On Sat, 2006-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060708 20:59]: > > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > * Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060708 12:28]: > > > > The GPL enforces other contidions under which the resultant binary may > > > > be > > > > distributed but it does not enforce _anything_ on the non-GPL source. > > > > > > Well, but it might result in the binary being unredistributable at all. > > > This is the case here. As Debian provides binaries for anything in main, > > > and this is not possible with your combination, your package cannot go > > > to main. > > > > You still seem to prefer to write claims without a proof, so it is obvious > > that > > your claims are wrong. > > You shouldn't think all people follow your strategy to make claims > without a proof. I still wait for any proof for your claim made in > [EMAIL PROTECTED] about the apache people. > > Actually, if you think any of above is without proof, please point out > at which place. > > > Could we please have a fact based discussion? > > Oh, when do you start your therapy?
Folks, could you please *try* to avoid this kind of reaction on anything which is not kosher as you might always believe and, instead, *try* to understand Joerg's point of view? I'm a developer, not a lower, but I believe that creators of CDDL and GPL pursued a bit different goals other than silly and useless dvdrtools fork only just because somebody "think" (or "guess" or whatever) that some particular statements could be interpreted in the way that binary results of two *source* licenses will not be legally redistributable. Joerg position is clear: """It may be the main point that people fear that compiling cdrtools creates unredistibutable binaries. I see no reason why binaries may be unredistibutable as I don't see any contradictory requirements from CDDL/GPL. Both licenses are source licenses and require to make the source available in case a binary is distributed. This is no contradiction but just the same requirement.""" I would like to hear FSF position on this matter and somehow I have a feeling their interpretation of GPL license is different from what is claimed here. Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
