Frank Murphy <frankly3d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/06/09 20:45, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "Ciaran O'Riordan"<ciaran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@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 _______________________________________________ Fedora-legal-list mailing list Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
