Re: cdrtools

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> writes:

> Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.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.

So all we need to do to apeace you is to call is "debianrecord"?

If that is all that is needed for you not to complain that we include
unsupported dvd support and the like then that can easily be aranged.

But then please just say so. The GPL alone does not require such a
rename, only that "the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change".

You should just add a requirement for renaming the software instead of
your invariant section and extra printing code requirement.

...
> 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
> evilness.

You may call that evil but everybody (including Debian) has the right
to their own opinion.

> Jörg

MfG
        Goswin