[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: cdrtools

Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:

> Le mercredi 09 août 2006 à 15:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > You are again trying to intentionally tell us untrue things about my software!
> > 
> > The Debian project accepted the clauses in cdrecord ~ 4 years ago.
> That doesn't mean the project still considers them acceptable *NOW*.

So you like to tell me that Debian is not trustworthy?

> > 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.

Note that the CDDL has been chosen because it is a first class license as it 
allows to combine CDDL code with other code and that the GPL only is in this
list because the GPL is widely used but not because of the quality of the

BTW: The GPL is definitely non-free if someone makes use of GPL § 8.

> > It has no problem with any of the DFSG requirements.
> Many people have expressed complaints about the choice-of-venue clause
> and think it is not acceptable for Debian. I am not one of them and I
> believe the CDDL to be free, but I would surely not claim there is
> consensus around that in the project. I repeat: currently no CDDL
> project has been accepted yet.

Well then help to explain these other people that only a malicious distributor
or licensee needs to be in fear of this clause and that the clause protects the
Author for malicious licensees. If the Authors will not be protected, 
we will end up with no OSS in the future...

> > If you claim different things, you are obviously speading FUD and not 
> > a serious discussion partner - sorry.
> Why is anyone disagreeing with you necessarily "spreading FUD", "lying",
> "trying to hurt your reputation", or anything like this? Bear with it:
> most people disagree with you. I do not know a SINGLE Debian developer
> who believes your license combination to be distributable. Does that
> make only hundreds of trolls who are just trying to spread FUD against
> you?

Well this is strange. I did not "invent" this idea by myself and I did ask 
many people about their opinion. What I see is that only a few people
from Debian have a different opinion and they are even unable to prove their 
claims by correctly quoting the parts pf the GPL that they believe prevents what
I am doing.....

> Stop the paranoia. People disagree with you, and you have to accept
> that. They are not disagreeing with you just to hurt you *personally*.
> This is why you should listen to these criticisms instead of throwing
> them away by calling them FUD. No one is going to listen to you if you
> are still unable to listen to anyone.

Sorrry, the people from Debian need to stop _their_ paranoia as they are a
minority with a strange opinion.

I listen to people but if I see that they spread FUD instead of offering
useful and traceable information I believe at some point that is does not
make sense to continue a "discussion".

The Debian people should just read their DFSG rules and try to understand 
them.... DFSG §9 claims that a license is only free if it does not conaminate
other software on the same medium. The "medium" in case of cdrtools is the 
"tarball". The cdrtools distribution is based on two cases to allow a 
combination of different licenses:

1)	Mere aggregation. This applies for "The Schily Makefilesystem" and other
	software as well as with e.g. cdda2wav and cdrecord.

2)	GPLd software uses CDDLd libraries. This is done in a way that does not
	make the CDDLd software a "derived work" of the GPL software. This 
	is done for mkisofs an libschily/libscg.

If Debian sees a problem with 1) bedause of their interpretation of the GPL,
then they need to clearly call the GPL a non-free license. BTW: any GPL software
that makes use of GPL §8 clearly violates the DFSG, so I would not call the GPL
a generaily free license.

If Debian has a problem with 2) they would need to call things like Cygwin 
a violation of the GPL and would be in contradiction to usual GPL interpretations.

> > If you are so braindead not to understand that this license combination
> > is perfectly OK, I cannot help you. It seems that I did waste already too much
> > time with you. A discussion only makes sense in case that the "other side"
> > is able/willing to understand simple explanataions...
> Your "simple explanations" are wrong. I'm not going to re-explain what
> Wouter explained better than I would. If you cannot understand that the
> CDDL is incompatible with the GPL, you should stop talking about
> licenses and only keep coding, a task for which you seem to have more
> talent.

You still did not read the GPL and you still claim things that cannot be found
in the GPL the way _you_ claim...

You shoul stop talking about licensing if you are unable or unwilling to 
read the GPL and compare my claims with the GPL.

> > If this was true, why don't you talk with me with in a serious way but troll 
> > instead?
> I have yet to be shown how it is possible to discuss with you in a
> serious way.

I am still waiting that you start using provable arguments when trying to
defend your claims.

Once you start using provable arguments based on correct quotings, it may be
possible to have a serious discussion with you, but for now, it's you who 
is missing the base for a discussion. If you really like a serious discussion, 
treat me in a serious way but do not try to surprise me with incorrectc 
quotations from the GPL.

> > I am sorry, but I cannot waste my time with trolls like you.
> You are the one bringing this discussion on the Debian development
> mailing list. You are wasting the time of people reading this list.

It's not me who did use this word first...

> If "reasonable" means "who agree with you", I have yet to see them.

Reasonable means provable and you did not send any provable claim so far...


 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de     (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Reply to: