Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You started this thread and you have been unable to prove your claims.
I ask you to either prove your claims or to close the bugs #350739 #350739
within one week.
Thank you for admitting that your previsous claims are wrong.
Not that you did admit
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You again make the wrong conclusions and I get the impression that
you need to read the GPL more thoroughly in order to understand the way
I interpret it.
The main missunderstanding seems to be caused by reading GOL ยง2 b) too
quickly. this is why
Erast Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, as usual, you are ignoring the vital fact that the
combination of CDDL and GPL is something between legally dubious
and illegal. Of course, you ca distribute
* 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
On Sat, 08 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GNU GPL only allows this when it is possible to satisfy the
conditions of the GPL for the distributed work. For example, this
is why it is possible to combine MIT licensed works with GPLed
works.
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don,
I see that you again seem to make wrong conclusions from the facts you
mention.
Answering your mail will take a long time in case you like to get
useful quotes for my claims.I will do this later.
For this reason, I like to send you a question
On Sat, Jul 08, 2006 at 06:00:24PM -0700, Erast Benson wrote:
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
On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, as usual, you are ignoring the vital fact that the
combination of CDDL and GPL is something between legally dubious
and illegal. Of course, you ca distribute whatever you want, but
Debian is bound to
10 matches
Mail list logo
