Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (949 mails)

[Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Joerg Schilling)]

Andreas Jaeger <aj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > There is no need to dual license the code as there is no license problem.
>
> Jörg, 
>
> Tom Galloway said that dual licensing would help Fedora.  I know you do not 
> agree with him but let's just take this as Fedora's position.

Mr. Galloway is no lawyer and he verified that he does not even remotely 
understand the background of the case. Please don't let us talk about people 
who are not willing to have a fact based discussion.

> So, dual licensing would make Fedora happy.  Why is it for you so important 
> that you insist that there is no legal problem instead of dual licensing the 
> code to make them happy?

The CDDL has been aproved as a free license by the OSI and even the GPL has 
been aproved by the OSI after the FSF admitted that it has to be interpreted in 
a way that maked it compliant to: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Redhat is happyly distributing star which is under CDDL, so it is obvious that
even redhat is accepting that the CDDL is a free license.

The Sun legal department did make a full in depth legal review with cdrtools 
and could not find any problems.

On March 6th 2009 at CeBIT Debian agreed (with the help from Simon Phipps from 
Sun) to start redistributing the original cdrtools again as soon as possible.

Please let us ignore people like Mr. Galloway who are not interested on fact 
based discussions.


> We've even seen Microsoft release kernel code under the GPL to make the Linux 
> kernel developers happy - and to achieve their goal of better 
> interoperability 
> and performance.
>
> So, if your goal is to get as many as possible users for your great software, 
> then I do not understand why you move away the roadblock that others have 
> with 
> it.  What hinders you?

I am not sure whether you understand the ideas of OpenSource correctly.
You (suse) are a distributor and you get the code from people like me who are 
the authors of the code.

As mentioned before, the license change from GPL to CDDL has been done because 
there are too many people who intentionally misinterpret the GPL. Where have 
you been when this happened?

If you are interested in GPLd code, you could have helped me against the attacks
from Mr. Bloch. You missed your chance and now you need to accept the 
results as you are not the author of the code.....


BTW: You can only have _one_ single interpretation of the GPL and you need to 
use the same interpretation for all software, so if you _really_ believe the 
claims from Mr. Bloch, you need to admit that _no_ Linux distribution can be 
legally distributed and that the GPL is a non-free license that is in conflict 
with http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

If you ask me to dual license cdrtools, you pretend that the GPL is a non-free 
license and that you cannot legally distribute suse linux. Is this what you 
like?

In case you need help on how to interpret the GPL correctly, please read this:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

Lawrence Rosen is the lawyer of the OSI and he explains in a legally correct 
way, word by word, which claims from the GPL cannot stand in court and what 
really is in the GPL. Don't make the mistake to believe the false claims from 
the FSF that you can read on the "GPL FAQ" from the FSF. It is _not_ based on 
the content of the GPL and it was not written by a lawyer, so Eben Moglen 
confirmed to me that this "GPL FAQ" is wrong.

As mentioned before, I am happy to have a fact based discussion.....

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx