Frank Murphy <frankly3d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/06/09 22:27, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > Frank Murphy<frankly3d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Please read this: > > > > http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf > > > > Why, they didn't write the GPL. But Rosen gives useful and cleanly legal based explanations. > Give me a lawyer from the GPL Copyright holders. The FSF has no relevence in this case as the FSF does not hold any Copyright on the related code. The text on the FSF web pages was written by laymen and does not contain legal based explanations. If you have legal experiences, you are free to discuss real problem but it does not help to see just repeated claims from laymen that have no relation to the cdrtools project. I am sorry - I was in hope that this is a legal mailing list. I was in hope to get in contact with people who know enough to be able to have a fact based discussion. What I see is laymen that quote claims written by laymen. RedHat and Fedora have a serious problem because they publish an undistributable fork instead of the legal original. As I mentioned, I believe that RedHat has become a victim of a non-cooperative downstream maintainer. Now I have informed RedHat and in case that RedHat does not correct the mistakes from the past, things look different. Is RedHat a member of the OSS community or is RedHat part of the agressions agasinst OSS? 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
