > there was no ne
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You troll around on debian-devel, you troll around on lkml, you seem to
> be more intelligent, wise, knowledgable, fluent in licenses, all-mighty
> than *ALL* *OTHER*:
> - linux kernel developers (quite a lot)
> - debian developers (quite a lot)
>
> Do
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:56:24AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I am still in hope that there are people at Debian who are able to
> > understand license issues without bending things the way they like but
>
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 10:56 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > My software is definitely free and has no license problems.
>
> You may think so, but the Debian project doesn't. For example, a recent
As long as
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:04:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > If you like to discuss the GPL with other people, it is irrelevent whether
> > you know it "by heart" in case you did not understand it yet...
&g
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can quote major parts of it by heart since a few years, does that
> help?
If you like to discuss the GPL with other people, it is irrelevent whether
you know it "by heart" in case you did not understand it yet...
> [...]
> > > GPL§3 clearly says w
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You should better _read_ the GPL and try to understand it.
>
> Good plan.
Did you have some time to make your plan reality meanwhile?
> > GPL §2 defines what the "work" is and requres to publish the whole
> > work under the GPL in case that that
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>Erast Benson wrote:
>>
>> I do not need to make the build system
>> available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
>> not mention a license)
>GPL 3(a) requires the "complete corresponding source code [be]
>distributed under the terms of Section
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jun 12 10:34:48 1998
>>Ronald> another problem with joliet... a bug in mkisofs and
>>Ronald> mkhybrid (at least in the newest available versioin
>>Ronald> arround april 6th)
>>
>>Ronald> when you make a bootable cd with joliet _and_ rockridge
>>Ronal
66 matches
Mail list logo
