On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 10:51:04PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:
>
> I do not have the unlimited time to waste with useless speudo
> discussions. I am sorry, but this will be the last response to you
> unless you start to open your mind to the reality.
>
> For the same reason. this reply is shortened.
>
> > > - dozens of unfixed bugs in mkisofs.
> > >
> > Right. People keep asking you to specify *which* bugs. You provided a
> > few: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02703.html
> >
> > Eduard's response: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2007/03/msg02863.html
>
> Are void.
>
How so?
> > Really? I fail to see how it makes any difference if the GPL code
> > sprang out of nothing or was derived from some other code? That is like
> > saying that GPL code that is someone's original creation is treated
> > differently than GPL code which is derived from the Public Domain. How
> > can that be?
>
> The GPL is known to be asymmetric (which is a problem) and even the founder
> of Debian does not follow your strange ideas on interpreting the GPL.....
>
> http://ianmurdock.com/?p=278
>
> (see 3rd paragraph)
>
Umm, Ian Murdock had a problem with the overreaction since it involved
two distinct and separate pieces of software (dpkg and libc). With
cdrtools, it is *one* piece of software. In fact the issue is not even
that you can't do what you have. As the copyright holder, you can do as
you please. It is just that your choice has made it impossible for
others to legally redistribute.
> > > > By the way, did you miss the whole XFree86/X.Org fiasco? If you choose
> > >
> > > You again demonstrate that you did missunderstood things.
> > > Xfree did get into problems because it changed it's license to something less
> > > free and completely unclear. Xorg did come up again because Sun did contribute
> > > more money and human resources to Xorg, starting a few weeks before the Xfree
> > > desaster.
> > >
> > I don't buy it. The license change to XFree86 was committed on 13
> > February 2004:
> >
> > http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/doc/sgml/LICENSE.sgml.diff?r1=1.23&r2=1.24&hideattic=0
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/cvs-commit@xfree86.org/msg03271.html
> >
> > The X.Org Foundation was formed on 22 January 2004. The XFree86
> > disaster started long before either of those events.
>
> You still ignore facts!
>
What facts?
> I was quoting one of the leading X.org members who is obviously better
> informed than you.
>
Really? Who? Where is the press release or public statement containing
that quote?
> Do you really believe that it was posible to obtain a single letter
> top level domain name in 2004?
>
No. I said the X.Org *Foundation* was formed in 2004:
In early 2004 various people from X.Org and freedesktop.org formed
the X.Org Foundation, and the Open Group gave it control of the
x.org domain name.
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature