No good CD-Rom copy software (fwd)

[Res]

yes yes yes, thats what they say, perhaps their glasses need cleaning, and 
BTW, i dont wear, nor need glasses :)
it maters not, there is much shit software in the offical repo which o 
refuse to use, you should see my 'no longer needed' list in apt, its close 
on a full screen, coz those things are needed jusat not understood by your 
technical team afterlal they say its not but the laywers say its Ok, I 
guess your technical team seem to knowns something the laywers dont, oh 
thats rght, we know the answer to that dont we.


On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Oliver Grawert wrote:

> hi,
> On Mi, 2009-07-08 at 20:46 +1000, Res wrote:
>> Discussion is whats needed, the laywers have saud its Ok,
> i wonder if you need to clean your glasses or something...
>
> the technical board engaged with [1] who said *it was not OK* ... this
> was announced in [2].
> just to quote from it a last time, read it slowly and carfully so you
> understand each word of it and hopeful stop the noise on this list:
>
> ...
> Joerg Schilling has declined to grant a specific permission on his CDDL
> code, and in the absence of that (or in the absence of a broader
> discussion between CDDL and GPL stakeholders to resolve the licence
> incompatibility), Eben Moglen of SFLC informs us that we cannot ship
> cdrtools.
> ...
>
> one of the core instances for opensource licenses has stated linking
> code under specifically these two licenses is *not OK* in [3] ...
>
> if joerg doesnt grant the mentioned permission or the known licensing
> issue that are acknowledged to *not work* legally together by all
> instances that handle opensource licenses in the linux world isnt
> cleared up, the technical board wont allow the software into the
> official archives ...
>
> if you want to have the issue revisited and have any chance to ever get
> the software included in ubuntu, annoying mark with private mail is the
> wrong way, shouting out loudly and annoying on the technical support
> list for users is the wrong way, please stop the topic here and go to
> the proper instances...
>
> the only place for you to go if you want to have the issue picked up
> again is [4]. neither mark in private, nor the ubuntu-users list, nor
> debian decides on ubuntu licensing and software issues only the
> technical board does.
>
> put it on the agenda [5] and appear to the next meeting and state your
> concerns there but please stop spamming the list with issues the list
> cant make any decision on. it doesnt help and only produces noise.
>
> if you want the ubuntu-burning team to update the packages in the PPA
> for newer releases, please contact the ubuntu-burning team [6].
>
>> some debian maintainer who  HAS and axs to grind say its not, thats
>> wrong and that loser should be brought to bear.
>
> once again please note that discussing the personal dispute between
> joerg and eduard has nothing to do with the issue at all and doesnt
> belong on this list.
>
> ciao
> 	oli
>
> [1] http://www.softwarefreedom.org
> [2]
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news-team/2009-February/000413.html
> [3]
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
> [4] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoard
> [5] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TechnicalBoardAgenda
> [6] https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-burning
>
>

-- 
Res

-Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers