People who cut off ompirtant people from the list of mail recipients cannot be
taken for serious.
You are obvuiously not interested in a solution but in lighting a fire :-(
Steve Langasek wrote:
>To my knowledge, Eben Moglen's *beliefs* on how the GPLv2 should be
>interpreted are not a binding legal precedent in any jurisdiction; nor is
>this post hoc interpretation binding on any copyright holders other than the
>FSF. It may not even be binding on the FSF itself.
What is your intention for this writing?
>Regardless, Joerg Schilling's amply demonstrated animosity towards the
>maintainers of the Debian cdrecord package has been such that I no longer
You seem to completely missunderstand the background.
One specific Debian maintainer (Edurard Bloch) is completely uninformed and
arrogant. He does cause harm to the Debian project the way he acts. His
arrogance is so big that he even claims that he knows better how cdrecord works
than me the author.....
He fails to inform himself about the way cdrecord works and repeatedly writes
nonsense to Debian users.
>believe the text of the licenses is the principal issue before us. Anyone
>so happy to threaten Debian developers with defamation lawsuits is not what
You should not believe beople like Eduard Bloch who is a convinced lier in many
cases.
>I consider a good-faith contributor to the Free Software community, and I
>think it's unwise for Debian to distribute software of such provenance
>regardless of license terms.
The power of a license lies in it's written down terms and not in what someone
think's it says, or in their personal opinion or point of views.
To put things right: My only interest with Mr. Bloch is to put his discussion
on facts and terms of the GPL and not on his personal opinion and thoughts.
He bends information until it fit's his opinion and personal point of
view, leaving the intended message far behind. Not to speak about personal
offenses he often puts in between his words. I told him twice that I do not
threaten him, but he either did not read my mails completly or bended them to
his personal comfort.
He accused me of violating the GPL. When I asked him to cite the paragraphs of
the GPL that he claims to be violated, he in return send his personal opinions.
After repeatedly reasking him for facts and cites of paragraphs he claims I
violate, he found out that there is no evidence on his claims. So I asked him
to close the bug but still keep it readable for public interest. And that is
where we are right now: He now says that there is no GPL violation that he can
claim, but he will leave the bug open for no reason. Right now the bug has
been closed and moved out of public sight. It looks to me as if Mr. Bloch
holds a grudge against me, but that does not belong in the Debian bugtracking
system. It is a misuse of that platform.
Wasn't the GPL invented as a safeguard for users of software and not as
an instrument for softwareusers against the authors and to waste the time
of those authors keeping alive the idea of publicly available software by
writing it and putting it in the public on base of free licenses?
If users are misusing the GPL as an instrument against programers, why should
a programmer then put it's software under such a license. This kind of misuse
has the power of underminig and destroying the system of free software.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
