On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Thu Mar 05 17:23, Russell Coker wrote:
PS What contributions are you making to any free software projects? Please
note that trolling this mailing list doesn't count as a contribution.
I think you're being a little harsh Russell, but you're righ
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 5 Mar 2009, Bill Unruh wrote:
Sorry, but that means that the concept does exist. The binary of a program
is a totally different animal from the original. Not a shred of similarity
in expression exists between the two. If I grep phrases from the
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
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
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mardi 03 mars 2009 � 10:41 -0800, Bill Unruh a �crit :
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
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
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,
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Particularly in the case of cdrecord, I don't believe there is enough of
a case that we absolutely must have it that we should take a risk on the
licensing. If, on the other hand, you want your software in Debian, you
need to take into account our poi
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 in
this source tree colletion contain _other_ independent works.
You have to decide whether the G
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
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
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Mar 02 22:36, Bill Unruh wrote:
Are you claiming that he does/did not have the right to release the major
portion of the code under CDDL? (ie those portions that he did release in that
way?) Ie, that he did not have the permission of those
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009, Bill Unruh wrote:
He certainly does claim to be the copyright holder and as having the
right to license them under CDDL, and I think barring solid evidence
to the contrary, one should accept him at his word.
TPMDIR=$(mktemp -d
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Don Armstrong 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
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Bill Unruh wrote:
libschilly as distributed by Debian is not a System Library, because
it is part of the cdrtools work, does not implement a Standard
Interface, nor is it included in the normal form of packaging a Major
component
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, 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 license compatibility between GPL code
and "syste
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, James Vega wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 02:41:54PM -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
Thus, is it correct that the issue centers around mkisofs, a program which is
under the GPL2 license and is linked with libscg, a CDDL licensed library? Is
this where the dispute lies?
If so
believe there to be any legal
impediment to the distribution of the software. Debian has made clear that
they believe that there is such an impediment. What, in as few words as
possible, is the impediment?
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Bill Unruh wrote:
Agreed, both sides have to
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02 2009, 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
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Bill Unruh writes:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
...
No they are NOT irrelevant. For the users, that is the key. And surely it is
the users ( the customers) who should be the prime consideration.
I agree that legal issues
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
Bill Unruh writes:
The license issue is problematic, especially since copyright laws differ
in different countries. Derivative works is an especially tricky concept
since it is so poorly defined in law, and the courts have been all over
the place on it
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Memnon Anon writes:
But! From a user-only perspective:
Do I think that the software Joerg Schilling provides is superior?
Yes.
I've tried it back when Debian still had a cdrecord and that, on
request by Joerg Schilling, did not include the dv
19 matches
Mail list logo
