Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Simon Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have no idea: This looks like a result of a bug in the libc found on RH 7.3. I really hope that Linux will become a decently usable OS in the near future. But without compatible libraries this looks impossible. There are many people using Linux in production environments today. It is certainly decently usable. It depends on what you like to do with Linux: If you like to publish software with Linux everything works because you compile it excatly on the same environment as you use it. If you like to publish software for Linux you are out of luck because Linux still is only a kernel and each distribution has it's own incompatibilities to other distributions. If it seems to work, this does not nessecarily mean that it works completely and correct. Just think of the nasty old incomatibility between RedHat and SuSE with ctype.h There is no 100% binary compatibility with differerent Linux distributions. Even the LSB guys don't like to fix this problem! About a year ago, I pointed out at the LSB mailing list that for a complete binary compatibiltiy it would be nessecary to standarddize on system relevant user/group names and id's in order to allow to NFS mount e.g. /usr/ from a different machine but nomody was interested to do this :-( Now, no-one is going to say that there is any OS or non-trivial library that is completely free of bugs. Things just don't work that way. I did not speak about bugs! I did speak about problems that prevent decent usage. Unprovable binary incompatibility is one important problem... There are probably many more users on Linux than any of the *nix's, so a more positive attitude might be to figure out the faults and figure out how to work around them. I imagine that thousands of developers around the world are doing just that. Polemics about the state of Linux and the libraries used on Linux just don't solve any problems. As I said: Your polemics does not help and thousands of developers do not help if they don't understand the problem. If you like to discuss this kind of problems, you are either open to a fruitful discussion, or you look just like one of thousands if blind Linux followers. Your statements do not let me assume that you are really open to even understand the problems :-( Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Brian Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm using the cd-record pro DVD version 1.11a21. I'm using it under the personal use license that is given inside the README file at ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/ProDVD/. I run this on Red Hat 7.3. I just changed my hostname and now the cdrecord program is no longer operational. I just run cdrecord -version and it drops core. When I try to burn I did not hear from you since then does it run after you fixed your Hostname / IP setup? Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:38:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed From: Brian Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm using the cd-record pro DVD version 1.11a21. I'm using it under the personal use license that is given inside the README file at ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/ProDVD/. I run this on Red Hat 7.3. I just changed my hostname and now the cdrecord program is no longer operational. I just run cdrecord -version and it drops core. When I try to burn something I get an alarm failure and it aborts around the 8 second mark. If I take the CDR_SECURITY variable out of my profile I noticed that it runs but it restricts me to the 1GB demo license. What can I do to get cdrecord back up and working? I have no idea: This looks like a result of a bug in the libc found on RH 7.3. I really hope that Linux will become a decently usable OS in the near future. But without compatible libraries this looks impossible. You have no idea so that translates into an unconfirmed and unverified bug in glibc in RHL 7.3? I fail to see the logic in this. You've got the advantage of being able to look at the source code of everything however, whereas we do not. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: The last and more intense have been half a year ago when I started to sue companies that illegally use cdrecord sources for closed source applications. Which companies? Two German companies, this makes it simple... One already removed the binaries, the other is an ilegally acting accomodation address company and seems to have no address for a CEO. In the second case, I believe that the lawyer is currently preparing a delivery via printing an article in an official jurnal. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cdrecord abuses (was Re: License of cdrdao will be changed)
Hi Jörg, I think that GPL software should be protected by the State (in you case Germany, in my case Spain), so that it should not represent any cost to defend the GPL licence violation (do not include the source code, etc...). GPL should be a patrimoine de l'humanité, or somthing similar, because it is this in fact, a knowledge that is public, in fact it's the result of the society and its culture. In fact, now that there is some interest in Europe Union about the software (patents), maybe some deputy at the parlement could defend this position ??? Which companies? Two German companies, this makes it simple... One already removed the binaries, the other is an ilegally acting accomodation address company and seems to have no address for a CEO. In the second case, I believe that the lawyer is currently preparing a delivery via printing an article in an official jurnal. -- __o _ \_ (_)/(_) Saludos de Julián -.- DVD-record Tools for linux http://www.freesoftware.fsf.org/dvdrtools/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] At the end, my conclusion is to not change the license of cdrdao which gives me following two options: 1. Freeze the project until the affected sources are replaced by a GPL compliant version. 