The only code that probably could be called free was growisofs, but growisofs
at that time was not under GPL (altough the Author claimed so) because
commercial publishing was not allowed. Growisofs is now free, but the change
to a real free license was made after the complete cdrecord source was published
under a free license.
dvd+rw-tools were available under same license, GPL, all along, and
nothing has changed "after the complete cdrecord source was published
under a free license." I suppose the above comment refers to
http://fy.chalmers.se/~appro/linux/DVD+RW/solaris.com.html. Quoting it:
"The agreement is not meant to encumber GPL-compliant usage of the
sofware in question, for example no explicit permission/license is
required, if the same party chooses to download and deploy it internally
in their Solaris environment, e.g. for backup purposes, or even
re-distribute it under GPL terms."
I can assure that this was the intention from the moment of agreement,
I believe you that you may have intended to have it be free.
The named limitation however caused e.g. Sun to make an agreement with you
before Sun started to publish growisofs. So at least Sun also had the
impression that the license situation was unclear. If there was an obvious and
definitive GPL on growisofs, Sun did just take it.
The situation in Germany is definitively that a Judge would take the named
limitytion as an expression of will from the author that is wheighted more
heavy than the GPL. This is amongst others, because the GPL is a license
written by other people.
I fail to understand point with these rants. Why do you undertake role
of interpreter of an agreement that doesn't concern you? Have you
experienced legal problems using dvd+rw-tools? Or do you perhaps
represent [or represented at the time] Sun's interests? Have you been
asked for an opinion? If yes, how come they asked you and not me? Are
you "a Judge"? Do I need your approval? I bet not. So what is the drift
here?
Anyway, the above quoted note openly admits that original note was
poorly formulated and clarification was provided. I take blame for poor
formulation, but [once again] assure that no changes in licensing terms
took place at alleged time [or any other time]. Sun indeed contacted
Inserve (not me!) and I've got a note about the fact and that Inserve
proceeded as agreed. Sun did wonder if notice can be removed from my
page, but I left the decision to Inserve. Apparently clarification
sufficed. A.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
