FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-08-2008, 02:09 PM
Mike Edenfield
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

Joerg Schilling wrote:

Well, now that you found this out, does this mean that you finally concur with
me that Bloch & Co. are license trolls?


Not being so emotionally attached to the isse as you are, I'm not going
to resort to name calling. I will say that the issue, in my opinion, is
nowhere near as clear-cut as they say.


Again, it boils down to precisely where you draw the line between a
compilation, which would be a derivative work under copyright law and
thus be affected by the terms of the GPL, and a mere distribution, which
would probably not by considered a derivative work, and at any rate
explicitly excluded by the GPL.


If cdrtools is a "compilation" then the *entire* package must be covered
by the GPL because one part of it is. If cdrools is merely an aggregate
distribution of individual works, then each work can obviously stand on
its own. The fact that you include a single Makefile to build the
entire package at once does seem to tilt things in favor of a unified
work, but until a court of law makes that ruling, my opinion isn't worth
squat.


And because it is ridiculous to claim that the GPL requires you to include the
toolchain, it is of course ridiculous to tell people that "the schily
makefilesystem" (being a independently developed program) needs to be part of
cdrtools.



Again, you are ignoring the plain language of the GPL license itself.
It is not ambiguous or unclear or anything like that. It explicitly
says: "scripts used to control" the build process. That's not a phrase
we just made up, it's *what is in the license*. It's pretty simple:


The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
directory. The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
directory. THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
just like any other source file.


In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL. In cdrkit, that file is
covered by the GPL. Thus, the cdrtools build system is under a CDDL
license and the cdrkit build system is under a GPL license. The *actual
program* you use to do the building means nothing to the GPL, so it's
pointless to even bring it into the discussion.


--Mike

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-08-2008, 02:12 PM
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:

> The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> directory. The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> directory. THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> just like any other source file.
>
> In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL. In cdrkit, that file is

This is a definite lie!


It seems that we need to stop here as you are not willing to have a fact based
discussion.

Jörg

--
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
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-08-2008, 02:25 PM
Sascha Hlusiak
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > directory. The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > directory. THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > just like any other source file.
> >
> > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL. In cdrkit, that file is
>
> This is a definite lie!
File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:

# The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
# Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.

Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously
a script to control the build process.

> It seems that we need to stop here as you are not willing to have a fact
> based discussion.
See fact above.

Sascha
 
Old 07-08-2008, 02:52 PM
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> > Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > > directory. The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > > directory. THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > > just like any other source file.
> > >
> > > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL. In cdrkit, that file is
> >
> > This is a definite lie!
> File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:
>
> # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.
>
> Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously
> a script to control the build process.

I am sorry to see that you repeatedly ignore facts.

The file RULES/rules.top is part of a _separate_ project called "the schily
makefilesystem".

mkisofs/Makefile is under GPL and if you _read_ the GPL you would know that
there is no problem with this.

Jörg

--
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
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 09:21 AM
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:

> Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> > Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > > directory. The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > > directory. THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > > just like any other source file.
> > >
> > > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL. In cdrkit, that file is
> >
> > This is a definite lie!
> File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:
>
> # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.
>
> Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously
> a script to control the build process.

Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_ require
what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting
software and legal definitions!

RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called "the
schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
is much _older_ than and _independent_ from cdrtools.

If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem
because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile
system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not
limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.


mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The
CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not
the CDDL.

"the schily makefile system" is _definitely_ _not_ a derived work from
mkisofs/Makefile


It seems that you still need to learn the difference between

- "the bucket contains water"

and

- "the water contains a bucket"

Come back after you learned this.....

Jörg

--
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
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 11:01 AM
Sebastian Günther
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 11:22]:
> Sascha Hlusiak <saschahlusiak@arcor.de> wrote:
>
> > Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 16:12:43 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> > > Mike Edenfield <kutulu@kutulu.org> wrote:
> > > > The cdrtools tarball includes a file called "Makefile" in every
> > > > directory. The cdrkit includes a file called "CMakeList.txt" in every
> > > > directory. THAT FILE has a copyright and license terms attached to it,
> > > > just like any other source file.
> > > >
> > > > In cdrtools, that file is covered by the CDDL. In cdrkit, that file is
> > >
> > > This is a definite lie!
> > File RULES/rules.top, which is included in mkisofs/Makefile:
> >
> > # The contents of this file are subject to the terms of the
> > # Common Development and Distribution License, Version 1.0 only.
> >
> > Please tell us now that it is NOT covered by the CDDL. That file is obviously
> > a script to control the build process.
>
> Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_ require
> what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting
> software and legal definitions!
>

This is *your* opinion of interpreting the GPL, the Debian People and
also myself reading the GPL in the way that also the make script has to
be under GPL, because if you distribute *binaries* you have to
provide the "make" scripts and the source code under GPL.

> RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called "the
> schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
> is much _older_ than and _independent_ from cdrtools.
>

Since GNU make reads this files, it seems that they *are* needed to
build the binary, thus s.a.
If they are *not* needed, then strip them from a GPL conform
distribution.

BTW: Your interpretation of Makefiles as source code in a specific
language is quite farfetched.

> If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem
> because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile
> system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not
> limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.
>
No, it would only prevent the usage of "the schily makefile system" in
non-free and/or incompatibly licenced projects. This is maybe not what
you want, but some other people like to *stay* on the free side of life.

>
> mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The
> CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not
> the CDDL.
>
If this is true, than you could also say, that your are "linking"
mkisofs/Makefile (under GPL) and some RULES/*.rul (under CDDL) together,
with is illegal according to the FSF.

I know that linking is not stated *literally* within the GPL, but the
whole following paragraph of the GPL can and *is* interpreted to also
cover linking:

" These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it. "


Sebastian

--
" Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " Karl Marx

SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de
 
Old 07-09-2008, 01:20 PM
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

> > Besides the fact that this is completely irrelevent (the GPL does _not_ require
> > what they call "the scripts...." to be under GPL), you are missinterpreting
> > software and legal definitions!
> >
>
> This is *your* opinion of interpreting the GPL, the Debian People and
> also myself reading the GPL in the way that also the make script has to
> be under GPL, because if you distribute *binaries* you have to
> provide the "make" scripts and the source code under GPL.

You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did
not understand the GPL correctly.

> > RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called "the
> > schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
> > is much _older_ than and _independent_ from cdrtools.
> >
>
> Since GNU make reads this files, it seems that they *are* needed to
> build the binary, thus s.a.
> If they are *not* needed, then strip them from a GPL conform
> distribution.

You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the
toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.

If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver
e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the
"configure" shell script.


> > If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem
> > because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile
> > system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not
> > limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.
> >
> No, it would only prevent the usage of "the schily makefile system" in
> non-free and/or incompatibly licenced projects. This is maybe not what
> you want, but some other people like to *stay* on the free side of life.

You would need to learn the official meaning of the term "free". The GPL in the
specific case of "the schily makefilesystem" limits the "freedom to use" which
is why the GPL is unacceptable for this kind of free software.


> > mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The
> > CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not
> > the CDDL.
> >
> If this is true, than you could also say, that your are "linking"
> mkisofs/Makefile (under GPL) and some RULES/*.rul (under CDDL) together,
> with is illegal according to the FSF.
>
> I know that linking is not stated *literally* within the GPL, but the
> whole following paragraph of the GPL can and *is* interpreted to also
> cover linking:
>
> " These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If

....

Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference
between

- "the bucket contains water"

and

- "the water contains a bucket"

Come back after you learned this.....

Jörg

--
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
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 02:06 PM
Sebastian Günther
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [09.07.08 15:21]:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
>
> You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did
> not understand the GPL correctly.
>

No, the only thing is that I don't apply to *your* *interpretation* of
the GPL, and I'm not alone, Debian is with me.

But remember your opinion and mine are just *opinions*, only a court of
law could proove eitherof us wrong.

> > > RULES/rules.top is part of a program that is a _separate_ project called "the
> > > schily makefile system". It has been written in a language called "make" and it
> > > is much _older_ than and _independent_ from cdrtools.
> > >
> >
> > Since GNU make reads this files, it seems that they *are* needed to
> > build the binary, thus s.a.
> > If they are *not* needed, then strip them from a GPL conform
> > distribution.
>
> You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the
> toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.
>
> If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver
> e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the
> "configure" shell script.
>

OK, Jörg,
we agree on smake must not be included in the distribution, but can you
build the binary without any of the files in RULES/ ?


>
> > > If "the schily makefile system" was under GPL, _then_ there was a problem
> > > because the GPL limits the freedom to use software. As "the schily makefile
> > > system" is under the more free CDDL that (in contrary to the GPL) does not
> > > limit the freedom to use software, there is no problem.
> > >
> > No, it would only prevent the usage of "the schily makefile system" in
> > non-free and/or incompatibly licenced projects. This is maybe not what
> > you want, but some other people like to *stay* on the free side of life.
>
> You would need to learn the official meaning of the term "free". The GPL in the
> specific case of "the schily makefilesystem" limits the "freedom to use" which
> is why the GPL is unacceptable for this kind of free software.
>

There is no "official" meaning of free, nor will there ever be one.
There are several agreements on what free means; that's why the FSF
*states* their meaning of freedom as the first thing on their homepage.

You have another opinion of what "free" means, that's fine, that's your
lawful right.

Go, take a Philosophy 101.

>
> > > mkisofs/Makefile is a "derived work" from "the schily makefile system". The
> > > CDDL gives you the freedom to have a derived work under a license that is not
> > > the CDDL.
> > >
> > If this is true, than you could also say, that your are "linking"
> > mkisofs/Makefile (under GPL) and some RULES/*.rul (under CDDL) together,
> > with is illegal according to the FSF.
> >
> > I know that linking is not stated *literally* within the GPL, but the
> > whole following paragraph of the GPL can and *is* interpreted to also
> > cover linking:
> >
> > " These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>
> ....
>
> Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference
> between
>
> - "the bucket contains water"
>
> and
>
> - "the water contains a bucket"
>
Ok in this special case:

The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire
(CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work!

The only solution is to make water to fire (not allowed, it is GPLed,
and your are not the only author) or fire to water.

So if your are using code, e.g. a library, which is GPLed, your whole
project has to GPLed. That's it. That simple.

Sebastian

--
" Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. " Karl Marx

SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de
 
Old 07-09-2008, 02:32 PM
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:

Da mein Englisch hier von einem Engländer kritisiert wurde muß ich wohl in
Deutsch antworten damit dieser Mensch mich besser versteht...

> > You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did
> > not understand the GPL correctly.
> >
>
> No, the only thing is that I don't apply to *your* *interpretation* of
> the GPL, and I'm not alone, Debian is with me.

Es gibt mehr als einen Geisterfahrer, das was Du vorbringst ist also kein
Beweis, denn Gesiterfahler fahren nunmal falsch auch wenn es viele davon gibt.

> But remember your opinion and mine are just *opinions*, only a court of
> law could proove eitherof us wrong.

Ich verwende die Auslegung die auch Anwälte verwenden. Das Problem ist, wie
ich bereits erklärt habe daß Debian und andere Linux Distributoren bislang
keinen Anwalt befragt haben.

Für mich sind Aussagen von Anwälten aber deutlich glaubwürdiger als Aussagen
von Laien die mich und meine Projekte zudem in aller Öffentlichkeit angreifen.


> > You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the
> > toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.
> >
> > If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver
> > e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the
> > "configure" shell script.
> >
>
> OK, Jörg,
> we agree on smake must not be included in the distribution, but can you
> build the binary without any of the files in RULES/ ?

Du kannst auch ohne C-Kompiler keine Kompilation durchführen. Du benötigst
allerdings keinen bestimmten C-Kompiler. Genauso ist auch das separate
Programmsystem "Das Schily Makefilesystem" einzustufen. Es ist nichts weiter
als ein weiterer definitiv von den anderen Programmen in den cdrtools
unabhängiger Baustein. Eine Kompilation ist teschnisch auch ohne die Dateien
in RULES/ möglich.


> > Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference
> > between
> >
> > - "the bucket contains water"
> >
> > and
> >
> > - "the water contains a bucket"
> >
> Ok in this special case:
>
> The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire
> (CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work!

Völlig daneben :-(

Nochmal auf Deutsch, damit es jeder versteht:

- In dem Eimer ist Wasser

- Im Wasser ist ein Eimer

sind nicht äquivalente Ausdrücke weil sie eine _Richtung_ enthalten.
Die Bestimmungen in der GPL sind genauso: Sie beinhalten eine Richtung.

Die GPL verbietet, daß GPL-Code durch nicht-GPL-Code verwendet wird.

Die GPL verbietet aber _nicht_, daß GPL-Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet.

Die GPL will nichts als verhindern, dan GPL-Code in nicht GPL Programmen
auftaucht. Wenn Du mal einen Vortrag von RMS gehört hast dann solltest Du
wissen, daß das genau das ist was RMS verhindern will.

Die Aussagen der FSF GPL und CDDL seien inkompatibel kann man nur als peinlich
einstufen, weil die korrekte Aussage wäre: GPL und CDDL sind nicht beliebig
mischbar. Die Fälle bei denen GPL Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet sind sogar
durch RMS _ausdrücklich_ gewünscht weil die GPL sonst heute völlig irrelevant
wäre und von niemandem verwendet würde.

Die Aussagen von der FSF und von Debian sind auch deshalb so peinlich, weil
sie etwas äquivalentes zu "Wasser und Eimer sind inkompatibel" behaupten.
Dabei ist Wasser im Eimer ausdrücklich erwünscht, nur ein Eimer im Wasser
wird halt ungern gesehen.....

Jörg

--
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
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 02:46 PM
"Dirk Uys"
 
Default on cdr{kit,tools} and licensing

2008/7/9 Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de>:
> Sebastian Günther <samson@guenther-roetgen.de> wrote:
>
> Da mein Englisch hier von einem Engländer kritisiert wurde muß ich wohl in
> Deutsch antworten damit dieser Mensch mich besser versteht...
>
>> > You obviously missread the GPL. See your other mail that verifies that you did
>> > not understand the GPL correctly.
>> >
>>
>> No, the only thing is that I don't apply to *your* *interpretation* of
>> the GPL, and I'm not alone, Debian is with me.
>
> Es gibt mehr als einen Geisterfahrer, das was Du vorbringst ist also kein
> Beweis, denn Gesiterfahler fahren nunmal falsch auch wenn es viele davon gibt.
>
>> But remember your opinion and mine are just *opinions*, only a court of
>> law could proove eitherof us wrong.
>
> Ich verwende die Auslegung die auch Anwälte verwenden. Das Problem ist, wie
> ich bereits erklärt habe daß Debian und andere Linux Distributoren bislang
> keinen Anwalt befragt haben.
>
> Für mich sind Aussagen von Anwälten aber deutlich glaubwürdiger als Aussagen
> von Laien die mich und meine Projekte zudem in aller Öffentlichkeit angreifen.
>
>
>> > You look confused. "the schily makefilesystem" is a generic part of the
>> > toolchain. This piece of software does not need to be delivered at all.
>> >
>> > If your claim was made for serious, you would be also require to deliver
>> > e.g. the shell scripts "true" and "false" because they are read by the
>> > "configure" shell script.
>> >
>>
>> OK, Jörg,
>> we agree on smake must not be included in the distribution, but can you
>> build the binary without any of the files in RULES/ ?
>
> Du kannst auch ohne C-Kompiler keine Kompilation durchführen. Du benötigst
> allerdings keinen bestimmten C-Kompiler. Genauso ist auch das separate
> Programmsystem "Das Schily Makefilesystem" einzustufen. Es ist nichts weiter
> als ein weiterer definitiv von den anderen Programmen in den cdrtools
> unabhängiger Baustein. Eine Kompilation ist teschnisch auch ohne die Dateien
> in RULES/ möglich.
>
>
>> > Let us stop here and continue after you managed to understand the difference
>> > between
>> >
>> > - "the bucket contains water"
>> >
>> > and
>> >
>> > - "the water contains a bucket"
>> >
>> Ok in this special case:
>>
>> The bucket is the instructionsset to build cdrtools, and you put fire
>> (CDDL Makefile) and water (GPL Makefile) in it. Won't work!
>
> Völlig daneben :-(
>
> Nochmal auf Deutsch, damit es jeder versteht:
>
> - In dem Eimer ist Wasser
>
> - Im Wasser ist ein Eimer
>
> sind nicht äquivalente Ausdrücke weil sie eine _Richtung_ enthalten.
> Die Bestimmungen in der GPL sind genauso: Sie beinhalten eine Richtung.
>
> Die GPL verbietet, daß GPL-Code durch nicht-GPL-Code verwendet wird.
>
> Die GPL verbietet aber _nicht_, daß GPL-Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet.
>
> Die GPL will nichts als verhindern, dan GPL-Code in nicht GPL Programmen
> auftaucht. Wenn Du mal einen Vortrag von RMS gehört hast dann solltest Du
> wissen, daß das genau das ist was RMS verhindern will.
>
> Die Aussagen der FSF GPL und CDDL seien inkompatibel kann man nur als peinlich
> einstufen, weil die korrekte Aussage wäre: GPL und CDDL sind nicht beliebig
> mischbar. Die Fälle bei denen GPL Code nicht-GPL-Code verwendet sind sogar
> durch RMS _ausdrücklich_ gewünscht weil die GPL sonst heute völlig irrelevant
> wäre und von niemandem verwendet würde.
>
> Die Aussagen von der FSF und von Debian sind auch deshalb so peinlich, weil
> sie etwas äquivalentes zu "Wasser und Eimer sind inkompatibel" behaupten.
> Dabei ist Wasser im Eimer ausdrücklich erwünscht, nur ein Eimer im Wasser
> wird halt ungern gesehen.....
>
> Jörg
>
> --
> 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
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>

It saddens me to see messages like these being sent on this mailing
list. I haven't been around very long, but it seems that these kind of
messages are repeatedly posted on this mailing list and I see no
criticism of this on the list. I do not feel this discussion is
relevent to gentoo. Can you please take you battles elsewhere. I do
not wish to be your adience!

This leads me to the question of whether this kind of conduct is
accepted on the gentoo-user mailing list. If this is indeed the case I
would accept that and deal with it in a way that I choose.

I hope this sort of thing can stop, because I really learn a lot from
the posts that are sent on this list.

Regards
Dirk

ps. This message is not directed to a certain author of this thread, I
feel that it is not a single person responsible for all the OT debate
going on.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:20 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org