2. Release a cdrdao version which temporarily omits the affected sources until a GPL compliant version is available. To save some work I'll go with the first option and start implementing the required Reed-Solomon coder. I've removed all releases from sf.net. It looks like I need to point out the consequences of your decision: You have the right to change the license of cdrdao to make it compatible to the license of libedc. You did not. Instead you decided to completele remove all releases and to announce the license problems. As a result of your decision, no Linux distribution may legally include cdrdao. This applies e.g. to RedHat Linux and to SuSE Linux. I am sorry, but it looks like you like to punish cdrdao users for unknown reason. Note: the GPL does not inlcude a healing clause. As section 6 in the GPL is not legal when a program is linked against libedc, the GPL is completely void in this case. This results in the fact that old copies of the cdrdao source which are floating around have no license at all. If there was a healing clause in the GPL, this would have resulted in cdrdao de-facto being licensed under LGPL. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
I'm using the cd-record pro DVD version 1.11a21. I'm using it under the personal use license that is given inside the README file at ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/ProDVD/. I run this on Red Hat 7.3. I just changed my hostname and now the cdrecord program is no longer operational. I just run cdrecord -version and it drops core. When I try to burn something I get an alarm failure and it aborts around the 8 second mark. If I take the CDR_SECURITY variable out of my profile I noticed that it runs but it restricts me to the 1GB demo license. What can I do to get cdrecord back up and working? Brian Sullivan --- Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] At the end, my conclusion is to not change the license of cdrdao which gives me following two options: 1. Freeze the project until the affected sources are replaced by a GPL compliant version. 2. Release a cdrdao version which temporarily omits the affected sources until a GPL compliant version is available. To save some work I'll go with the first option and start implementing the required Reed-Solomon coder. I've removed all releases from sf.net. It looks like I need to point out the consequences of your decision: You have the right to change the license of cdrdao to make it compatible to the license of libedc. You did not. Instead you decided to completele remove all releases and to announce the license problems. As a result of your decision, no Linux distribution may legally include cdrdao. This applies e.g. to RedHat Linux and to SuSE Linux. I am sorry, but it looks like you like to punish cdrdao users for unknown reason. Note: the GPL does not inlcude a healing clause. As section 6 in the GPL is not legal when a program is linked against libedc, the GPL is completely void in this case. This results in the fact that old copies of the cdrdao source which are floating around have no license at all. If there was a healing clause in the GPL, this would have resulted in cdrdao de-facto being licensed under LGPL. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Brian Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm using the cd-record pro DVD version 1.11a21. I'm using it under the personal use license that is given inside the README file at ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix/cdrecord/ProDVD/. I run this on Red Hat 7.3. I just changed my hostname and now the cdrecord program is no longer operational. I just run cdrecord -version and it drops core. When I try to burn something I get an alarm failure and it aborts around the 8 second mark. If I take the CDR_SECURITY variable out of my profile I noticed that it runs but it restricts me to the 1GB demo license. What can I do to get cdrecord back up and working? I have no idea: This looks like a result of a bug in the libc found on RH 7.3. I really hope that Linux will become a decently usable OS in the near future. But without compatible libraries this looks impossible. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Simon Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have no idea: This looks like a result of a bug in the libc found on RH 7.3. I really hope that Linux will become a decently usable OS in the near future. But without compatible libraries this looks impossible. There are many people using Linux in production environments today. It is certainly decently usable. Now, no-one is going to say that there is any OS or non-trivial library that is completely free of bugs. Things just don't work that way. There are probably many more users on Linux than any of the *nix's, so a more positive attitude might be to figure out the faults and figure out how to work around them. I imagine that thousands of developers around the world are doing just that. Polemics about the state of Linux and the libraries used on Linux just don't solve any problems. Your polemics is not helpful at all. If you never tried to use code compiled on a different Linux system you cannot know about the problems with binary compatibility on Linux. Why do you believe will united Linux use a single binary base for all distributions? Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: This brings up a different twist then. If the source code did not contain any license file at all, and did not have any license in any of the files, it would IMHO be licenseless. Wether or not the law would interpret it to be public domain, and hence useable however, or the law would interpret it to be unuseable without a specific license and require you to contact the author to get a specific license statement, would likely vary greatly from country to country, and jurisdiction to jurisdiciton. That would be one for a copyright/patent lawyer to answer. You seem to have funny ideas about legal issues If I put my bag on a table and turn my head, do you really believe tat you may take it just because there is no name plate on it? If some piece of software does not come with a license note, this only means that you have to ask the owner of the Authorship rights and/or the Utilisation rights about terms of use and redistribution rights. Andreas did ask Heiko and got ther permission to use the library with his project. The fault of Andreas was that he did not propagate the information he received from Heiko. Instead he put a GPL COPYING file into the toplevel directory. This makes users assume that all code below the toplevel directory is GPL code which is definitely wrong. Regarding public domain: as it is now allowed to put code into the public domain, it is obvious that your idea cannot apply. GPL'd software can have non-GPL'd parts, so long as the licensing terms of the other parts do not add any additional restrictions on the usage of the source code beyond what the GPL states. This is what allows you for example to use BSD (without the advertising clause) licensed code in GPL programs directly. The BSD license is freer than the GPL, so GPL'd software can use BSD licensed code in it. The BSD license that has the advertising clause however is incompatible with the GPL because it creates an additional restriction that must be met, and that conflicts with section 6 of the GPL, which states that you may not impose additional restrictions on the work licensed under the GPL. Wrong (see my other mail). In addition note: the BSD license carries other restrictions than the GPL. If your postulation would be correct, then you would never be allowed to merge GPL and BSD code. [ rest deleted because it did not include anything new or halfway corect ] You're only contradicting me, but you're no lawyer either. My whole point, is that if a _POTENTIAL_ legal issue comes up concerning the GPL license, one should err on the side of caution, and if possible try to comply WITHOUT needing to seek legal council. If you can resolve any licensing issue easily enough without bringing the law into it, why not do so? And if it isn't easy to resolve (which the cdrdao issue seems very easy to resolve now), then one should consider their options, and consult a real attorney. Nobody should take what *I* say as being correct, and they also should not take what *you* say as being correct. Me and you arguing or debating over copyright laws or GPL is totally pointless because neither one of us is a lawyer, and also you're in Germany, and I am in Canada, and the legal systems of our two countries is completely different, not to mention, the GPL license itself was created in the United States, and the terminology used in it basically reflects the USA. Lets not bother arguing about this stuff please, it doesn't change anything or help anyone. My whole point is to bring up _potential_ legal issues, in hopes that something can be done to avoid them. There isn't any legal case going on, and so there is no need to argue like we're on opposite sides of a podium facing a judge. It's simple, by avoiding the NEED to have an attourney by simply resolving the situation in a way that everyone benefits, and in a way that everyone and their brother would agree is GPL compatible, the whole situation completely vanishes, and nobody needs to argue/debate about legalistics. Andreas has stated that he's decided to implement the replacement library code on his own, and GPL it, so GPL debate doesn't really accomplish anything because the issue is resolved, or will be in the near future when he's done coding it. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Dan Hollis wrote: I think Andreas decision to replace the GPL incompatible code with new code, is the right thing to do. Indeed. Why are people still complaining about licensing since it's now a 100% moot point with cdrdao? Agreed. There is nothing to argue/debate/complain over anymore, as the problem is in the solving now. Safe to let the thread die now I think. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] AFAIK, I am the only author who did major contributions and I _do_ already allow this kind of usage with cdrecord Minor contributors have no own rights on the work. Joerg, cdrecord isn't the topic of discussion here right now. Well, about 1/3 of the cdrdao source code is Copyright Jörg Schilling and the code is taken from the cdrecord distribution If in doubt however, one should contact a copyright/patent lawyer. You definitely should... I don't need to do that. I do not have source code of my authorship right now which is in violation of the GPL, or being used in a piece of software which GPL violation is taking place. If some of my own code does end up in such a situation, I would indeed do so. The reason why I added this note is that you did make many statements that do not apply at all. Instead you mentioned many things that only apply to the USA. Please keep in mind: - cdrdao cdrecord are written in Germany so European law (not US law) applies. - The European union has more inhabitants than the USA so even more potential users live in the European union. - If you look at all Open Source / Free Software projects, you will find that Authors from the European Union did write most of the code so for most of the Free Software around US law does not apply at all. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're only contradicting me, but you're no lawyer either. My But I have had several long discussions with lawyers about Copyright and GPL issues in the past. The first talk was in 1993 (about one year after the European Union decided that software is some sort of art and that Copyright issues on software have to be treated similar to Copyright issues on books. The last and more intense have been half a year ago when I started to sue companies that illegally use cdrecord sources for closed source applications. From what you did write, it looks like you did not even talk to a lawyer before. whole point, is that if a _POTENTIAL_ legal issue comes up concerning the GPL license, one should err on the side of caution, and if possible try to comply WITHOUT needing to seek legal council. If you can resolve any licensing issue easily enough without bringing the law into it, why not do so? Well