Heyho, > > Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in > > cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, for example. > > Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL. > > The fact that cmake may have been changed a few weeks ago does not matter. > At the time when Bloch and Co. did replace the original buildsystem by > cmake, cmake was definitely under a 4 clause BSDL.
This is the 4th clause: * Modified source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software. It does NOT make it the incompatible 4 clause BSDl. And I doubt that makes it incompatible with the GPL at all. Please read http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Lizenz and compare. Do you still hold your claim? > If you however like to have a fruitful discussion, you should know that a > way to disprove a claim is to verify that conclusions from the claim are > wrong. What I did is nothing but to prove that Mr. Bloch is highly self > contradicting. You did not prove anything yet. You still need to prove that cdrkit is illegal otherwise me and others will still believe that it's just a lot of FUD from you. Feel free to prove us wrong. > You need to learn that this disproves his credibility and should finally > understand that the other claims from Mr. Bloch are the same nonsense as > his claim with the build system. While you still need to provide some proof of the single fact that you base your whole flame on, I won't believe anything. Especially I won't mistrust a whole person because of that. I don't have an opinion until I'm convinced. - Sascha
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
