[CentOS] k3b -> cddb doesn't work

Thu Aug 22 08:53:34 UTC 2013
Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de>

Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:

> > I was attacked by Debian _for_ using the GPL and it seems that you did not help
> > at that time. I will not use a license again after I was attacked _because_ I
> > used this specific license.
> Umm, have they dropped perl?

It seems that Larry was in a different position.

Larry prefers the Artistic license and given the fact that Larry was doing 
OpenSource long before RMS "invented" "Free Software", I understand why he 
prefers the more liberal from the OpenSOurce Movement, I apreciate his decision.

Like perl, cdrtools have become an important part of a typical OS installation 
and most distros even depend on mkisofs for booting the main OS or the install 

If you carefully read the Artistic License, you will notice that Larry seems to 
have been under similar challenges as I have been while trying to ensure that 
this basic software is freely and in a recent bug free version available to 
everyone who needs it.

> > The GPL is discouraged by Debian...
> >
> > You should think aboiut why you did not help to defend the GPL in 2005.
> I'm not a fan of the GPL because of its viral and divisive nature,
> especially for anything that could be considered library code, and
> because it prevents the distribution of any number of potentially
> useful combinations of components (the current poster child being zfs
> on linux, but the issue has always been obvious).   But,
> GPL-encoumbered code is not going away, nor are the companies that use
> it specifically because they don't want better versions than what they
> ship to be allowed to exist.

I have been a promoter of the GPL as long as it was a good choice, but this was 
around 1990 when I made my decision. I even made a proposal on how to modify 
the GPLv0 (the one, GCC was using in 1986) could be modified in order to turn 
the GPL from something that cannot be used as it would enforce you to break 
other license agreements into something that has become usable. For this 
reason, I of course know how the often missinterpreted parts of the GPL have 
been created and what their real purpose is.

Now the GPL has become a big problem for the OSS people as it prevents 
collaboration with other OSS projects in a way that projects using different 
but Opensouce.org approved licenses could crosswise exchange code parts.
For this reason, I now promote licenses that allow soch code exchange.
I selected the CDDL as the best copyleft license in this area and the Apache 
2.0 license as the best academic license and I did select these licenses before 
opensource.org made similar publications.

> I'm just thankful that Larry Wall and others have realized that the
> way to side-step the problem is to dual-license so that the code can
> be distributed as GPL or a less restrictive license as the
> circumstances require without getting involved in someone else's
> religious or political wars.

Dual licensing is always more a problem than a solution. Uncooperative entities 
will distribute enhancements (you like to be interested as author) with only 
one of the licenses, making it impossible for the original author to use it.


 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily