On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:28:37 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
Don't count much on dvdrtools, it has no active upstream at all
(no, I don't mean the guys whoes only heroic act was the
replacement
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
#include hallo.h
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
[...]
I used to hope that ignoring upstream insane statements doesn't
include ignoring DFSG-freeness issues with the package, though!!
:-(
Relax. Let's expect an
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:19:52 +0100 Eduard Bloch wrote:
Don't count much on dvdrtools, it has no active upstream at all (no, I
don't mean the guys whoes only heroic act was the replacement of the
Schilly build system with autodev-stuff).
That's a
#include hallo.h
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord
contains invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using
device names), so it's certainly
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 01:21:08 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Just use dvdrtools instead.
ITYM dvd+rw-tools,
That's what I use for burning DVDs.
#include hallo.h
* Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
long lines, but that's how it's written):
---BEGIN QUOTE---
/*
* Begin restricted code for quality
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
#include hallo.h
* Måns Rullgård [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 01:50:24AM]:
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
These are the bits I'm referring to, from cdrecorc.c (sorry for the
long lines, but that's how it's written):
---BEGIN QUOTE---
/*
*
* Mns Rullgrd [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060319 01:14]:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the build system.
Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* Mns Rullgrd [EMAIL PROTECTED] [060319 01:14]:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
derivative work of the
Eduard Bloch wrote:
---BEGIN QUOTE---
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
is in main?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include hallo.h
* Anthony DeRobertis [Sun, Mar 19 2006, 11:42:58AM]:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Incidentally, this is what the dvdrtools folks have already done.
Ummm, come to think of it, why is dvdrtools in non-free while cdrecord
is in main?
I am waiting for the answer of its maintainer.
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 13:12:25 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
And since it does print such an announcement by default then it
should be kept. However, I disagree on the level appropriateness -
stuff like This is a broken Linux system does not belong to the
disclaimer/copyright category.
It
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build
system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
copyright headers in
Francesco Poli [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 22:05:53 + Måns Rullgård wrote:
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build
system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license?
And what's the scale and gradations for GPL-compatibility in your
brainwashed (linking triggers GPL-incompatibility) mind? I just
wonder. hahaha
regards,
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
headers in the files of his build system inside of the cdrtools package
with
#include hallo.h
* Alexander Terekhov [Sat, Mar 18 2006, 10:44:54PM]:
On 3/18/06, Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license?
And what's the scale and gradations for GPL-compatibility in your
brainwashed
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now the question: how GPL-compatible should we consider this CDDL-like
license? See http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html for details.
The CDDL and GPL are incompatible.
We have the option of splitting the source package into code (GPLed)
and
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
Can we just fork from a version of the build system which did not
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
In #350739, the
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's not that they have to be available, it's just that they have
to be compatible. [Moreover, JS violation of the GPL isn't
interesting because he's presumably the copyright holder, and can
therefore do
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using device
names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
Oh? How is it in main then?
--
Sam Morris
http://robots.org.uk/
PGP
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
is not a derivative work of the GPLed
It also contains a file whose location can't be legally changed. In my
opinion it has always been non-free since the clauses were added. It's
not really GPL.
andrew
On 3/19/06, Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for
Sam Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord contains
invariant sections (those obnoxious warnings about using device
names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free. Just use dvdrtools instead.
Oh? How is it in main then?
On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:07:09PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
Hello debian-legal experts ;-),
I need a bit support to clarify the issue with cdrtools' build system.
Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the copyright
headers in the files of his build system inside of the
Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
have legal effect, are they?
(Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Australia's 1999 constitutional referendum - the 'no' case says that
the preamble could have had legal effect.)
andrew
On 3/19/06, Måns
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why is he quoting the GPL *preamble*? Preambles aren't supposed to
have legal effect, are they?
I guess JS is as thoroughly confused about legal matters as he is
about device naming.
(Interesting looking at the case of the preamble question in
Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a
GPLed work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord
is not
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
convenience than a necessity to build a program.
You could extend this argument to any segment of sourcecode in the
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
If that is the case, wouldn't the simplest course of action be simply
to strip the build system from the tarball and replace it with a free
one written by the maintainer?
Oops, missed where Don mentioned this earlier in thread. Sorry!
Benjamin
signature.asc
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Given only the source files, writing a makefile that will produce a
working executable is fairly simple. I see makefiles as more of a
convenience than a necessity to build a program.
You could extend this
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Måns Rullgård wrote:
A work can't be derived from another work without including some
piece of it
This is actually not the case; including output of a work (or
generated by a work) in another work can make that work a derivative
work of the first work.
Is a printed book a
35 matches
Mail list logo
