Alexander Boström a...@root.snowtree.se wrote:
I'm hoping it can be added to the acceptable licenses list. Presumably
after that happens I can put License: GPLv2 with exceptions in the
corresponding spec file.
Is it wrong to fall back to License: GPLv2 in the meantime? I'd like
to have the
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fed...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:29 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not
LGPLv2+.
Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ?
There is nothing
Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/06/09 11:10, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/06/09 00:25, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Is there no RedHat lawyer in this list?
If you believe you have a case.
Hire, a lawyer.
No one is stopping you
Hi!
In former times, there was an excellent cooperative relationship between the
development of cdrtools and the various Linux distributions (in special with
Debian). Unfortunately, this changed in Spring 2004, a few months after the
Debian package maintainer for the cdrtools has been replaced
Christoph Höger choe...@cs.tu-berlin.de wrote:
I am not in any way officially speaking for fedora, Just my 2ct:
1. FSF is very explicit about GPL and CDDL:
The FSF has no relevence for the cdrtools project as the FSF does not
own Copyright on the project. Please let us discuss relevent text
Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/09 20:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordancia...@member.fsf.org wrote:
I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the
original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is:
http://lwn.net/Articles
Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Joerg
Schillingjoerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
I am not going to re-introduce a license that acording to the private
interpretation from the initiator of the fork is not a valid OSS license,
Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/06/09 22:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
Please read this:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
Why, they didn't write the GPL.
But Rosen gives useful and cleanly legal based explanations.
Give
Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Please read this:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
It gives valid legal theories for all claims and it explains why there is no
problem.
So far I've read the first 1/3 of the document and everything I've
read
