Re: Brasero 2.27.91 release

Frederik <freggy gmail com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Joerg
> Schilling<Joerg Schilling fokus fraunhofer de> wrote:
> > cdrkit          is in conflict with the Copyright law and cannot be legally
> >                distributed. cdrkit in addition is full of bugs. Why would
> >                someone like to use it?
> >
> > I informed the Linux distributors that distribute the illegal "cdrkit".
> You have stated two times that cdrkit is illegal, but I'm missing why.
> Can you elaborate for those who have not followed this discussion the
> last few years?


The GPL is a contract that allows you to modify code but only as long as you
follow the Copyright law. The Copyright law forbids to remove ownership marks
but the people behind cdrkit did remove such marks. I hope you understand that
it is fobidden to remove e.g. a signature from a painting... There are other
problems in the fork, see

Mr. Bloch who initiated the fork and the Copyright violations did stop "working"
on cdrkit on May 6th 2007, so why do you consider cdrkit at all?

> > Then you could be interested in helping the cdrtools project to defend against
> > the attacks from anti-oss companies like e.g. RedHat.
> I have not really followed these discussions the last few years, so I
> have no idea who's right, but combating FUD with FUD does not seem to
> be the right solution to me.

This is why I write no FUD but use legal arguments....

> For interested readers, here's the other point of view:

Please read it and you will see that this mail from Mr. Callaway is nothing but
FUD. It does not contain _any_ legal argument but tries to spread fear 
uncertainty and doubt.


 EMail:joerg schily isdn cs tu-berlin de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js cs tu-berlin de                (uni)  
       joerg schilling fokus fraunhofer de (work) Blog:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]