| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
cdrtools - a tale of two licensescdrtools - a tale of two licensesPosted Aug 15, 2006 4:55 UTC (Tue) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022)Parent article: cdrtools - a tale of two licenses
From the nine-point-plan:
Understand that I am neither willing to waste my time with useless discussions with Debian people nor being forced to give up useful ways of defending me against malicious users or distributors of my code.
Believe me that it does not sound serious when reading again and again silly things like "we need to fork cdrecord...". I am now working for 10 years on cdrecord, I am now working for exactly 20 years on libscg and I am working for 24 years on star. Many people did claim to start a fork on my tools, nobody did yet even come to a serious first step in this direction not speaking about serious work on extensions..."
Defending his code against malicious users or distributors? This would be fine if he were talking about license violations, but for his (until now) GPL code, he wants protections not available under that license. He doesn't think in GPL terms. The only modifications he considers authorized are his own. His is truly a proprietary mind. If you have a problem running cdrecord &co. as he distributes them, the rest of your system needs to be fixed to comply. God help you if you fix cdrecord to work sensibly within the design of a Linux system, even if you do so in utter GPL compliance. Joerg sure won't. See point 9:
"Help me with defending against silly artificial limitations in the Linux kernel that makes life on Linux hard."
Save me from the moving target, eh?
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||