On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 22:47, Lourens Veen wrote: > On Sunday 22 September 2002 22:30, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > From: Lourens Veen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...] > > > However, as libedc is not GPLd the "viral" part of the GPL does > > not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The > > problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a > > result of this "missing hint" other people did believe that > > libedc is GPLd. > > Yes, the LICENSE file was removed from that directory. That's a > mistake. And as you say the viral part of the GPL does not apply to > libedc_ecc because it's not under the GPL. It does, however, apply > to cdrdao. The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE file (in fact no license file at all) at the time I fetched it. I was in contact with Heiko at that time and he also did not mention any restrictions. Of course this does not excuse my mistake - I should have explicitly asked for placing it under GPL. Regarding the license terms I think we should wait for Mike A. Harris's answer to my question as he is an expert on this topic. He clearly stated that GPLd software cannot have non GPLd parts. The only open question is if they way cdrdao handles the libedc_ecc code can count as linking in non GPLd libraries. Depending on the answer I'll have to react... Andreas -- Andreas Mueller Tel: +49 89 67808848 Ramsmeierstr. 1 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 85579 Neubiberg, Germany -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
