Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > The GPL is designed to restrict distribution of combinations of things > that are not all-GPL if any component is GPL. So any other license is > equally problematic as long as GPL components might exist. The 'less > problematic' solution is dual licensing like perl uses unless you want > to apply restrictions one way or the other. I was attacked by Debian _for_ using the GPL and it seems that you did not help at that time. I will not use a license again after I was attacked _because_ I used this specific license. The GPL is discouraged by Debian... You should think aboiut why you did not help to defend the GPL in 2005. 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