Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling Joerg.Schilling@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