Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote:
Well, no, there is a problem. Whether that problem is due to a misreading
of
the law, differing laws (Under US, the concept of derivative work is a very
important and strong concept. Publishers have been successfully sued for
using less than
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de wrote:
Well despite the claims from some people that try to prevent a solution,
there in fact is only a very minor disagreement. This disagreement is based
on
the attempt from some people to interpret some meaning into the system
exception that
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de wrote:
And the LGPL is by design clearly GPL compatible. Even if you could
find some fault in that the intention of the license is clearly to
allow GPL and non GPL programs to link to an LGPL library and any such
bug would get clarified by the FSF. Any
Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The OS exception in the GPL just allows you to omit things like
libc from the complete source. The The OS exception in the GPL
does not allow you to treat license compatibility between GPL code
and system
Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote:
I believe that you mean the above to apply to mkisofs, not to cdrtools, which
is a bunch of different program. The programs which are purely CDDL I assume
you have no problem with distributing (despite your discomfort with CDDL).
Since it appears that
Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
As said, license compatibility needs to be discussed separately. If you
like
to allow to publish binaries from GPLd programs for _any_ OS that does not
come with a GPLd libc
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue Mar 03 11:07, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The rules of the GPL end at work limit and neither libc nor
libschily or libscg are part of the work mkisofs. For this reason,
there is no problem with the fact that mkisofs links against libschily
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue Mar 03 13:38, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Repeating false claims does not make them correct.
Repeating that correct claims are false does not make them false.
There is enough weight on the side that I have described that I believe
Matthew Johnson mj...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue Mar 03 14:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
We do live with this change. We don't have cdrtools in the archive
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 01:09:29PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
You are uninformed: libc on Linux is under LGPL and the LGPL is as
incompatible to GPL as the CDDL is incomparible to the GPL.
Er?
Well, it seems that you are uninfored
If you
Darren Salt li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk wrote:
In order to create a derived work, you need to add own code of a sufficient
creation level. The simple act of compiling does of course not create a
derived work.
By that argument, it seems to me that if I compile (and link) cdrtools,
Darren Salt li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk wrote:
I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
[snip]
As the FSF is interested to see GPLd programs on OpenSolaris (*), the FSF
did confirm that there is no problem with linking a GPLd program like e.g.
GNU tar
Darren Salt li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk wrote:
[Mail-Followup-To set again. I note that the last one was ignored...]
I demand that Joerg Schilling may or may not have written...
Darren Salt li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk wrote:
In order to create a derived work, you need to add
Darren Salt li...@youmustbejoking.demon.co.uk wrote:
End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned. I'm saying no more.
OK, wonderful to see that you no longer write non-fact based claims Once
you are willing to have a fact based discussion I am willing to continue.
For anyone who likes to
Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote:
There is absolutely no problem with distributing mkisofs binaries that are
linked against CDDLd libs that are a different work.
Well, no, there is a problem. Whether that problem is due to a misreading of
the law, differing laws (Under US, the concept
Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
...
As a hint: the work mkisofs is the plain files that can be found in the
sub-directory mkisofs in the cdrtools source tree. Other sub-directories
in
this source tree colletion contain _other_
Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote:
Attacks from Debian against the cdrtools project caused the license to be
changed. Debian now needs to live with this change.
Unfortunately it is not Debian who have to live with it, but the users around
the world. Debian is not being particularly
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
If you don???t publish this email, we will simply not believe you, that???s
all.
Using majestetis pluralis in this relation seems to be a bit absurd.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote:
Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are operating
legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his software
distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the opinion that there is
no legal impediment to that happening.
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
If you did try to disallow GPLd programs to link against independent
non-GPL
libraries, you would make _any_ GPLd program undistributable in binary form.
This is absolute bullshit. Of course it is forbidden to link GPL
programs against
Bill Unruh un...@physics.ubc.ca wrote:
Again, let us separate out the ill feelings from the issues under dispute. I
realise that it is very hard to forget history but since both sides believe
that it is the user that is most important, that is whom we should keep our
attention on.
Kalle Kivimaa kil...@debian.org wrote:
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me
George Danchev danc...@spnet.net wrote:
On Sunday 01 March 2009 18:31:36 Joerg Schilling wrote:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news-team/2009-February/000413.h
tml
I prefer to listen to credible statements.
The only true claim in the quoted text is that Mark
Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote:
On So, 01 Mär 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
mkisofs. These statements from Eben Moglen (made to me
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no
longer
because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
When will you enumerate these?
Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.
Benjamin M. A'Lee bma-li...@subvert.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with
free
software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you
change
things
William Pitcock neno...@sacredspiral.co.uk wrote:
The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
- The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not
be
legally distributed.
If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly
William Pitcock neno...@sacredspiral.co.uk wrote:
are some Debian maintainers that rather attack software authors instead
of
colaborating.
It is impossible to collaborate when you add invariant sections to the
code. Well done.
This is a text that has been created in collaboration a
William Pitcock neno...@sacredspiral.co.uk wrote:
Generally it is considered to be bad taste when you change the licensing
rules abruptly.
It is generally considered bad taste to offend and to try to blackmail the
Copyright holder. As this has been done by the Debian package
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
William Pitcock neno...@sacredspiral.co.uk wrote:
2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did
under
the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
appeared at Debian
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Note: you still haven???t fixed your email client.
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 13:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 09:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
or something (apparently).
So: xcdroast
Brett Parker idu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk wrote:
On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
- The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
legally distributed.
Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
half of it to CDDL and added
**
If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
**
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
Josselin
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org wrote:
Please don???t forward private replies to a public mailing list: this is
very rude behavior.
Well, this is an open discussion and I see no reason not to share your rude
replies with others.
Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling
John Goerzen jgoer...@complete.org wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
- The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
legally distributed.
If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly
xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
or something (apparently).
So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
or wodim?
You need to blame the people who are
Riku Voipio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 04:09:33PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
This is of course a lie.or why don't you like to prove it:
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/problems.html
Come back to reallity, the k3b maintainers did already give up
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GPL (section 3) does restrict distributions of binaries (object
code or executable form, to use the words of the GPL, to be more
accurate, since the GPL only uses the term binary once, and only to
refer to a completely different issue) and states that
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Joerg Schilling [Sun, Aug 13 2006, 12:28:15PM]:
The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
Most of that is true if and only if the users follow your
recommendations and strictly use kernel 2.4.x, ide-scsi
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you really believe that you are able to deflect from the main problem:
The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
did write bug reports against the Debian version of cdrtools did already
switch to a self
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
distributions have to fix by patching?
You should inform yourself about reality
Jean Parpaillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Beside the licensing issues, why do you care so much patched version of
your software to be distributed with big WARNINGS, a different name and
tutti quanti ?
Why do Linux distributions insist in applying patches that introduce bugs
into cdrtools?
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the author's official module). You say that I don't have the right to
distribute this under the name PDF::API2 in Debian, do I understand
correctly? Please tell me: This module is a Perl library. If I modify
it to become PDF::API2::Debian, how will our
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do you insist on programming bugs into cdrtools that linux
distributions have to fix by patching?
You should inform yourself about reality
The original sources do not have such bugs and many Debian users that
did write bug reports against
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10742 March 1977, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Reply-To and M-f-T set to my address, whoever answers please respect
this and let this thread die on -devel, its the wrong medium for this
discussion, thank you.
If we did agree on continuing the mail
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10743 March 1977, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
[1]
http://debian-meetings.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
[2]
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eduard Bloch has absolutely no clue and on the other side implicitely
claims
in his arrogant habbit that he knows more about cdrtools than I do. This
makes
it impussoble to cooperate with him.
You know that this is Rufschädigung übelster
Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, but the combined work (A+B) (i.e. a binary produced by linking
module A with module B) is a work based on A, and hence (A+B) must be
distributable under the terms of the GPL.
Distributing the sources of A with the sources of B may be fine, but
You did write:
...
I have a general question about how the GPL is construed to cover the case of
dynamic linking. According to the GPL, section 0:
...
I am sory to see that you did remove me from the Cc: list
you are the first person at Debian who starts to think the right
way...
If you
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:44:57PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Indeed, you are not free to add whatever piece of crap to the Debian
archive regardless of the license. Call it a non-free project if you
want, but this would only look like
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mercredi 09 août 2006 à 15:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
You are again trying to intentionally tell us untrue things about my
software!
The Debian project accepted the clauses in cdrecord ~ 4 years ago.
That doesn't mean the project
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be acceptable for
If Linux
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you don't know that you just need to use a clearly _different_ _name_
for such a fork, I can't help you. Read the preamble from the GPL
to understand your fault.
So all we need to do to apeace you is to call is debianrecord?
If that is
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, how about the following (and please read it completly before you
answer, it contains multiple options):
I am sorry, but I cannot believe that you like to make serious proposal
with the text you wrote.
Let me make a proposal that makes sense for now
Gunnar Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
GR stated that invariant sections aren't acceptable for the specific
GFDL case, and there is no reason why they would be acceptable for
If Linux Distributions would not distribute bastardized versions of
cdrecord,
there was no need to add the
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 10:56 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
My software is definitely free and has no license problems.
You may think so, but the Debian project doesn't. For example, a recent
GR stated that invariant sections aren't
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 01:04:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you like to discuss the GPL with other people, it is irrelevent whether
you know it by heart in case you did not understand it yet...
If everybody else interprets it significantly
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le lundi 07 août 2006 à 10:56 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
My software is definitely free and has no license problems.
You may think so, but the Debian project doesn't. For example, a recent
As long as people from Debian are on calumiation
Michael Banck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 10:56:24AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I am still in hope that there are people at Debian who are able to
understand license issues without bending things the way they like but
by correctly following the words
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You troll around on debian-devel, you troll around on lkml, you seem to
be more intelligent, wise, knowledgable, fluent in licenses, all-mighty
than *ALL* *OTHER*:
- linux kernel developers (quite a lot)
- debian developers (quite a lot)
Do you
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can quote major parts of it by heart since a few years, does that
help?
If you like to discuss the GPL with other people, it is irrelevent whether
you know it by heart in case you did not understand it yet...
[...]
GPL§3 clearly says what you
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should better _read_ the GPL and try to understand it.
Good plan.
Did you have some time to make your plan reality meanwhile?
GPL §2 defines what the work is and requres to publish the whole
work under the GPL in case that that work
Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Erast Benson wrote:
I do not need to make the build system
available under GPL (GPL §3 requires me to make it available but does
not mention a license)
GPL 3(a) requires the complete corresponding source code [be]
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jun 12 10:34:48 1998
Ronald another problem with joliet... a bug in mkisofs and
Ronald mkhybrid (at least in the newest available versioin
Ronald arround april 6th)
Ronald when you make a bootable cd with joliet _and_ rockridge
Ronald the
66 matches
Mail list logo
