;> | under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a
> >>> | parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof
> >>> | as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute
> >>> | the parser skeleton itself, you
k isn't itself a
>>> | parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof
>>> | as a parser skeleton. Alternatively, if you modify or redistribute
>>> | the parser skeleton itself, you may (at your option) remove this
>>> | special exception, wh
tput files to be licensed under the GNU General Public
> > | License without this special exception.
> > | .
> > | This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in
> > | version 2.2 of Bison.
> >
> > Is this compatible with CDDL-1?
>
>
licensed under the GNU General Public
> | License without this special exception.
> | .
> | This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in
> | version 2.2 of Bison.
>
> Is this compatible with CDDL-1?
If you fall into case one (you just "use" Bison
will cause the skeleton and the resulting
| Bison output files to be licensed under the GNU General Public
| License without this special exception.
| .
| This special exception was added by the Free Software Foundation in
| version 2.2 of Bison.
Is this compatible with CDDL-1?
As far as I unders
Am Samstag, 2. Juni 2012 schrieb Mark Weyer:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:45:06PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Montag, 7. Mai 2012 schrieb Mark Weyer:
> > > Just a quick note: If you are right about the incompatibility of CDDL-1
> > > and GPLv3 (others on thi
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 01:45:06PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Montag, 7. Mai 2012 schrieb Mark Weyer:
> > Just a quick note: If you are right about the incompatibility of CDDL-1
> > and GPLv3 (others on this list will know if you are), then the
> > combined work is
Hi Mark!
Am Montag, 7. Mai 2012 schrieb Mark Weyer:
> > As far as I understand CDDL-1 and GPL are not compatible, but when I
> > read this special exception correctly, in the case that no new
> > parser generator is done any terms, any license can be used for the
> > res
=summary
>
> There is some licensing questions left:
>
> 1) Most files use:
>
> * CDDL HEADER START
> *
> * The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> * Common Development and Distribution License (the "License").
> * You may not use this fil
> As far as I understand CDDL-1 and GPL are not compatible, but when I read
> this
> special exception correctly, in the case that no new parser generator is done
> any terms, any license can be used for the resulting work.
Just a quick note: If you are right about the incompatibi
use:
* CDDL HEADER START
*
* The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
* Common Development and Distribution License (the "License").
* You may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
*
* You can obtain a copy of the license at usr/src/OPENSOLARIS.LIC
Hi!
Alex and I almost finished packaging filebench:
VCS is at:
Vcs-Git: git://git.debian.org/collab-maint/filebench.git
Vcs-Browser: http://git.debian.org/?p=collab-maint/filebench.git;a=summary
There is some licensing questions left:
1) Most files use:
* CDDL HEADER START
*
* The
roduce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
libc is part of the Debian base system, which is a Major Component.
libc is normally included in the base system. It is a required part
of the base system. So case (a) does not apply.
I would agree that the language in draft 2 of GPL ver
On Thu, 07 Oct 2010, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Don Armstrong:
> > [The system library exception is] intended for cases where you're
> > running a GPLed work on a system which is GPL-incompatible.
>
> Not in this generality. We aren't allowed to link GPLed software to
> OpenSSL, after all.
Because
only intended for proprietary operating systems.
>
> It's intended for cases where you're running a GPLed work on a system
> which is GPL-incompatible.
Not in this generality. We aren't allowed to link GPLed software to
OpenSSL, after all.
>> The FSF also uncondition
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:42:07 +0200 Josselin Mouette wrote:
[...]
> The constraints for a CDDL’ed OS are the same as for a proprietary one.
This looks correct to me, since I am personally convinced that CDDL'ed
works fail to comply with the DFSG and are therefore non-free...
My detailed analysis
#x27;s intended for cases where you're running a GPLed work on a system
which is GPL-incompatible.
> The FSF also unconditionally labels the CDDL als GPL-incompatible
> (although it is not clear if the license overview was thoroughly
> updated for GPL version 3).
They're ref
Le jeudi 23 septembre 2010 à 20:42 +0100, Stephen Gran a écrit :
> This one time, at band camp, Florian Weimer said:
> > * Don Armstrong:
> >
> > > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK
> >
> > I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library
> > exception.
This one time, at band camp, Florian Weimer said:
> * Don Armstrong:
>
> > CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK
>
> I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library
> exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems.
Does no one else see a
* Don Armstrong:
> CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK
I think the FSF wants us not to be able to use the System Library
exception. It is only intended for proprietary operating systems.
The FSF also unconditionally labels the CDDL als GPL-incompatible
(althou
On Fri Sep 03 14:04, Paul Wise wrote:
> BTW, whatever happened to Debian GNU/kOpenSolaris?
>
> http://csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~dtbartle/opensolaris/
>
How would the licence interactions work here, with a CDDL kernel and a GPL
libc/userland? Does the fact that it's specifically t
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Anil Gulecha writes:
>
>> Illumos will be the upstream. Illumos project started out as a branch
>> of OpenSolaris code, but is now effectively a fork of OpenSolaris
>> codebase.
>
> I don't understand the distinction being made there. What is d
Anil Gulecha writes:
> Illumos will be the upstream. Illumos project started out as a branch
> of OpenSolaris code, but is now effectively a fork of OpenSolaris
> codebase.
I don't understand the distinction being made there. What is different
between “a branch of the code” versus “a fork of the
> Also, what would be the upstream of a possible Debian OpenSolaris
> based port? I read that Oracle is closing down OpenSolaris and moving
> development behind closed doors.
>
Illumos will be the upstream. Illumos project started out as a branch
of OpenSolaris code, but is now effectively a fork
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anil Gulecha wrote:
> * I would like to understand further the rational behind using the
> "distribution of libraries" boundary at Debian project level, rather
> than at a package/binary level, which seems a more natural fit for
> delineation.
Simply because "acco
ort. To make sure I haven't lept off the edge; I just wanted
> to run this by everyone.
>
> The quick ruberic is the following:
>
> CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK
> CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv2 work: Probably Not OK
&
un this by everyone.
The quick ruberic is the following:
CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv3+ work: OK
CDDL'ed libc (and other System Library) and GPLv2 work: Probably Not OK
* and GPLv2+ work + CDDL work (non-System Library): Not OK
More lengthly explanation:
The real ques
Arnoud Engelfriet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > This is of course completely wrong. Unless you accept the terms of the
> > GPL, the author's rights apply by default, so you don't have the right
> > to use, distribute or modify the software.
>
> Which doesn't change the
Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le vendredi 16 novembre 2007 ? 16:23 +0100, Joerg Schilling a ?crit :
> > If you talk to lawyers and ask them about the GPL, they will tell you that
> > the GPL is a contract offer that needs to be explicitely acepted by the
> > licensee.
>
> This is of course completely
Le vendredi 16 novembre 2007 à 16:23 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> If you talk to lawyers and ask them about the GPL, they will tell you that
> the GPL is a contract offer that needs to be explicitely acepted by the
> licensee.
This is of course completely wrong. Unless you accept the terms
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Anyway, in Europe you cannot agree on a contract that you do not yet know and
for this reason, a text like "GPLv2 or any later" is void.
Why? Assuming the rest of your characterizations for the sake of
argument, two contracts currently exist which meet those criteria.
"John Halton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yeah, sort of vexed. But have you ever noticed "GPL is a license not a
> > contract" folks citing ANY authority to back that legal nonsense
> > claim? Consider:
> >
> > [lots and lots of cas
On 16/11/2007, Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, sort of vexed. But have you ever noticed "GPL is a license not a
> contract" folks citing ANY authority to back that legal nonsense
> claim? Consider:
>
> [lots and lots of case citations]
It may or may not be correct, but I don'
>I am wondering if Java GPLed application can link with CDDL classes?
>Case looks like the cdrecord question i saw in the archive.
>The case is in CarMetal (geometrical program derived from the wondeful
>CaR from René Grothman)
>http://db-maths.nuxit.net/CaRMetal/
You first
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:15:25 + John Halton wrote:
> On 15/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
[usual unbacked assertions and handwaving by Mr. Schilling...]
>
> It is possible the licence uses the "version two or later" version of
> the GPL, which would allow the software to
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:09:04PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> I think that being a lawyer you will agree that " or
> later" is *at most* a permission given by the original licensor to
> direct licensees (i.e. parties entering version two contract) to
> SUBLICENSE (licensees can become subli
Le jeudi 15 novembre 2007 à 17:04 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> >CarMetal uses colorchooser https://colorchooser.dev.java.net/ wich is
> >CDDL licensed.
>
> If colorchooser has been developed independently from CaRMetal, and only
> CaRMetal calls colorchooser, it is i
If the answer to any
> of those questions is "yes" then we next have to consider whether it
> falls under GPL v2's "major components" exception, which is narrower
> than that in GPL v3.
THIS is definitely a missunderstaning of the GPL. See above for more
informati
he operating system on which the executable runs". It
seems pretty clear that colorchooser doesn't meet that criterion.But
that is only an issue if colorchooser meets one of the criteria set
out in (a) to (c) above.
> >CarMetal uses colorchooser https://colorchooser.dev.java.net/ wich is
On 13/11/2007, Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yves Combe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I am wondering if Java GPLed application can link with CDDL classes?
> > Case looks like the cdrecord question i saw in the archive.
>
> To understand whether the
Yves Combe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am wondering if Java GPLed application can link with CDDL classes?
> Case looks like the cdrecord question i saw in the archive.
To understand whether there's a license conflict, there needs to be an
understanding of whether copyri
Hello,
I am wondering if Java GPLed application can link with CDDL classes?
Case looks like the cdrecord question i saw in the archive.
The case is in CarMetal (geometrical program derived from the wondeful
CaR from René Grothman)
http://db-maths.nuxit.net/CaRMetal/
CarMetal uses colorchooser
Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Simon's blog entry is from a while ago, so yes the comments are closed.
Radical interface design idea: why not remove the links instead of
letting people waste time sending to an error-bouncer?
> But you can comment here, send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> and
MJ Ray wrote:
> I just tried to add a trackback to this thread from the previously-cited
> article and was told 'ERROR: Comments and Trackbacks are disabled for
> the entry you specified.' Clearly comments are enabled, as a comment
> appears on that page. I'll try a cc on this mail, but I feel Su
\"Anthony W. Youngman\" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And what happens if you DON'T have a place in common where you trade?
[...]
I don't know and it sounds like a common case in this global software
distribution game.
I just tried to add a trackback to this thread from the previously-cited
article and w
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, MJ Ray
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].
In essence, this is the same claim we
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:01:08 + (UTC) Mark Wielaard wrote:
> The FAQ even says:
>
> Q: How does this announcement affect Java EE?
> A: Sun's implementation of Java EE 5 has been available as open-source
> under the CDDL license through the GlassFish Community since June of
Tom Marble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed allow me to appeal to everyone to reconsider CDDL *as is*
> given the clarification that Simon has provided in this regard [1].
In essence, this is the same claim we have heard before:
"If, however, you are an individual, or a co
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 02, 2006, Tom Marble wrote:
> Once the the full JVM is available under GPL then running applications
> on top of it *are* compatible with any license as this was the specific
> rationale for adding the Classpath exception [1].
I think it can even go in "contrib" if it end
on't understand how it would be distributable if
> running over a GPL JVM, as the CDDL and the GPL are incompatible.
The interim solution is depending on the DLJ JVM ("non-free") which
would mean that during that period NetBeans, also, would need to
be in "non-free".
Once the the f
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 à 11:18 -0600, Tom Marble a écrit :
> Why is this important? Because Sun has several software projects
> that are licensed under CDDL that we would really, really like
> accepted into Debian. The key example is our NetBeans IDE.
> The purpose of packaging
some serious effort will still be needed.
> And so the trajectory for NetBeans, therefore, is we would
> like to package all dependent parts which are recognized
> as DFSG compliant for "main" (CDDL, GPL packages) and
> prepare a NetBeans package under CDDL which depends (initiall
Le samedi 02 décembre 2006 18:18, Tom Marble a écrit :
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> >> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and w
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
>> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
>> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
> There is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
>It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
>removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
There is no consensus that choice of venue clauses are not
DSF
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that even if that happens, that won't change the licensing terms
> for the software already released under current CDDL.
It will, unless the Initial Developer says not:
"4.2. Effect of New Versions.
You may always continue
=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
CDDL also discriminates
> > Unless they upgrade the license of such software, I guess?
>
> Which would be relicensing and requires agreement from all contributors,
> as any other relicensing.
Exactly. But it should not be a problem for Sun products I'm thinking
about.
Thanks.
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
> > > I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> > > It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> > > removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
> > >
> > > Does anybody kno
that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> > removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
> >
> > Does anybody know if is it still a work in progress? Does anyone have
> > contacts with Sun people about the issue?
>
> Note that even if that happens, tha
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 12:03:46PM +0100, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
> It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
> removed from CDDL, thus making
Hi,
I watched Sun's Simon Phipps' talk at debconf 2006 few weeks ago.
It was mentioned that the choice of venue was useless and would be
removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant.
Does anybody know if is it still a work in progress? Does anyone have
contacts with Sun people
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The venue could make significant difference here, because the licensor could
> be terribly wrong in one jurisdiction and correct in another.
That's a problem with choice of law, not choice of venue.
> Furthermore you can hadly measure whether the lice
for speculations. This kind of 'moving sands' via patch
clauses are quite similar to GFDL's invariant sections which Debian considers
non-free.
And yes, I don't think that CDDL license creators are evil and made that on
purpose, instead I believe that they've made an u
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Marcel Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
> > that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
> > and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor tryi
Matthew Garrett writes:
> Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
>> face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
>> malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
>> disbarment. These go
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nobody can or will *stop* someone else from lying. But the liar can
> face penalties from the legal system: sanctions; liability for
> malicious prosecution and/or perjury; for the lawyer, potential
> disbarment. These go away if the license explicitly
Matthew Garrett writes:
> George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> An evil author (as copyright holder) despite his limited resources could
>> cause
>> lots of damage to a large company which has never violated his copyrights.
>>
>> This is even more scary.
>
> Someone of sufficient evilnes
George Danchev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> An evil author (as copyright holder) despite his limited resources could
> cause
> lots of damage to a large company which has never violated his copyrights.
>
> This is even more scary.
Someone of sufficient evilness can do that whether they're actin
On Wednesday 09 August 2006 18:49, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Marcel Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
> > that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
> > and some other things, it looks rather like a l
Marcel Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do not understand why you need choice of venue. Unless we know how
> that venue treats absent defendants, any ambiguous terms in the licence
> and some other things, it looks rather like a licensor trying to get
> some advantage, such as being able to
Martin Man writes:
> Hi all,
>
> MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 11:56,:
>> Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs
>>> wrt/ "choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.
&g
debian refuses to upgrade to a newer version of his
sources because of CDDL, and because I could not believe his statement,
I'm trying myself to get the information clarified (FYI: debian stable
of course ships latest available stable cdrtools)
The problem is the obscure mix of GPL and CDDL li
sion of his
> sources because of CDDL, and because I could not believe his statement,
> I'm trying myself to get the information clarified (FYI: debian stable
> of course ships latest available stable cdrtools)
The problem is the obscure mix of GPL and CDDL licensed code (hence my
pre
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 15:23,:
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do understand it in this way:
- c-o-v as required by paragraph 9. of CDDL is "a note attached to the
license itself", to my understanding you can put there any jurisdiction
you want (you &
g, and debian-legal is as short-handed as
many other vital parts of the project.
[...]
> I do understand it in this way:
>
> - c-o-v as required by paragraph 9. of CDDL is "a note attached to the
> license itself", to my understanding you can put there any jurisdiction
>
Hi Goeorge,
George Danchev wrote On 2006-08-09 12:11,:
Ok, I have some questions for you, seems like you should be able to give an
authoritative answer (this does not make CDDL 1.0 non-free, of course):
I will try, my answer is not authoritative, but based on what I read and
how I
Hi all,
MJ Ray wrote On 2006-08-09 11:56,:
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on various blogs wrt/
"choice of venue" paragraph present in CDDL.
Different people have different opinions. That should not surprise anyo
t describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not
> be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?
>
> If there is no such document, could I get CDDL licensed software to
> main? Should I ask first debian-legal? what would be the answer?
I don't think there is official sta
Cc'ing because I forgot to look and mdpoole cc'd. Please do not cc me
on replies to debian-legal.
Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any document that describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not
> be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true
Martin Man writes:
> Forwarding once again my email, since it seems it has not gone through
> to the list for the first time.
> From: Martin Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Debian and CDDL and DFSG
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], gnusol-users@gnusolaris.org
> Date: Mon, 07
describes why debian considers CDDL[1] to not
be DFSG compliant (if that statement still holds true)?
If there is no such document, could I get CDDL licensed software to
main? Should I ask first debian-legal? what would be the answer?
I could find only a lot of FUD and inconsistencies on
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:28:37 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
> >
> >> Don't count much on dvdrtools, it has no active upstream at all
> >> (no, I don't mean the guys whoes only heroic act was the
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
>> Don't count much on dvdrtools, it has no active upstream at all (no, I
>> don't mean the guys whoes only heroic act was the replacement of the
>> Schilly build system with autodev-stuff).
>
> T
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
[...]
> > I used to hope that "ignoring upstream insane statements" doesn't
> > include ignoring DFSG-freeness issues with the package, though!!
> > :-(
>
> Relax. Let's expect a
#include
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
> > >> D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord
> > >contains > invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using
> > >device > names), so it
Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
>> Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> >
>> >> Just use dvdrtools instead.
>> >
>> > ITYM dvd+rw-tools,
>>
>> That's wh
ian-legal experts ;-),
> >> >
> >> > I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build
> >> > system.
> >> >
> >> > Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
> >> > copyright headers in
ue with cdrtools' build
>> > system.
>> >
>> > Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
>> > copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
>> > cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
>>
a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
> > copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
> > cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
>
> D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
>
> Flaming aside, this
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:12:25 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
>
> > And since it does print such an announcement by default then it
> > should be kept. However, I disagree on the level appropriateness -
> > stuff like "This is a broken Linux system" does not belong to the
> > disclaimer/copyright categ
#include
* Anthony DeRobertis [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 11:42:58AM]:
> Måns Rullgård wrote:
> >Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
> >
> >
> Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
> is in main?
I am waiting for the answer of its maintainer
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
is in main?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Eduard Bloch wrote:
---BEGIN QUOTE---
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Mns Rullgrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060319 01:14]:
>> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
>> > work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
>> > der
* Mns Rullgrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060319 01:14]:
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
> > work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
> > derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the bui
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> #include
> * Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
>> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
>> long lines, but that's how it's written):
>>
>> ---BEGIN QUOTE---
>> /*
#include
* Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
> Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
> long lines, but that's how it's written):
>
> ---BEGIN QUOTE---
> /*
>* Begin restricted code for quality assura
Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> A work can't be derived from another work without including some
>> piece of it
>
> This is actually not the case; including output of a work (or
> generated by a work) in another work can make that work a der
On 3/19/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
> work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
> derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the build system.
Yeah, and your car is a deriv
1 - 100 of 412 matches
Mail list logo
