https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c21 --- Comment #21 from qvacfcajdjw@mailinator.com M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com <M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com> 2014-03-24 02:57:26 UTC --- Good morning from Tokyo.
If you had a scientific background
Please stop insulting me. Maybe I do have a scientific backgroud. Please also stop insulting random people in your posts, this is very bad style. I have not read Eduard Bloch here anywhere, but only seen you insult him everywhere. This is not polite. Please be more polite. Please also realize that it is up to YOU to provide evidence for the licensing to be valid. You are trying to "proof by not having a counterproof"! Your position is actually not scientific either. You say, I have to proof the license is bad. This is the wrong way. I can refuse to accept your license, and then I am safe. If you want me to accept your license, YOU must proof your license is good, otherwise I will just not accept your license, and not include your software. In particular, as cdrkit works 100% of the time for me, and CDs are dead anyway. In 99% of cases, I use thumbdrive or cloud storage, not CD. I can accept the GPL license. I also can accept the LGPL license. Largely, because so far all lawyers have said that these licenses are okay to use, as long as I'm willing to share any modification I do to the software. My customers also accept this license. They like the Apache and BSD licenses better, for obvious reasons. But they accept GPL license for their operating system. The problem is, we aren't SURE about the CDDL license, because there is no relevant software using it. And cdrools is even WORSE, because it has parts in GPL and parts in CDDL, and I do not have legal proof that this combination is good - there is a lot of doubt on that in the OSS community. Unless we are sure that this license combination is valid, we cannot include your software. As is, I cannot include cdrtools when I deliver OpenSUSE system images to my customers. Because I cannot GUARANTEE for the license to allow me to do so. My customers want me to deliver software where I can guarantee the license is valid. You want me to include your software. But maybe only so you can sue me later? If you want me to accept your CDDL+GPL licenced software, I need legal safety. You only make claims like "you have to proof license is not valid". That is wrong; it does not proof your license is valid, when I don't hire a lawyer to proof it invalid (if that even is possible). You have to proof, that your license is valid, if you want me to include cdrtools in when I give my customers a copy of OpenSUSE linux. Otherwise, you could sue me. The solution would be simple: use an accepted open source license. Apache maybe, that would be best for my customers. They like Apache license a lot. Like the license of Hadoop. If your software would use one of these accepted licenses, my customers would be happy. If OpenSUSE legal doesn't clearly support your position (so I can give this as proof to my clients), and includes cdrtools in future releases, I may even have to switch to a different Linux. Because how do I know that similar cases are resolved with enough care? As is, OpenSUSE seems to just ignore this openlegal question; and it has a different position in the past, but nothing with the license has changed since! One of the two positions of OpenSUSE must have been wrong. I want a distribution that only includes software where the legal situation is really really clear. In particular, when the software is actually not needed at all. cdrtools is useless, as cdrkit works and does not have this problem. Maybe I will switch to Fedora, it seems to be quite similar to OpenSUSE. Maybe I will be able to blacklist cdrtools somehow, to make sure I do not give it to my customers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.