On Tue Mar 03 13:38, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Repeating false claims does not make them correct.
Repeating that correct claims are false does not make them false.
There is enough weight on the side that I have described that I believe
it is in Debian's interest to follow them. After all, if we are wrong
this way round we just miss out on some software. If we are wrong the
other way round we might get sued.
Particularly in the case of cdrecord, I don't believe there is enough of
a case that we absolutely must have it that we should take a risk on the
licensing. If, on the other hand, you want your software in Debian, you
need to take into account our point of view. After all, surely you agree
that there is no problem with dual-licensing libscg? So what does it
cost you? If you are not interested in having it in Debian then I'm
unclear why you are posting to our mailing lists...
> Do you really like to tell us that compiling:
>
> main()
> {
> printf("hello world\n");
> }
>
> makes libc a derived work of the program "hello world"?
No, I am saying that the resulting binary of libc linked with hello
world is a derivative work of both libc and hello world. You seem to
have overlooked that in my previous post. There are three works here:
- the source of libc (licence A)
- the source of hello world (licence B)
- the resulting binary containing both libc and hello world (licence A+B)
This is obviously the case with static linking, the FSF hold that
dynamic linking is equivalent.
Matt
--
Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature