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 the regular way),
yes it is (IANAL, but that was a design goal when the exception
was designed: Bison's output _can_ be used
, which 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
| 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?
If you fall into case one (you just use Bison
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 the regular way),
yes it is (IANAL, but that was a design goal when the exception
was designed: Bison's output _can_ be used to produce proprietary
software
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 this list will know if you
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 understand CDDL-1 and GPL
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 non-free: Its license terms
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 file except in compliance with the License.
*
* You can obtain a copy of the license
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
resulting work.
Just a quick note
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
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.LICENSE
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 incompatibility of CDDL-1
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 version 3 would have
covered a CDDL libc. But that language was deemed
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
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
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. It is only
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 referring to the common case where the System Library
exception
* 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
(although
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Anil Gulecha a...@nexenta.org 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
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 of
Anil Gulecha a...@nexenta.org 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
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote:
Anil Gulecha a...@nexenta.org 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
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 the kernel satisfy
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 question for GPLed works
. 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
* and GPLv2+ work + CDDL work (non-System
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 wrong.
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 fact that
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't see
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 case citations]
It
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.
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 of
set
out in (a) to (c) above.
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 indeed similar to what happens with mkisofs
and the license mix you
://colorchooser.dev.java.net/ wich is
CDDL licensed.
If colorchooser has been developed independently from CaRMetal, and only
CaRMetal calls colorchooser, it is indeed similar to what happens with
mkisofs
and the license mix you describe is legal too.
As set out above, the question
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 indeed similar to what happens
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:09:04PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
I think that being a lawyer you will agree that existing version 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
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 be
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 need to be very carefull
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 there's a license conflict, there needs
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 copyright is invoked by linking
\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 was
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 Sun
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/or
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 have heard before
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 ends up
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 company that trades
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
2005. In order to gain
[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
DSFG-compliant, anyway
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 no consensus that choice of venue clauses
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 would be
removed from CDDL, thus making CDDL DSFG-compliant
, 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 (initially)
on the non-free Sun Java runtime [3] such that upon the
full liberation of Sun Java that NetBeans
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 NetBeans
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 full JVM is available under GPL then running applications
on top
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 about
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 CDDL DSFG-compliant.
Does anybody know
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, that won't change the licensing terms
for the software already released under current CDDL.
Unless
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 about the issue?
Note that even if that happens
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,
=?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 against agents acting on behalf
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 to use, distribute or otherwise
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 licensor
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)?
There is no single document
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 statement too, but you can see some concerns
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 anyone.
We are not a group
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
-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
you want (you as the author or contributor), and yes, it's
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 as the author or contributor
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
previous question to what degree
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 licensed code
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.
Different people have different opinions. That should not surprise
anyone
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 use
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 licensor
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 acting
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 evilness can do that
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:
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
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 trying to
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 unwitting mistake which will
probably be corrected in the next version of the license, or at least I hope
so
that 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 various
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 Aug 2006 16:02:49 +0200
Hi all
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
replacement
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* 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 an
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).
That's a
#include hallo.h
* 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's certainly
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.
D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
Flaming aside
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 what I use for burning DVDs.
#include hallo.h
* 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
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* 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---
/*
*
* 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 build system.
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
derivative work of the
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
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]
#include hallo.h
* 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.
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 category.
It
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 is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using
(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 is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license?
And what's the scale and gradations for GPL-compatibility in your
brainwashed (linking triggers GPL-incompatibility) mind? I just
wonder. hahaha
regards
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 is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using device
names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead
#include hallo.h
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:44:54PM]:
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license?
And what's the scale and gradations for GPL-compatibility in your
brainwashed
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license? See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for details.
The CDDL and GPL are incompatible.
We have the option of splitting the source package into code (GPLed
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
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.
Can we just fork from a version of the build system which did
1 - 100 of 396 matches
Mail list logo
