Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling > <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > > > >> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades? > >> > >> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a > >> dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as > >> perl. And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt > >> you. > > > > I explained this to you in vast details. If you ignore this explanation, I > > cannot help you. > > No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a > need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then > you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it > clear to everyone else. It clearly has not hurt the popularity of > perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to > use that code only in GPL-compatible ways. Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related licenses. What problem do you have with fully legal code? I explained that because cdrtools is legally distributable as is (see legal reviews from Sun, Oracle and Suse), there is no need to dual license anything. I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people send e.g. a GPL only patch. If you continue to claim not to have an answer from me, I need to assume that you are not interested in a serious discussion. Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages. Jörg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'