Gunnar Wolf <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 statements you might be talking about.
> Any free license allows for forking, allows for us modifying and
> redistributing your work. If we consider some parts of your code
> unfit, and you say you write Free Software, you should not have a
> problem accepting us to distribute those changes to your
> sources. Why are you so bitter about it to call "bastardizing" what
> should be called "distributing modified versions of"?
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.
> > There are definitely NO issues with the CDDL. The CDDL gives at least
> > as much freedom as the GPL does and the CDDL is a first class OSS license.
> > It has been accepted by the OSI and this is sufficient for anybody.
> ...By OSI. That's an important part, but not all of, the Free Software
In case you don't know, the CDDL is one of 9 preferred:
The CDDL has no problem with any of the DFSG requirements, so in case some
people at Debian do not like to accept the CDDL, this needs to be called pure
EMail:email@example.com (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
- Re: cdrtools
- From: Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com>
- Re: cdrtools
- From: Jean Parpaillon <firstname.lastname@example.org>