On Sunday 18 January 2009, Joerg Schilling <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote about 'Re: k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X': >"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote: >> On Saturday 17 January 2009, Joerg Schilling >> <joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote about 'Re: k3b & brasero >> don't >> work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X': >> >Chris Bannister <mockingb...@earthlight.co.nz> wrote: >> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/ >> >Everything starting with the word "Unfortunately" in this article is >> > plain FUD. >> Could please take it point by point? Here's my take: >> >> "Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and Jörg Schilling >> released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license." >> >> True. >Given the fact that attacking Sun (the largest donator of OpenSOurce > software) is definitely FUD, we can safely ignore your post.
I not sure how you characterize this as "attacking Sun". Is it not true that Sun released the CDDL? Is it not true that parts of cdrtools are licensed under the CDDL? I agree that the the bias instilled by the work "Unfortunately" is unfair, but I believe the statement is otherwise factual. Sun is a large contributor of OSI-open, FSF-free, and DSFG-free code; I do not mean to make false statements about their behavior. Also, I think it is unfair to "ignore [my] post" since my remaining points did not depend on this point. Can anyone that cares (or, perhaps, is schooled in formal logic and needs some exercise) back me up on that assertion? -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
