wwp <subscript@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > You seem to be missinformed: When cdrtools have been 100% GPL, it was attacked
> > by Debian _because_ it was 100% GPL and because the GPL is a frequently
> > missinterpreted license.
> >
> > ...so I decided to choose a less problematic license than the GPL.
> >
> > > software as you see fit, they equally have the right to not like your
> > > license and to boycott your software because of it.
> >
> > Democracy is that the doers and this are software authors decide about the
> > license. Distros are just users of the software and have to accept the license
> > and as long as the license is doubtless OSS compliant, I see no reason why a
> > distro should complain.
>
> Exactly! Agree or disagree, but act consequently (and obey to
> licenses/laws or..). Thanks a bunch for the software you brought to us
> sinces years, Jörg.
You seem to miss that cdrtools _was_ under GPL and that I was forced to change
the license because I was attacked by OSS enemies (Debian) and not a single
Linux distro nor the FSF did help me against these attacks.
If you _really_ prefer the GPL, why don't you support it and why do you wait
until authors are forced to change the license away from GPL?
You had the chance to keep cdrtools under the GPL if you did help to defend
cdrtools against OSS enemies such as Debian in 2005. I made the problem public
and I asked for heelp.
Please be no crybaby now that you see the consequences of not supporting the
GPL when it was attacked.
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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
