On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:20:50 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> Daniel Iliev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The question is valid and interesting, moreover it is asked very > > kindly. I can't see what possibly might be preventing you to answer > > the same way. > > I did answer these questions many times before and in many cases I > have later been attacked. > > The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that > should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are > published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the > incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make > untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples > incorrect articles) before asking? > No, this is your assumption. Mine is the opposite - as I see it, the question is very real and the author admitted that he found those URLs using Google which implies he had nothing to do them. ...And yes, I second to b.n. - I'd be explaining my position and I'd be answering every single question if I wanted the people to take my side. Even if the question is asked on purpose, it is better to answer with reason instead of flaming. > > Why do you use a modified CDDL license? What are the advantages of > > this license over GPL? > > What do you call "a modified CDDL license" and why do you believe > there is "a modified CDDL license"? Answering the question with question? (obviously I can do that too :D) Seriously, "eix -v cdrtools" gives "GPL-2 LGPL-2.1 CDDL-Schily". I assumed you want the package released under your own licence based on the Sun's CDDL. > Do you know the history? Do you know that since summer 2004, some > people (those people who now stand behind "wodim") started to attack > the cdrtools project? No, I've never heard about the problem before I saw your posts to this list several months ago, but I really care to see your side of the story. First it would be interesting, second more effective for your cause and third it would hopefully cease your current practice to hijack every optical media related thread on this list and send spam that advertises your product (cdrtools). I mean no offense, but allow me to be blunt. This practice of yours is not only extremely annoying, but it is also very unwise because it backfires - instead of making people understand your problem, now you have a list of annoyed Gentoo fans. The history. Well, I did some searching myself and here's the picture I see from what I managed to find in The Internet. You want to use the CDDL. On the other hand you can't release the whole project under CDDL, because there are parts written by other people who had released their work under GPL before you took the project. So, you dual-licensed the package, releasing the parts you have written by yourself as CDDL and the others w/o changing the license. (How am I doing so far?) Some Debian maintainers saw a problem because CDDL is not compatible with GNU GPL and they made the fork "cdrkit". As I understand it the legal problem is when it comes to the binaries produced from your sources because their distribution will violate the GNU GPL. That's why most of the binary distros dropped your packet. On the other hand Gentoo and the other source based distros don't have the same problem, because they don't distribute binaries. All of this made you like Gentoo and hate Debian and especially the those behind the fork. Now, if you have the good will, please, do correct me and tell us your version of the story. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
