Frank Murphy <frankly3d(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/06/09 20:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Ciaran O'Riordan"<ciaran(a)member.fsf.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the
>> original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is:
>>
http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
>
> Could we please have a fact based discussion?
>
> The article you quote is not based on facts.
I don't know the background to this.
If you don't know the background, I recommend you to read the
mail I send today:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00012.html
and the other background information that is on the project's web pages
since years:
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html
But why not re-licence all your new code since 2006 as gpl.
If the cddl, is what's blocking it's adoption, by various distros.
Sorry, the problem is unrelated to licenses. It is resulting from a social
problem of the initiator of the fork.
The CDDL is a generally approved OSS license and even accepted by RedHat (see
e.g. the star project). In addition, the GPL was made intentionally compatible
to _any_ independend library of any license, so the license combinations used
in mkisofs do not create any legal problem.
I am not going to re-introduce a license that acording to the private
interpretation from the initiator of the fork is not a valid OSS license,
so the GPL is no option.
Jörg
--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js(a)cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling(a)fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL:
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily