On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote:
There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the original software.
Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not. This has been repeatedly asked of you
You claim that you are allowed to distribute a tarball containing GPL code and that the needed build scripts are not required to be GPL because the build scripts are a separate project. You claim to have legal advise that your interpretation of the GPL allowing this is valid, but refuse to supply any evidence of that advise so that we can assess the outcome of the legal review ourselves.
Plese do not point me to the FSF Web site, it was not made by a lawyer, it is not secific to cdrtools and I even have a private mail from Eben Moglen that is is made with general incorrect claims regarding the GPL on it.
Great. More evidence from your side that you cannot produce for anyone else to see. Can you actually produce anything backing your claims?
As long as you ignore legal principles, a discussion with you will lead us to nowhere.
As long as you ignore the request to supply evidence that your claim is correct, a discussion with you will lead us nowhere.
As the situation currently stands, there are claims that distributing GPL code with non-GPL build scripts is a violation of the GPL. This may or may not be correct (again, supply us some evidence that it is not), and because the GPL requires us to distribute the code, we would be in a legally dubious situation.
I'd be more than happy for Arch to distribute cdrtools if the issue of whether the required distributing the source is legal is resolved. The technical merits certainly appear to warrant this. That resolution requires some actual evidence be supplied...
Allan
