Chris Ricker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > >contribution too but with CDDL alone it is just not possible in
> > >foreseeable future. People afraid to contribute to CDDL projects for
> > >variety of reasons, look how cdrecord has been forked to be pure GPL
> > >project just because of that.
> > >
> > >http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
> >
> > And this just proof that we do not want to have the GPL.
> >
> > This proofs the point that a dual license GPL/CDDL OpenSolaris will
> > lead to a GPL-only fork at the earliest opportunity.
> >
> > Had the Debian community cared, they would have dual licensed it.
> >
> > Thanks for proving the point that we must not dual license.
>
> On the contrary, if cdrtools were truly dual-licensed, it wouldn't have to
> have been forked. It's not, however, and that's not something Debian can
> fix
This is complete nonsense!
Debian claims that there is a liscense problem but Debian has been unable
to describe this "problem" within the past 12 months although I asked them
many times.
Debian is unable to understand build systems and Debian is unwilling
to cooperate. Debian spreads easy to expose FUD on cdrtools:
- cdrtools is a colloection of cdrecord, readcd, cdda2wav, btcflash,
rscsi, scgcheck, scgskeleton, mkisofs
- cdrecord, readcd, btcflash, rscsi, scgcheck, scgskeleton are _fully_
CDDL
- cdda2wav is CDDL + a LGPL library
- mkisofs is GPL and links to libs under various licenses
- The CDDL is accepted by Debian to be DFSG compatible
If Debian _really_ had a license problem, then this license problem is
definitely not effective for the project "cdrecord" but (if at all)
for "mkisofs".
If Debian _really_ had a license problem, Debian would need to rip off
"mkisofs" from the cdrtools source package and the remaining rest would be
CDDL plus one LGPL library. Debian could set up a separate source package
that only includes mkisofs and its needed libraries.
Debian did _not_ do this, Debian instead did stick with a very old
version of cdrtools that does not include DVD support and that is full
of bugs in mkisofs. Debian did not do any real development on this old code
but just made a lot of speudo changes to confuse and addd a lot of Linux
only code to platform independent parts of the source.
For this reason, it is obvious and proved that Debian does not have a license
problem but only likes to cause a Debian initiated conflict that is a burden to
the users.
> The issue with cdrtools is a very specific one. cdrtools is not
> dual-licensed, but instead contains files distributed under 3 different
> licenses. Some people (Joerg, evidently Sun legal since Sun ships it) feel
> this mix is legal. Others (Debian, Red Hat's legal team, probably others
> but I've quit paying attention ;-) feel the mix is illegal and that
> therefore a fork from the last legally licensed version was legally
> necessary for them to be able to distribute it
Redhad did never contact me for this reason, so we may safely asume that
Redhat does nto see a legal problem.
> cdrtools just isn't the generic proof of CDDL-GPL conflict you and others
> portray it as. It's a very specific example of the confusion that arises
> when you mix different licenses on different files within the same
> project....
It looks like you did not understand the problem at all, sorry.
Cdrtools is a collection of projects (see above).
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
