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 §2 b) too
quickly. this is why
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
you did not reply to my last mail, so it is obvious that you have no
arguments to prove the claim that cdrtools has license problems or
may be undistributable by Debian.
I have not responded because they do not raise any issues which are of
any
**
You should start to learn about the nettiquette and not
shorten the Cc: list! Otherwise people will believe that you have
something to hide
**
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote:
you did not reply to my last mail, so it
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Before writing more, it seems to be iomportant to mention a common
missconception:
Both, the CDDL and the GPL are _source_ licenses.
Why do you say that ? This main problem is the distribution of the binary
(Executable Versions) form!
CDDL
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you say that ? This main problem is the distribution of the binary
(Executable Versions) form!
There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL
do not require contradictory conditions...
CDDL 1.0 says:
3.5.
On Monday 10 July 2006 20:31, Joerg Schilling wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you say that ? This main problem is the distribution of the binary
(Executable Versions) form!
There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL
do not require
First an important note: you seem to like to manipulate things as you
intentionally shorten the Cc: list. Please don't do this anymore, it is
very bad practice
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL
do not
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
George Danchev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no problem with distributing executables as the CDDL and the GPL
do not require contradictory conditions...
You must give the licensee a copy of GPL:
6. Each time you redistribute the
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
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 §2 b) too
quickly. this is why I try to explain it to you in detail below.
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
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060707 17:50]:
You seem not to understand how a constitution works
If you do not follow written rules, you end up in arbitraryness.
Actually, I'm a debian officer while you are not. It seems that my peer
developers actually have some trust in me that
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060707 17:50]:
You seem not to understand how a constitution works
If you do not follow written rules, you end up in arbitraryness.
Actually, I'm a debian officer while you are not. It seems that my peer
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060708 11:19]:
As you are unable to prove your claims by quoting related parts of written
down rules, you are obviously not trustworthy.
Please see Don's reply. It contains all useful information. Even though
you behave like a Kindergarte would be the
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
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see Don's reply. It contains all useful information. Even though
you behave like a Kindergarte would be the right place for you, I'm not
doing total mouthfeeding for you now.
As you continue to send irrelevent rants, you are obviously not
able or
* 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
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
* 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
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060708 12:32]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see Don's reply. It contains all useful information. Even though
you behave like a Kindergarte would be the right place for you, I'm not
doing total mouthfeeding for you now.
As you
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060708 12:32]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see Don's reply. It contains all useful information. Even though
you behave like a Kindergarte would be the right place for you, I'm not
doing
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, 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
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
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:26 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
What is the status of this bug? Since it was reassigned away from
cdrtools, the non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord has slipped into
Testing; so is the license change no longer an issue?
Do you
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060707 14:28]:
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:26 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
What is the status of this bug? Since it was reassigned away from
cdrtools, the non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord has slipped into
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Using I have been told is not the way to go as in the current case where
the information you have been told is wrong
Stopp distributing lies. The CDDL does not conform to the DFSG. This
decision has been taken in the way the Debian constitution
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060707 16:40]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again: The CDDL fails to meet the DFSG. This is not a claim where CDDL
meets your standards or not, but it doesn't meet ours.
Prove that!
I'm sorry that you don't understand the Debian
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060707 16:40]:
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Again: The CDDL fails to meet the DFSG. This is not a claim where CDDL
meets your standards or not, but it doesn't meet ours.
Prove that!
I'm
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
What is the status of this bug? Since it was reassigned away from
cdrtools, the non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord has slipped into
Testing; so is the license change no longer an issue?
Do you believe that Debian created a non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord?
There never was a problem with the
found 350739 4:2.01+01a03-1
thanks
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:26 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
What is the status of this bug? Since it was reassigned away from
cdrtools, the non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord has slipped into
Testing; so is the license change no longer an issue?
Do you
What is the status of this bug? Since it was reassigned away from
cdrtools, the non-DFSG-free version of cdrecord has slipped into
Testing; so is the license change no longer an issue?
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PGP key id 5EA01078
3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078
35 matches
Mail list logo
