2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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" > > 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. > > > Claim 2: "The build system for a GPLd program needs to be under GPL" > > 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"? > > You should be very careful when you repeat the claims from people who > repeatedly published _obvious_ false claims in order to harm the cdrtools > project. > > BTW: The claims from the people around Bloch are _not_ made by lawyers but by > laymen.
Sorry, Jörg, cdrkit does not claim any of this above. The only claim they have is that the CDDL is not compatible with the GPL [1] _according to the FSF_. According to _cdrkits own document_ [1] they do not claim that the CDDL is not a free license. I also don't think the cmake build system can not be used with cdrkit as the 4clause BSD licencse has been declared compatible with the GPL [2] _by the FSF_ in contrary to the CDDL. So the only thing is that the debian people are FSF oriented and thus have dropped cdrtools. But as far as i know Debian was always a bit fanatic in such concerns and I don't give much about this as I don't think the FSF is the ultimate source of all truth. [1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/FORK?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 [2] http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
