Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's

["Sebastian Günther" <samson@guenther-roetgen.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3427 bytes --]

* Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [30.06.08 10:48]:

> The GPL however limits the usability of OpenSource as OSS and claims this
> is in order to save OSS. The GPL allows GPLd software to use any kind of 
> software but disallows other OpenSource Software to use GPLd software.
> 
The main point is that this also disallows the usage within NonOSS 
software. That's what counts. Many OSS licenses do not care about later 
closed usage, and so one backdoor is closed, where GPL code may become 
unfree.
For me, some of the so called OSS licenses undermine the freedom and I 
don't want them to be spread anymore. BSD is the one license where 
freedom goes the step to far and is suicide.

> Another big problem with the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation does not 
> care about leality in own projects. There are at least two official FSF 
> projects that did ilegally change the license of the code they use from other 
> projects. libcdio did change code taken from cdrtools from GPLv2-only to 
> GPLv2-or-any-later and vcdimager publishes code under GPL that never has been 
> put under GPL by the author.
> 
That's not a problem of the GPL, but of the FSF. You can't blame the GPL 
for that.
And I'm just curious: under which license was that code, which is now 
in vcdimager?  

> 
> > And if I wrote software, I would not want people to reuse the codeit in 
> > closed  source. So GPL is the right choice for me, because of the viral 
> > and supposed non-free issue.
> 
> If you like this, you do not need to forbid to use the software for other OSS
> as done by the GPL. 
>  
This is a all or nothing matter, or you end up categorizing every single 
license if it fits. 

<overstatement>
And remember the GPL is a virus, that wants world domination.
</overstatement>

> 
> > But remember, if more people contibute to a software project, then the 
> > license is some essential part of the collaboration. Changing it 
> > requires the consensus of *all* people who *ever* contributed to it.
> 
> You are obviously uninformed about legal facts. In Europe as well as in the 
> USA, "minor contributors" are not given the right to decide on this.
> 
Well, in which crude copyright law is this stated? link please.
I think it is more a problem of the enforcement, not the laws itself. If 
you do not fight for your right, you loose it. But I agree, that in our 
society, it is a matter of money. But that is a problem in society.

> > So changing a license is always cumbersome.
> 
> Then you should be against the GPL as many GPL people take BSD code 
> and illegally add GPL tags. This may be tolerated by the authors but it is 
> still forbidden by law.
> 
That is *again* not an issue of the GPL but of the authors, s.o., and 
the licences changers. It's a people problem.

And an issue of the BSD license: I'm not quite sure, but can't you do
anything with source code under BSD licences, as long this infamous 
copyright notice stays?

What can happen to BSD code is shown with Kerberos, which ended up in 
Active Directory with some uncompatiple changes and some really lousy, 
security short commings.

> Jörg
> 

When it is free, than it shall be free from here to eternity.
Sebastian

-- 
 " Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. "      Karl Marx

 SEB@STI@N GÜNTHER         mailto:samson@guenther-roetgen.de

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]