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

Re: cc65 licensing



On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 11:45:26AM -0400, mdpoole@troilus.org wrote:
> Those four files you say have JRD's code in them, though, what is in
> their headers?

You are really trying, aren't you?

There is my name in three of the files. This is because I created the files at
the given date by copying code from other JRD files into it. There is no claim
that I wrote the code in these files (in fact I wrote most of it, but that is
not important here). The fourth file (preproc.c) did already exist in the JRD
distribution, so it doesn't bear my name.

> There is no hint that these contain JRD's code.

There was no hint in the files when I got them. It is new to me that copyright
law requires me to add such a hint.

> Since you claim that
> the other files in the compiler fall under your (new) license, there
> is no clear indication that these fall under his (old) license.

Correction: You don't want to understand that. It can be easily seen from the
fact that you accused me of "intentional muddling with licenses" before even
looking at the source code, that it is not your intention to understand what
is going on. Fortunately, what you say is of absolutely no relevance. I have
always opted against the inclusion of cc65 into Debian because of licensing
issues, and given the trouble I had with other code that is part of Debian, I
would be happy if cc65 would never become part of Debian. So actually we both
have the same interest.

> I maintain my original assertion.  I have seen nothing to suggest that
> license information is sufficiently indicated or that you exercised
> due care to preserve that information when you added your name but not
> his.

You are nothing more than a troll. This can easily be seen from the fact that
you accused me of "intentionally muddling with licenses" before you had
downloaded and looked at the sources in question:

    12:58 UTC - you're accusing me of "intentionally muddling with licenses"

    13:19 UTC - I refute that claim

    13:33 UTC - you are downloading the sources to have a look at it

After downloading the sources, you claim that the all compiler sources refer
to the new license. I prove this wrong. Now you're keeping up with some more
claims, that just show that you didn't look at the original JRD sources. I'm
maintaining my original assertion that you are nothing more than a sucker who
is out for some trolling. Go away. I will no longer answer any of your mails.

Can someone else please tell me if this guy is in some way affiliated with
Debian?

Regards


        Uz


-- 
Ullrich von Bassewitz                                  uz@musoftware.de

Attachment: pgpcYg2tk7TUo.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: