Marko Vojinovic <vvmarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > While Joerg certainly knows better... I think the issue was that > cdrtools could be built only with the schilly-toolchain (or whatever > the exact name), and that was *not* GPL. So according to some > interpretations of the GPL, while cdrtools was claiming to be > GPL-licensed, there was no GPL-compatible way to build the binaries > from that source, which arguably made it violate GPL. That's why Debian > folks attacked, as far as I understood. If such false claims are published on a license and the license steward does not correct them, the licence needs to be seen as a weak license and avoided because it causes a high risk of being sued for no reason. 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