* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 11:17]: > > Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start to > influence the freedom of others. >
No, that's anarchy you describing, in democracy the majority decides
were your personal freedom ends.
>
>
> Long answer:
>
> If you repeat the "opinion" of other people, you make it _your_ opinion and
> if
> your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to publish it unless
> you are able to definitely prove it!
>
What!?
If I state the opinion of, let's say Angela Merkel, in an discussion
were only her opposites were mentioned, to let the reader build her own
opinion, I make it my opinion? Just because I hold the reader from a
long googling session?
This is not correct: As long as I quote, indirect speech *is* quoting,
this is not my opinion.
BTW: I repeat your opinion by quoting you, do I therefor make it to my
opinion?
> I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the only person
> who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before that there is no
> problem.
>
>
> Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated)
> have
> ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed
> that there were exactly two problems:
>
> Claim 1: "The CDDL is not a free license"
>
Please referrence where that claim is made, i could not find it.
> Reality: The CDDL was accepted by the _whole_ ODD community at the
> end of January 2005. Everybody had the change to send his
> remarks, Debian did not. Even Debian officially accepted the
> CDDL as a definitive free license in August 2006.
>
There is no approval process for free licenses within Debian:
"Please note however, that the Debian project decides on particular
packages rather than licenses in abstract, and the lists are general
explanations. It is possible to have a package containing software under
a "free" license with some other aspect that makes it non-free."
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/index.en.html
>
> Claim 2: "The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL"
>
It is about linking, as part of the build process.
> Reality: The people around Bloch took the last GPLd cdrtools source
> and replaced the original build system by a build system
> that is definitely not under GPL (it is under a four clause
> BSDl). "All animals are equal but some animals are more
> equal than others"?
>
4clauseBSD *is* compatible with GPL, whereas CDDL is not.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CDDL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD
> BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by
> laymen.
>
As long as you not provide *any* other proove to a lawyers opinion, than
your own word, I see this as your opinion, which is also a claim by a
laymen. (A link would do...)
> Jörg
>
Sebastian
--
" Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " Karl Marx
[EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp45Uz3jtpZ7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
