On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Ray Kohler <ataraxia937@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Kitty <secacat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> FWIW, I'm in favor of #3, and practically, the other bigger distros >> that have switched back to cdrtools are fatter targets for any legal >> action. Furthermore, who exactly would be doing the suing? If it's the >> GNU, then their goal would be to fix the licence problems, not collect >> money. If that happened, put it all in AUR and wash our hands. There's one thing that I don't understand: Cdrtools doesn't provide any library to be linked against. It is just a set of executables that can be called by scripts or graphical frontends, like k3b. So why is illegal to distribute a CDDL package that will be used by a GPL package in executable form? I mean, there's no linking happening, and, as I understand it, that's legal according to GPL. Am I missing something? -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto -------------------------------------------
