On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 07:24:11PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > >That is where you are wrong: > > >http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00002.html > > > "Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and J=F6rg Schilling > > released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license. > > The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. The FSF itself says that this > > is the case as do people who helped draft the CDDL. One current and > > ??? Any reason to quote this FUD? > How is it FUD? Both the FSF *and* the drafters of the CDDL say that the two licenses are incompatible. In this case, you appear to be the only one to say differently. > Your quote is complete nonsense and it is easy to prove that this text is > wromg. > Oh, you mean by watching the video that is linked in the message I cited? > If you insist in quoting FUD, we should stop here are you do not seem to be > interested in the truth. > Please explain how what I am quoting is FUD. > > >Listed as non-free by whom? > > By the OpenSource Initiaive www.opensource.org. > > It has been founded by Eric Raymond and Bruve Perence. > Pruce Perence did write the DFSG before he left Debian and OSI is using exactly > the same definitions (except that "debian" has been replaced by a neutral word). > Based on this text, people did believe that the GPL does try to violate § 9 of > the rules. > > Later, the FSF made clear that the GPL needs to be interpreted in a way that > makes it conforming to §9 of the OSI/DFSG rules. > I was aware that the DFSG became the basis for the Opensource definition. However, I don't know what the history of the OSI is with respect to what licenses they considered free and when. > Interestingly: the FUD from some Debian deviants spread against cdrtools is > based on the wrong interpretation of the GPL... > Would this be the interpretation that is shared by the FSF *and* by the drafters of the CDDL? > > >Well, IANAL, so I will defer to the opinions of the legal experts. They > >say there is a problem, and so I am inclined to believe them. > > If you are not a lawyer and if you claim to listen to legal experts, why do > you listen to the Debian dilletants instead of listening to real legal experts? > > Let us stop the "discussion" here, I do not have the impression that you are > intrested in a real discussion but only in spreading the FUD from the Debian > deviants. > Well, I have nothing against you. You wrote the software, you can license it in whatever way you like. However, the ad hominem attacks against Debian developers makes you appear quite juvenile. They believe (apparently in agreement with the FSF and the drafters of the CDDL) that there is an incompatibility. In order to make themselves a potential legal target, they have chosen their course of action. The OP simply asked where cdrecord had gone. I explained where and why the Debian developers who created the fork decided to do so. You are welcome to disagree with them. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature