On Tuesday 15 August 2006 13:17, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Nathanael Nerode:
> >> In reality, as "user A", I switched to using cdrdao for making serious
> >> audio CDs and CD-RWs, and for burning disks from .iso files: this uses
> >> Schilling's scsilib, but not the rest
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Thomas Bushnell:
>
>>> As a countermeasure, the FSF tries to extend copyright to interfaces,
>>> so that you do create a derivative work merely by programming to a
>>> specific interface of a library written by someone else, without
>>> copying their
Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:09:33PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > This is of course a lie.or why don't you like to prove it:
>
> > http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/problems.html
>
> > Come back to reallity, the k3b maintainers did already g
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
>> In reality, as "user A", I switched to using cdrdao for making serious audio
>> CDs and CD-RWs, and for burning disks from .iso files: this uses
>> Schilling's scsilib, but not the rest of cdrecord.
>
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
>
>> In reality, as "user A", I switched to using cdrdao for making serious audio
>> CDs and CD-RWs, and for burning disks from .iso files: this uses
>> Schilling's scsilib, but not the rest of cdrecord.
>
> What about mkisofs?
So f
* Nathanael Nerode:
> In reality, as "user A", I switched to using cdrdao for making serious audio
> CDs and CD-RWs, and for burning disks from .iso files: this uses
> Schilling's scsilib, but not the rest of cdrecord.
What about mkisofs?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Then let's see what a user of your software would do, in a
> not-so-uncommon use case:
>
> User A wants to burn a CD-ROM. She gets cdrtools,
In reality, as "user A", I switched to using cdrdao for making serious audio
CDs and CD-RWs, and for burning disks from .iso files: th
This one time, at band camp, Riku Voipio said:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:09:33PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > This is of course a lie.or why don't you like to prove it:
>
> > http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/problems.html
>
> > Come back to reallity, the k3b maintainers did al
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:09:33PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> This is of course a lie.or why don't you like to prove it:
> http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/problems.html
> Come back to reallity, the k3b maintainers did already give up with
> Debian versions of cdrtools and use se
Hello,
On Sat, 12.08.2006 at 20:40:37 +0200, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a countermeasure, the FSF tries to extend copyright to interfaces,
> so that you do create a derivative work merely by programming to a
> specific interface of a library written by someone else, without
>
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 10:57:45PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You should look at the video I pointed you at. You just accused me of
> > being a liar. If i would have your low level I would now do the same you
>
> I did look at this video: it verifi
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:09:33PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Do you really believe that you are able to deflect from the main problem:
> > >
> > > The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
> > > did write b
> - With Linux 2.6.x, it is impossible to run cdrecord without
> root privs.
>
> Do not believe single persons who claim otherwise as Linux-2.6.x
> filters away random SCSI commands when cdrecord does not have
> root-privs and as cdrecord heavily depends
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you really believe that you are able to deflect from the main problem:
> >
> > The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
> > did write bug reports against the Debian version of cdrtools did already
> > switch to a
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #include
> * Joerg Schilling [Sun, Aug 13 2006, 12:28:15PM]:
>
> > The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
>
> Most of that is true if and only if the users follow your
> recommendations and strictly use kernel 2.4.x, ide-sc
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL (section 3) does restrict distributions of binaries ("object
> code or executable form", to use the words of the GPL, to be more
> accurate, since the GPL only uses the term "binary" once, and only to
> refer to a completely different issue) and sta
On 8/14/06, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And to some extent, the FSF must claim that it's not possible to
escape the GPL with a second implementation (so that programs linking
to readline must still be GPLed, even though you could use libedit as
a mostly-transparent replacement, for
* Thomas Bushnell:
>> As a countermeasure, the FSF tries to extend copyright to interfaces,
>> so that you do create a derivative work merely by programming to a
>> specific interface of a library written by someone else, without
>> copying their code. I'm not sure if this is such a bright idea.
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 12:28:15PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
> > >> di
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
>> >> distributions have
#include
* Joerg Schilling [Sun, Aug 13 2006, 12:28:15PM]:
> The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
Most of that is true if and only if the users follow your
recommendations and strictly use kernel 2.4.x, ide-scsi emulation and
install your programs as suid-root.
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
> >> distributions have to fix by patching?
> >
> > You should inform yourself
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 09:48:55PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Please try to read, understand and answere the question asked in a
> mail. Hint: The question wasn't about cdrtools patches.
Please try to take off-topic threads to appropriate mai
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
>> distributions have to fix by patching?
>
> You should inform yourself about reality
Are you willing to put money where your mout
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Nice to see that this video clip verifies my statements in case you
> carefully listen to Simon Phipps:
> - Sun did not make the CDDL incompatible by intention to the GPL
Are you talking about what he's saying at approx. minute 36? That's the
closest thing I could
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
> distributions have to fix by patching?
You should inform yourself about reality
The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
did write bug reports agai
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> the author's official module). You say that I don't have the right to
>> distribute this under the name PDF::API2 in Debian, do I understand
>> correctly? Please tell me: This module is a Perl library. If I m
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jean Parpaillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Beside the licensing issues, why do you care so much patched version of
>> your software to be distributed with big WARNINGS, a different name and
>> tutti quanti ?
>
> Why do Linux distributions insist
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Daniel Schepler:
>
>> And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run,
>> this would appear to me to be what applies. In particular, it
>> appears to me that you could satisfy the GPL and still dynamically
>> link against a non-free
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the author's official module). You say that I don't have the right to
> distribute this under the name PDF::API2 in Debian, do I understand
> correctly? Please tell me: This module is a Perl library. If I modify
> it to become PDF::API2::Debian, how will ou
* Daniel Schepler:
> And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this would
> appear to me to be what applies. In particular, it appears to me that you
> could satisfy the GPL and still dynamically link against a non-free library,
> and distribute both, by invoking the "m
Jean Parpaillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Beside the licensing issues, why do you care so much patched version of
> your software to be distributed with big WARNINGS, a different name and
> tutti quanti ?
Why do Linux distributions insist in applying patches that introduce bugs
into cdrtools
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:25:11PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> 1)Throw out Eduard Bloch.
rotflmao.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PRO
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to the GPL, section 0:
>
> The act of running the Program is not restricted...
>
> And since dynamic linking is done at the time the program is run, this would
> appear to me to be what applies. In particular, it appears to me that you
>
On Friday 11 August 2006 18:10 pm, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> I believe that the totaly interchangable option of specifying
> "-static" or not should not change the free-ness of the source or
> resulting binary. So if you link static and you agree that it is a
> violation that way then you shoul
On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 23:25:52 +0200, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> No, but the combined work (A+B) (i.e. a binary produced by linking
>> module A with module B) is a "work based on" A, and hence (A+B) must
>> be distributable under the terms o
Hi,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 07:04:51PM -0400, Edward Allcutt wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 23:55 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Your discussion is off-topic for debian-devel, please kindly take it
elsewhere.
Thanks,
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
On Fri, 2006-08-11 at 23:55 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Linking a GPLd program against a non-GPLd library does not make the library a
> derived work of the GPLd program.
but it does mean you may distribute the resulting binary only if you make the
library
source available under the GPL, and i
You did write:
...
>I have a general question about how the GPL is construed to cover the case of
>dynamic linking. According to the GPL, section 0:
...
I am sory to see that you did remove me from the Cc: list
you are the first person at Debian who starts to think the right
way...
If you
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let's put aside for the moment that the FAQ is not meant to be a legal
> document as opposed to the GPL itself, and that the FAQ is not saying B would
> be a derived work of A, but rather that the combination would be...
>
> I have a general question
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, but the combined work (A+B) (i.e. a binary produced by linking
> module A with module B) is a "work based on" A, and hence (A+B) must be
> distributable under the terms of the GPL.
>
> Distributing the sources of A with the sources of B may be fine, bu
Jorg Schilling wrote:
[...]
> Sorry, but I do not believe people that put things into a GPL FAQ that
> are obviously wrong. Let me give a single example to avoid wasting too
> much time:
> The FSF GPL FAQ e.g. incorrectly claims:
> Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules
On Friday 11 August 2006 14:48 pm, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The FSF GPL FAQ e.g. incorrectly claims:
>
> Linking ABC statically or dynamically with other modules is making a
> combined work based on ABC. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU
> General Public License cover th
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the other side implicitely
> > claims
> > in his arrogant habbit that he knows more about cdrtools than I do. This
> > makes
> > it impussoble to cooperate with him.
>
> You know that this is "Rufschädigun
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>
> > [1]
> > http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
>
> > [2]
> > http://debian-meeti
On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If we did agree on continuing the mail exchange on a private base, there
> youle be not problem, but unfortunately, you did send some lies in your mail
> that need to be corrected first
Yeah.
> Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the othe
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> Reply-To and M-f-T set to my address, whoever answers please respect
> this and let this thread die on -devel, its the wrong medium for this
> discussion, thank you.
If we did agree on continuing the mail e
On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> [1]
> http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
> [2]
> http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/mpeg1
On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Reply-To and M-f-T set to my address, whoever answers please respect
this and let this thread die on -devel, its the wrong medium for this
discussion, thank you.
> I am sorry, but I cannot believe that you like to make serious proposal
> with the text y
This one time, at band camp, Michael Banck said:
> Hi fellow Debian people,
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:25:11PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Let me make a proposal that makes sense for now and the future:
>
> Whoever answers to this proposal will be mocked publically.
Even if we mock the
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:44:57 +0200
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stuff deleted for brevity
>
> > All of this, without even taking into account your brain-dead
> > licensing mix between CDDL and GPL - which are intentionally
> > incompatible licenses, according to Sun guys.
>
> If yo
Hi fellow Debian people,
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 11:25:11PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Let me make a proposal that makes sense for now and the future:
Whoever answers to this proposal will be mocked publically.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "uns
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, how about the following (and please read it completly before you
> answer, it contains multiple options):
I am sorry, but I cannot believe that you like to make serious proposal
with the text you wrote.
Let me make a proposal that makes sense for no
On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Both forbid to damage the reputation of the original author.
> Free software gives you the right to change software but free software
> definitely does _not_ give you the right to use the originam _name_ of the
> software in case you apply incompati
Joerg Schilling dijo [Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 02:49:36PM +0200]:
> As I _did_ already receive coplaints against cdrecord that have been e.g.
> based
> on the fact that Linux distributoions change the name for the file
> /etc/default/cdrercord and the fact that the basterdized behavior is
> incompat
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > If you don't know that you just need to use a clearly _different_ _name_
>> > for such a fork, I can't help you. Read the preamble from the GPL
>> > to understand your fault.
>>
>> So all we need
And note: the CDDL is one of 9 preferred licenses:
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11636:200607:nknhhdligldemhkfbhpd
One of the preferred licenses *by the OSI*. Debian has nothing to do
with the OSI and doesn't not rely on the OSI to be told what is free
or not. Can't you even und
Hi Joerg,
Le 09.08.2006 15:33, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
If you don't know that you just need to use a clearly _different_ _name_
for such a fork, I can't help you. Read the preamble from the GPL
to understand your fault.
Beside the licensing issues, why do you care so much patched version
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you don't know that you just need to use a clearly _different_ _name_
> > for such a fork, I can't help you. Read the preamble from the GPL
> > to understand your fault.
>
> So all we need to do to apeace you is to call is "debianrecord"?
>
>
Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> The Debian project accepted the clauses in cdrecord ~ 4 years ago.
>> That doesn't mean the project still considers them acceptable *NOW*.
> So you like to tell me that Debian is not trustworthy?
The requirements of the project changed. That is called progress.
--
To
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
> >> GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be acceptable for
> >
> >
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 09 août 2006 à 15:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > You are again trying to intentionally tell us untrue things about my
> > software!
> >
> > The Debian project accepted the clauses in cdrecord ~ 4 years ago.
>
> That doesn't mean
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:44:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Indeed, you are not free to add whatever piece of crap to the Debian
> > > archive regardless of the license. Call it a non-free project if you
> > > want, but this would only look l
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 05:39:12PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
> >> GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > > GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
>> > > GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be acceptable for
>> >
>> > If Linux Distributions would not distribute bastar
Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
>> GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be acceptable for
>
> If Linux Distributions would not distribute bastardized versio
Le mercredi 09 août 2006 à 15:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> You are again trying to intentionally tell us untrue things about my software!
>
> The Debian project accepted the clauses in cdrecord ~ 4 years ago.
That doesn't mean the project still considers them acceptable *NOW*.
> And not
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:44:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Indeed, you are not free to add whatever piece of crap to the Debian
> > archive regardless of the license. Call it a non-free project if you
> > want, but this would only look like a calumniation campaign against us.
>
> If you
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 10:56 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > My software is definitely free and has no license problems.
>
> You may think so, but the Debian project doesn't. For example, a recent
> GR stated that invariant sections aren't ac
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
> > > GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be acceptable for
> >
> > If Linux Distributions would not distribute bastardized versions of
> > cdrecord,
> > there was no ne
> Debian must either be able to clean itself from people who use Debian
> for such campaigns against OSS authors, or Debian needs to be called
> a higly suspect and non-free project.
As an outsider of the Debian project, you probably have little
knowledge of all the people you're debating with cu
Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 12:24 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> As long as people from Debian are on calumiation campaigns aginst
> OSS authors, Debian needs to be called non-free.
Why do you have to be so self-centered? This is not a calumniation
campaign, this is not about YOU. We just think yo
Joerg Schilling dijo [Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:24:57PM +0200]:
> As long as people from Debian are on calumiation campaigns aginst
> OSS authors, Debian needs to be called non-free.
It's not like publishing software under an allegedly free license
makes you a saint, you know?
> > GR stated that in
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You troll around on debian-devel, you troll around on lkml, you seem to
> be more intelligent, wise, knowledgable, fluent in licenses, all-mighty
> than *ALL* *OTHER*:
> - linux kernel developers (quite a lot)
> - debian developers (quite a lot)
>
> Do
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Debian must either be able to clean itself from people who use Debian
>> for such campaigns against OSS authors, or Debian needs to be called
>> a higly suspect and non-free project.
>
> You troll around
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Debian must either be able to clean itself from people who use Debian
> for such campaigns against OSS authors, or Debian needs to be called
> a higly suspect and non-free project.
>
You troll around on debian-devel, you troll around on lkml, you seem
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:56:24AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I am still in hope that there are people at Debian who are able to
> > understand license issues without bending things the way they like but
> > by correctly following the words
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 10:56 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > My software is definitely free and has no license problems.
>
> You may think so, but the Debian project doesn't. For example, a recent
As long as people from Debian are on calumia
Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 10:56 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> My software is definitely free and has no license problems.
You may think so, but the Debian project doesn't. For example, a recent
GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
GFDL case, and there is no
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:56:24AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> I am still in hope that there are people at Debian who are able to
> understand license issues without bending things the way they like but
> by correctly following the words in the license text.
Joerg, this discussion is off-
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:04:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > If you like to discuss the GPL with other people, it is irrelevent whether
> > you know it "by heart" in case you did not understand it yet...
> If everybody else interprets it signi
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:04:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I can quote major parts of it by heart since a few years, does that
> > help?
>
> If you like to discuss the GPL with other people, it is irrelevent whether
> you know it "by heart"
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can quote major parts of it by heart since a few years, does that
> help?
If you like to discuss the GPL with other people, it is irrelevent whether
you know it "by heart" in case you did not understand it yet...
> [...]
> > > GPL§3 clearly says w
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 04:32:58PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > You should better _read_ the GPL and try to understand it.
> >
> > Good plan.
>
> Did you have some time to make your plan reality meanwhile?
I can quote major parts of it by hea
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You should better _read_ the GPL and try to understand it.
>
> Good plan.
Did you have some time to make your plan reality meanwhile?
> > GPL §2 defines what the "work" is and requres to publish the whole
> > work under the GPL in case that that
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 08:28:04PM -0500, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:03:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25:00AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > Note it is unclear whether the makefiles could be called "scripts"
> >
> > Unproven asse
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 10:03:14PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25:00AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Note it is unclear whether the makefiles could be called "scripts"
>
> Unproven assertion.
How is something proven unclear?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
This one time, at band camp, Wouter Verhelst said:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25:00AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Again a person who tries to bend the GPL to his wishes..
>
> Gee, that sounds familiar somehow.
Haven't we reached the point where we have noticed that all posts by JS
are
On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 11:25:00AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >Erast Benson wrote:
> >> I do not need to make the build system
> >> available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
> >> not mention a license)
>
> >GPL 3(a) requires the "comp
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
>Erast Benson wrote:
>>
>> I do not need to make the build system
>> available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
>> not mention a license)
>GPL 3(a) requires the "complete corresponding source code [be]
>distributed under the terms of Section
Erast Benson wrote:
>
> I do not need to make the build system
> available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
> not mention a license)
GPL 3(a) requires the "complete corresponding source code [be]
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above". GPL 3
defines
Le mercredi 12 juillet 2006 à 01:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett a écrit :
> Now, this can quite easily be worked around by Joerg agreeing that all
> of the software in the cdrecord tarball can be treated under the terms
> of the CDDL (assuming that he has the right to do so, of course - any
> signifi
Hello,
[ I'm leaning somewhat out of the window here w/o being a law expert ]
On Wed, 12.07.2006 at 12:46:51 -0700, Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg clearly stands that:
>
> 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is unclear whether Makefiles may
> be called "scripts":
> ...
> M
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 02:50:27PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > Another thing that is a bit annoying is that the LICENSE file in the
> > upstream tarball is the MPL license text. It'd be better for everyone if
> > they'd make it clear that everything in the tarball, except ex
* Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:58:13PM -0400, Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > Some examples and test files are licensed under Mozilla-sample-code.
> >
> > Uh, is that actually a license?
>
> Yes it is:
>
> BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK
> Version:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:49:52PM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 10:10:29AM +0200, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Last time I checked (and it was after Gerv's post), the relicensing changes
> > were still not applied to the MOZILLA_1_8_BRANCH
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 08:06:19AM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> > > Joerg clearly stands that:
> > >
> > > 1) Makefiles != scripts or at least it is
On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 12:59:53PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> If it's not obvious to someone then that person is either
> (a) dishonest or (b) astonishingly out of touch with reality.
That would seem to be an accurate description of some certain author of
some certain rather popular CD-writing to
On Thursday 13 July 2006 18:54, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrto
On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 16:43 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 12:59 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> Erast Benson writes ("Re: cdrtools"):
> >> > Joerg clearly stands that:
> &g
1 - 100 of 151 matches
Mail list logo
