Re: cdrtools-2.01a37 ready
On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 04:36:05PM +1200, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> On Thu 19 Aug 2004 12:03:07 NZST +1200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > you are nothing but a moron that has no clue and that is not even willing to do
> > a comparison test with the real cdrecord because you are in fear that you might
> > see immediately where the differences are :-(
>
> Yes, those differences (that SuSE does say clearly they've made mods)
> were the point. Who's the moron here?
>
> Obviously you're on the back foot and ran out of arguments, otherwise
you obviously have too much time on your hands.
> you wouldn't spend a whole email on discussing a minor point (so I
> didn't check my PPS carefully enough)
but you used it to take a shot at Joerg; that's not all he wrote about,
not that it was necessarily relevant to GPL violations.
> and nothing else, instead of
> sticking to the 2 points in question. And so that even you can
> understand it: introducing bugs is not a violation of the GPL. It's a
> right of the GPL.
I doubt any government regards the GPL as an entity, so the GPL has no
rights. the GPL is a contract; following the GPL gives entities rights.
SuSE can release a really buggy version of anything covered by the GPL,
as long as they are complying with the terms of the GPL. what I don't
get, is that if Joerg is so sure SuSE is in violation, why doesn't he
just take them to court. that's why the GPL exists; so people can be
made to comply or pay the consequences. it's not about freedom, it's
about control.
> I'm still waiting for your comment on your own GPL violation(s).
> Silence is for the guilty.
ever wonder why Joerg is "uncooperative" to you? don't bother to
answer that. everyone on the list already knows you don't really care
what Joerg says, when you quote him like "blah ...".
I don't know why you all don't just ditch the GPL. obviously it is
bloated fluffy unintelligible legalese that just causes confusion
and gives people something to whine about.
so either take it to court, or quit whining, please.
--
<jakemsr@jakemsr.com>
Reply to: