[conspire] (forw) Re: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Apps/vcs.html

[Rick Moen]

Predictably, he further descended into personal abuse combined with
obfuscation and bizarre justifications.  I told him to smeg off.

----- Forwarded message from Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> -----

Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:20:43 +0200
From: Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de>
To: rick at linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Apps/vcs.html
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
	SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1

Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:

> Hello, 'GPL-2.0.txt'?
>
>
> rmoen at borgia:/tmp/sccs-1.0$ find . -type f -print0 | xargs --null grep GPL /dev/null
> ./conf/acgeneral.m4:dnl General Public License (GPL) does govern all other use of the material
> ./conf/acgeneral.m4:dnl This special exception to the GPL applies to versions of Autoconf

It seems that you miss the skills to understand that there is more than _one_ 
single OSS project on the world that includes all code ever writte.

The code you quote here is part of an independend project called "Schily 
Makefiles" that itself is a mere collection of two projects: the schily makefile system and 
the schily autoconf system. The latter was derived from GNU autoconf.

This independent project is used by many different independent projects and 
claiming SCCS to contain GPL code is like claiming X11 to contain GPL code 
after someone did manage to comple X11 using GNUmake.


> ./COPYING:For more information on the LGPL read the file        LGPL-2.1.txt
> rmoen at borgia:/tmp/sccs-1.0$

A line that slipped into as a result of a copy/paste action.


> Your categorical denial appears to have been incorrect.  

Your claims are incorrect

> I'm guessing that, if I were to dig into pre-1.0 sources, I'd find 
> LGPL components that had been replaced or removed by 1.0, leaving 
> the one-line reference in the COPYING file as a vestige.
>
> In any event, my characterisation of the codebase as having a history of 
> GPL and LGPL components seems to have been correct all along.

OK, it has been verified that your claims are incorrect.

Jörg

-- 
 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

----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> -----

Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 12:06:35 +0200
From: Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de>
To: rick at linuxmafia.com
Subject: Re: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Apps/vcs.html
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,
	SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1

Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:


> > Nobody claims that there is no license conflict between CDDL and GPL, the GPL 
> > however would be unusable if it did not permit to link a GPLd program against 
> > libraries under any arbitrary license. 
>
> Indeed, 'linking' is not per se any sort of issue.  The boundaries of
> derivative works, within the meaning of that term in copyright law, are
> the issue.

This is where some people seem to have strange views. It should be obvious that 
a library that existed long before a specific unrelated program and that is 
used by more than just one program cannot be a derivative work of that program 
just because the program uses that library. This missconception however seems 
to be a common problem in communities that believe the GPL is the center of 
the world. Interesting literature with background on this topic information is:

Lawence Rosen (Lawyer in California)
	http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
	(OpenSource Licensing)
and
Lothar Determan (Professor of Law at the Univertity of San Francisco and
		the Freie Universität Berlin - so he knows both Common law
		and Civil law).
	http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian/publications/article/Berkeley_Law_Journal_softwarecombinations060403.pdf
	Software combinations as Derivative works?
	_Many_ very good quotes but hard to read even for US people (as I have
	been told by my collegue who is US lawyer).


> > In general, I have been the victim os a social attack from Debian....
>
> Who somehow cruelly and inaccurately mislead pretty much everyone,
> including Jon Corbet, who pointed out that the binary build is a
> derivative work of its build tools?  I really don't think so.  Jon was
> correct.

I am not sure whether I understand you correctly. You seem to contradict 
yourself. 

So far, I've not seen valid claims from Mr. Corbet and if you in special look
at: http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/ it is obvious that he is confused and 
influenced by wrong people.

His main claim in his third section using black characters is complete nonsense.
The best book on the GPL is here: http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/
written by the lawyers that support Harald Welte - so these people _have_ court 
experiences with the GPL!

It has been published in March 2005 - this is one month before Debian started 
to convert their personal insultion campaign against me into a legal campaign 
against cdrtools. The claims from Debian and from Mr. Corbet are in a clear 
conflict with the statements in the second paragraph on Page 85 (see printed 
numbers at the bottom of the pages): 
http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/025-168.pdf 

A rough description of the Debian campaigns is:

May 2004	Personal insults against me started by Eduard Bloch
April 2005	Debian claims "GPL license problems in cdrecord as a result from
		a license mix" even though cdrecord was 100% GPL at that time.
May 2006	After is was obvious that Debian attacks cdrtools because it
		uses the GPL and after it was obvious that the FSF will not help
		against the pointless claims, the license was changed to CDDL
August 2006	Debian continues to claim a "GPL license problems in cdrecord 
		as a result from a license mix" even though cdrecord at that
		time was already 100% CDDL.

Why could Debian make people ever believe that there is a problem when their
claims are in obvious conflict with reality and the statements from lawyers 
that published on related topics?


> > How do you come to the strange conclusion that there might be GPL code
> > inside?
>
> I really cannot recall.  This is not an encyclopaedia nor a doctoral
> thesis, Joerg.  It's just a Web page with information I've found in a
> large number of places and done my best to make accurate within distinct
> limits set by available time and interest.

Well, this is unfortunately how tales arise. Somebody makes a wrong claim and 
does not give quotes and other people copy this wrng claim.

Your current text looks like: I know that 2 is an odd number but I have been 
told by Jörg that he is working on this problem.

If you don't have time to investigate, I would expect that you don't have time 
to invent and publish wrong claims such as SCCS contains GPL/LGPL code either.

Jörg

-- 
 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

----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----

Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:22:44 -0700
From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
To: Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de>
Subject: Re: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Apps/vcs.html
Organization: If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.

Quoting Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de):

> It seems that you miss the skills to understand that there is more
> than _one_ single OSS project on the world that includes all code ever
> writte.
> 
> The code you quote here is part of an independend project called
> "Schily Makefiles" that itself is a mere collection of two projects:
> the schily makefile system and the schily autoconf system. The latter
> was derived from GNU autoconf.
> 
> This independent project is used by many different independent
> projects and claiming SCCS to contain GPL code is like claiming X11 to
> contain GPL code after someone did manage to comple X11 using GNUmake.


I'm entirely aware of what the 'independent project' is, Joerg.  The 
point is, GPL sources _are_ in the SCCS 1.0 tarball, contrary to your 
prior assertion.  Moreover, it's obvious that those are (or were as of
1.0) used to produce subsequent SCCS binaries, raising the obvious
derivative work issue.  Which you mulishly denied when called on it
before, and pretended as if it didn't exist.  But I'm neither
dirt-ignorant nor an idiot, Joerg.  

I _might_ just be guilty of masochism, in continuing to attempt
discussion with you past the point of diminishing returns, but I can fix
that error right now.

And don't pretend to not understand the difference between CDDL
toolchains and GPL ones in this regard.  Compiling X.org using GNU
automake (that tool's correct name, not 'GNUmake'), if it _did_
incorporate copyright-encumbered elements of automake into the X.org
binaries, would not create licence conflict.  As you are aware, having
been so informed by pretty much the entire open source community a few
years ago, attempting to bundle GPLed cdrtools with CDDL-covered
makefiles _did_ create a licence conflict upon compilation, as
subsequent redistribution would violate GPLv2 clause 3:
 
  For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code
  for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition
  files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of
  the executable.

I never claimed that Schilly Makefiles nor 'the Schilly autoconf system'
is't a separate project.  I merely point out that SCCS 1.0 includes GPL
source code.  Exactly as my Web page claimed.  Remember the damned Web
page, Joerg?  You were bitching about it being incorrect.  Sorry, chum,
turns out, it wasn't.  Live with the knowledge, or die thinking about
it.  Either way, I really don't care.



> I am not sure whether I understand you correctly. You seem to
> contradict yourself.

I cannot bring myself to care further whether you understand me
correctly, as you have now chewed up far too much of my time for no
resulting benefit, and I am done with you.  And the gratuitous verbal
abuse, which is of course another thing you have a long history of.  So, 
have a nice lifetime, Joerg.  Kindly go away.  I'm busy.

I doubt that Jon Corbet has any interest in arguing with you, but you
might want to try to gnaw on his ankkes, instead.



----- End forwarded message -----