From: Simon Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have no idea: This looks like a result of a bug in the libc found on RH 7.3.
I really hope that Linux will become a decently usable OS in the near future.
But without compatible libraries this looks impossible.
There are many people using Linux in
From: Brian Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm using the cd-record pro DVD version 1.11a21. I'm
using it under the personal use license that is given
inside the README file at
ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/ProDVD/. I
run this on Red Hat 7.3.
I just changed my hostname and now the
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:38:19 +0200 (CEST)
From: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Brian Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm using the cd-record pro DVD
From: Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The last and more intense have been half a year ago when I started
to sue companies that illegally use cdrecord sources for
closed source applications.
Which companies?
Two German companies, this makes it
Hi Jörg,
I think that GPL software should be protected by the State (in you case
Germany, in my case Spain), so that it should not represent any cost to
defend the GPL licence violation (do not include the source code, etc...).
GPL should be a patrimoine de l'humanité, or somthing similar,
From: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At the end, my conclusion is to not change the license of cdrdao which
gives me following two options:
1. Freeze the project until the affected sources are replaced by a GPL
compliant version.
2. Release a cdrdao version which temporarily omits the
I'm using the cd-record pro DVD version 1.11a21. I'm
using it under the personal use license that is given
inside the README file at
ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/ProDVD/. I
run this on Red Hat 7.3.
I just changed my hostname and now the cdrecord
program is no longer operational. I
From: Brian Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm using the cd-record pro DVD version 1.11a21. I'm
using it under the personal use license that is given
inside the README file at
ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/ProDVD/. I
run this on Red Hat 7.3.
I just changed my hostname and now the
From: Simon Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have no idea: This looks like a result of a bug in the libc found on RH 7.3.
I really hope that Linux will become a decently usable OS in the near future.
But without compatible libraries this looks impossible.
There are many people using Linux
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
This brings up a different twist then. If the source code did
not contain any license file at all, and did not have any license
in any of the files, it would IMHO be licenseless. Wether or not
the law would interpret it to be public domain, and hence
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
I think Andreas decision to replace the GPL incompatible code
with new code, is the right thing to do.
Indeed. Why are people still complaining about licensing since it's now a
100% moot point with cdrdao?
Agreed. There is nothing to
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AFAIK, I am the only author who did major contributions and I _do_
already allow this kind of usage with cdrecord
Minor contributors have no own rights on the work.
Joerg, cdrecord isn't the topic of discussion here right now.
Well, about 1/3 of
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're only contradicting me, but you're no lawyer either. My
But I have had several long discussions with lawyers about
Copyright and GPL issues in the past.
The first talk was in 1993 (about one year after the European
Union decided that software is
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AFAIK, I am the only person who did major contributions and I do allow
this kind of usage. Authors who did minor contributions need not be asked.
That is your own personal opinion on the matter. If there was an
author whom has contributed code and had a
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 13:25, Joerg Schilling wrote:
From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] explanation
I've just re-read the LICENSE file in the libedc directory of=20
cdrtools, and it doesn't mention distribution at all, only
use.=20 Does this mean that I do have
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The last and more intense have been half a year ago when I started
to sue companies that illegally use cdrecord sources for
closed source applications.
Which companies?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
--
To
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
without the viral component, then as far as I can see it would be=20
possible. This would however change the license terms for the rest=20
of cdrdao as well (it would effectively turn into an LGPL license I=20
think).
It will not as the exception is
From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Preface: I am sorry, but it seems that you don't know much about
=09Copyright issues :-( Many of your statements are completely
=09wrong and none of your mails from the last night has been
helpful.
For a decent discussion on this topic it is important
This is how the GPL protects freedom of the code, by ensuring
that when you've got GPL'd code, no one can remove any of the
rights that the GPL provides you with. They cannot restrict you
in any way beyond what the GPL license states. That means that
they can not say This program is
: License of cdrdao will be changed
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
Hi all,
wow, that was an interesting discussion today. Unfortunately I could not
follow it directly since my real job currently takes most of my time.
After digging throw most of the thread I see following points that
are relevant for my current problem:
- Cdrdao cannot be GPLd as long as
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Julián Muñoz wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:36:34 + (GMT)
From: Julián Muñoz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
Although it is an interesting topic
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Julián Muñoz wrote:
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:07:06 + (GMT)
From: Julián Muñoz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: cdwrite list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On 23
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Mike A. Harris wrote:
I think Andreas decision to replace the GPL incompatible code
with new code, is the right thing to do.
Indeed. Why are people still complaining about licensing since it's now a
100% moot point with cdrdao?
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa
Hi all,
I had to learn this week that cdrdao currently violates the license
terms of the included libedc_ecc code which is intellectual property of
Heiko Eissfeldt. The cdrdao project has the permission to use the
libedc_ecc code but the GPL does not apply to the libedc_ecc code
itself. Other
On 22 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote:
Date: 22 Sep 2002 13:15:57 +0200
From: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: cdwrite list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: License of cdrdao will be changed
Hi all,
I had to learn this week that cdrdao currently violates the license
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 19:01, Mike A. Harris wrote:
[...]
Therefore, I will restrict the GPL license for cdrdao so that section 2
of the GPL will not apply to the libedc_ecc code. I will shortly prepare
a new cdrdao release with the new license terms and remove all older
releases from
On Sunday 22 September 2002 21:46, Andreas Mueller wrote:
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 19:01, Mike A. Harris wrote:
[...]
Therefore, I will restrict the GPL license for cdrdao so that
section 2 of the GPL will not apply to the libedc_ecc code. I
will shortly prepare a new cdrdao release
To: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED],
The libedc_ecc code is held in a library which gets statically
linked to the cdrdao executable. The library is not available as
a separate package so that the cdrdao sources ship with the
libedc_ecc sources. The libedc_ecc sources are strictly separated
On Sunday 22 September 2002 23:15, Andreas Mueller wrote:
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
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote:
You can't GPL part of your program however, and have GPL
incompatible code linked into it.
This statement is not correct
I tend to believe this but can you please let me know where this is
stated in the GPLv2 license text (I mean the part about
PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
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
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Lourens Veen wrote:
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
