Re: cdrtools

["Ralph Amissah" <ralph.amissah@gmail.com>]

> > > And note: the CDDL is one of 9 preferred licenses:
> > >
> > > http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:11636:200607:nknhhdligldemhkfbhpd
> >
> > One of the preferred licenses *by the OSI*. Debian has nothing to do
> > with the OSI and doesn't not rely on the OSI to be told what is free
> > or not. Can't you even understand something that simple?
>
> I understand things but if Debian people have problems to understand
> that the OSI is the only independend institution that deals with OSS
> Licenses, you are obviously a bit out of order.

"Debian" has no problem understanding that they will independently
determine what licenses are suitable to "Debian".

If you want your software in Debian, use a currently Debian approved
license.

On 10/08/06, Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
> Note that the name "dvdrecord" is illegal too as this name is "too
> close" to the name cdrecord and many people use the name "dvdrecord"
> for the newer versions of cdrecord that include DVD writing although I
> did never mentioned this name for my software.
Surely you jest... then again, perhaps you don't.

It is highly unlikely (that any jurisdiction would recognise) that there could
be any restriction on use of the name "dvdrecord" resulting from the
existence of another highly generic name cdrecord:
cdrecord and dvdrecord are generic names, describing what the
software does... granted you may have a claim to cdrecord having named
your software thus, but even this might be challenged by close similarly
generic cdrecordtype variants... it is questionable whether cdrecorder
or recordcd for example would be protected...

you cannot by virtue of using the generic type name cdrecord control
variants of the genric term let alone (yet) another name that is as generic
(and different): dvdrecord.