you seem to forget that even contracts may not contain things that are aginst the law! For this reason it is not a good idea to leave laws beside. And if it isn't easy to resolve (which the cdrdao issue seems very easy to resolve now), then one should consider their options, and consult a real attorney. Nobody should take what *I* say as being correct, and they also should not take what *you* say as being correct. Me and you arguing or debating over copyright laws or GPL is totally pointless because neither one of us is a lawyer, and also you're in Germany, and I am in Canada, and the legal systems of our two countries is completely different, not to mention, the GPL license itself was created in the United States, and the terminology used in it basically reflects the USA. Which is a bad idea as most oft the free software is written in Europe. For this reason European Copyright laws apply. You need to interpret the text of the GPL with the European Cpyright in mind. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] AFAIK, I am the only person who did major contributions and I do allow this kind of usage. Authors who did minor contributions need not be asked. That is your own personal opinion on the matter. If there was an author whom has contributed code and had a decenting opinion, and did not agree to the license change, then they could try to sue. Only then, would some court of law somewhere decide. Also, it is entirely possible that a court of law in one country might decide totally different from a court of law in another. Possibly even in different states or provinces. Not true: The code from cdrdao is covered by European Copyright law. USA amongst many other counties signed the Bern convention and for this reason no US court may decide against European Copyright law. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Tuesday 24 September 2002 13:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] explanation I've just re-read the LICENSE file in the libedc directory of=20 cdrtools, and it doesn't mention distribution at all, only use.=20 Does this mean that I do have Nutzungsrecht for libedc, but no=20 Verwertungsrechte? Am I allowed to redistributed cdrtools with=20 libedc included or not? Partly correct: You have Nutzungsrecht but not the Verwertungsrechte but you are allowed to _redistribute_ the unmodified cdrecord including the libedc. You have the right to make private changes in cdrecord. Okay, but does the LICENSE file of libedc_ecc reflect this? It doesn't mention distribution at all. Or does having the right to use imply having the right to redistribute? Or have I just missed something in the file? This makes cdrecord free software This doesn't match the FSF definition of free software (freedom 3, the freedom to distribute modfied copies, isn't met), but I'll accept it as your definition of free software. After all, what's in a name? (except a lot of possible confusion ofcourse). If you like to _distribute_ code that uses libedc (e.g. a modified version of cdrecord or own code) you have two opportunities: - remove libedc for the distribution and make sure the rest of the code still runs e.g. by using an #ifdef HAVE_LIBEDC. I did this for nearly 2 years in the past with cdrecord although I have the permission to distribute libedc with cdrecord. - Ask Heiko for a permission and distribute the code with a compatible license (in case this is your own code) or with the original cdrecord license (in case of a modified cdrecord). Note: even the GPL does not transfer all Verwertungsrechte to any user so only the author is allowed do decide about the license to use. This is why some people believe that you are not allowed to change the text in the COPYING file distributed with GPLd projects. Which ofcourse you are, except that then it wouldn't be the license of that project anymore, right? Lourens -- GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: The last and more intense have been half a year ago when I started to sue companies that illegally use cdrecord sources for closed source applications. Which companies? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Mike A. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] without the viral component, then as far as I can see it would be=20 possible. This would however change the license terms for the rest=20 of cdrdao as well (it would effectively turn into an LGPL license I=20 think). It will not as the exception is limited to the edc library. The GPL explicitly disallows additional restrictions in section 6. Wrong: Please read section 6 completely. It only applies to redistributions. Andreas is responsible to the primary distribution. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preface: I am sorry, but it seems that you don't know much about =09Copyright issues :-( Many of your statements are completely =09wrong and none of your mails from the last night has been helpful. For a decent discussion on this topic it is important that we use correct verbalizations. Unfortunately, the English language is not very precise here [...explanation of _German_ copyright system...] The European copyright system is either the same as the German copyright system or the deviations are of minor nature. note that the European Union does not allow a country to deviate in major aspects from European law. From what I know, all continental European countries have mostly identical copyright systems. It may be that Great Britain has some left over bigger differences. Note that the English right system is derived from Roman Law and the Right system used in continental European countries is derived from modern ideas from the French Revolution (4.7.1795). The USA still use a right system based on the English right system... I believe we need to make a clear distinction between the German=20 copyright laws and the American copyright laws. Unfortunately,=20 there seem to be some major differences here, and given what you=20 wrote I'm not even sure if the GPL makes sense at all in the=20 context of German (and probably other European) copyright law. Well, we are in Germany so German law applies! If there is an author who owns the authorship rights for the work (like it is true for me with e.g. cdrecord), this author is the only person who may decide on authorship right issues. As libscg is a major contribution from me to the cdrdao project, I would be able to put a veto on this. But as I already did allow cdrecord to be linked with libedc it is obvious that I don't use my veto right here. That's what I mean. The whole idea of the GPL is that if you put=20 your software under GPL, then everyone will be able to use it as=20 long as the terms of the GPL are satisfied. If the original author=20 can still veto anything that happens with the code it can't be free=20 software as in the FSF definition. This is not even correct inside the USA. The fact that you cannot replace the GPL by something else only applies to secondary distributions. The author may always have a e.g. second distribution under a different license. If he uses his right to do so and only updates the non GPL version, then the GPL version may become outdated after some time Perhaps the FSF should be notified and/or asked about this? Seems to=20 me like it might be a major problem. From reading FSF mailing lists on a regular base I can tell you that this will not help. FSF Europe is a gossip club and FSF USA will most likely give you advise based on US right. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
This is how the GPL protects freedom of the code, by ensuring that when you've got GPL'd code, no one can remove any of the rights that the GPL provides you with. They cannot restrict you in any way beyond what the GPL license states. That means that they can not say This program is GPL licensed except for section 4 and 7 of the GPL. The GPL does not permit them to do that. Is it correct to speak of it as the GPL if it is modified? Let's rephrase a bit. Everybody speaks of whether the author of cddao can legally license his code under a GPL with added restrictions. I think this is the wrong way of wording it. It's better to say that the lisence is based on GPL, but the sections foo and bar have been changed/removed. It makes absolutely no sense to me that the author and copyright holder can't do this. In short, modified GPL - lisence based on GPL != GPL. -- Åsmund Skjæveland (OpenPGP keyid 54B975CE) msg03436/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cdrdao-devel] Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
EE's do it 'til it Hz 8-) ~~John D. Zitterkopf~~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zittware.com _ Under US Code Title 47, Sec.227(b)(1)(C), Sec.227(a)(2)(B)These email address may not be added to any commercial mail list with out my permission. Violation of my privacy with advertising or SPAM will result in a suit for a MINIMUM of $500 damages/incident, $1500 for repeats. On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Mike A. Harris wrote: On 22 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote: Date: 22 Sep 2002 23:15:53 +0200 From: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], cdrdao-devel list [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heiko Eißfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 22:47, Lourens Veen wrote: On Sunday 22 September 2002 22:30, Joerg Schilling wrote: From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] However, as libedc is not GPLd the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a result of this missing hint other people did believe that libedc is GPLd. Yes, the LICENSE file was removed from that directory. That's a mistake. And as you say the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc_ecc because it's not under the GPL. It does, however, apply to cdrdao. The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE file (in fact no license file at all) at the time I fetched it. I was in contact with Heiko at that time and he also did not mention any restrictions. Of course this does not excuse my mistake - I should have explicitly asked for placing it under GPL. This brings up a different twist then. If the source code did not contain any license file at all, and did not have any license in any of the files, it would IMHO be licenseless. Wether or not the law would interpret it to be public domain, and hence useable however, or the law would interpret it to be unuseable without a specific license and require you to contact the author to get a specific license statement, would likely vary greatly from country to country, and jurisdiction to jurisdiciton. That would be one for a copyright/patent lawyer to answer. In theory at least, it's possible you could ship it anyway in such a case. But myself would probably honor the author's request even if he messed up by not including a license, just for gentleman's understanding and ethical reasoning... Then I'd probably re-implement the missing bits from scratch, or try to find some other amiable solution. Regarding the license terms I think we should wait for Mike A. Harris's answer to my question as he is an expert on this topic. He clearly stated that GPLd software cannot have non GPLd parts. The only open question is if they way cdrdao handles the libedc_ecc code can count as linking in non GPLd libraries. Depending on the answer I'll have to react... GPL'd software can have non-GPL'd parts, so long as the licensing terms of the other parts do not add any additional restrictions on the usage of the source code beyond what the GPL states. This is what allows you for example to use BSD (without the advertising clause) licensed code in GPL programs directly. The BSD license is freer than the GPL, so GPL'd software can use BSD licensed code in it. The BSD license that has the advertising clause however is incompatible with the GPL because it creates an additional restriction that must be met, and that conflicts with section 6 of the GPL, which states that you may not impose additional restrictions on the work licensed under the GPL. This is how the GPL protects freedom of the code, by ensuring that when you've got GPL'd code, no one can remove any of the rights that the GPL provides you with. They cannot restrict you in any way beyond what the GPL license states. That means that they can not say This program is GPL licensed except for section 4 and 7 of the GPL. The GPL does not permit them to do that. Any author who puts up software under the GPL, and adds any form of additional restriction invalidates the license. It's their program, so they don't have to worry about any legal problems because they own it. However, anyone _else_ who takes that code, and redistributes it, modifies it, copys it, etc. is violating the license because the terms conflict with each other. It's up to the author of a program to put a license on it which is legally proper, and GPL plus restrictions is not. When they do that, they merely disallow others from legally redistributing their code. -- Mike A. Harris
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
Hi all, wow, that was an interesting discussion today. Unfortunately I could not follow it directly since my real job currently takes most of my time. After digging throw most of the thread I see following points that are relevant for my current problem: - Cdrdao cannot be GPLd as long as parts of it are not compatible with the GPL. It is very questionable if the just linking to a library argument would work here. - Modifying/restricting the GPL terms may be not allowed and would not make much sense anyway because it would be in fact a new license and not the GPL anymore. This would make the handling of cdrdao difficult for distributions and for other projects that want to base work on cdrdao. - Changing the license terms of cdrdao may be illegal because there were contributions to cdrdao which I would not call minor. Even if it would be legal to do that in Germany I think it would be not nice and against the common sense. At the end, my conclusion is to not change the license of cdrdao which gives me following two options: 1. Freeze the project until the affected sources are replaced by a GPL compliant version. 2. Release a cdrdao version which temporarily omits the affected sources until a GPL compliant version is available. To save some work I'll go with the first option and start implementing the required Reed-Solomon coder. I've removed all releases from sf.net. Good night, Andreas -- Andreas Mueller Tel: +49 89 67808848 Ramsmeierstr. 1Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 85579 Neubiberg, Germany -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Julián Muñoz wrote: Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 11:36:34 + (GMT) From: Julián Muñoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed Although it is an interesting topic, most of the time peope say their opinions. But, could someone say something I can believe ? Give me an url where all this is documented (ie laws, by coutries), and redirect me to a forum where I could learn more about this. Simple. Search your hard disk for a file named COPYING. That is the GNU General Public Licence version 2. Just read it. If you have any legal questions concerning it, or require clarification on any of the points in the license, simply contact a copyright attourney, and they'll gladly clarify the license terms for you. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Julián Muñoz wrote: Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:07:06 + (GMT) From: Julián Muñoz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: cdwrite list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed On 23 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote: At the end, my conclusion is to not change the license of cdrdao which gives me following two options: 1. Freeze the project until the affected sources are replaced by a GPL compliant version. 2. Release a cdrdao version which temporarily omits the affected sources until a GPL compliant version is available. This morning I (re)read this interesting article: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html In fact, you can release all the code under GPL, but don't include in the package the problematic library. (GPL only affects distribution rights I think, so that's the spirit). The library should then be distributed through another way, it's a patch that the user is free to use and install. If you have the authorization of the author, you can put an hyperlink to the library file in your site, or in the original url, or even do it automatically with a script (I think it's what is done in the djbdns debian package). Even if such a hack/workaround is even legal, redistribution of the combined 2 pieces of code by other parties in source or binary form would bring up the license problem. Linux distributions would have to completely drop cdrdao, and any software which requires cdrdao to function properly (front ends). I personally consider cdrdao a must have application in any modern Linux distribution, and it would be a complete and total loss to have to drop software like cdrdao from any distribution. It would also likely spawn 10 different forked projects to replace the code with pure GPL code, which then presents the problem of having 10 different half-assed versions floating around, none of which is the real thing. So, while there are indeed various different options available, I'm glad that Andreas has decided to write a GPL replacement for the offending code, and use that in cdrdao instead. That is probably the most amiable solution, as it keeps cdrdao a single project, self sufficient, and keeps it GPL, and without any licensing problems or even alleged licensing problems. I think Andreas decision to replace the GPL incompatible code with new code, is the right thing to do. I wonder if there are any other existing implementations of code with such functionality? Has anyone scoured the net? If not, I'll have a look around myself and if I find anything I'll post it here. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Mike A. Harris wrote: I think Andreas decision to replace the GPL incompatible code with new code, is the right thing to do. Indeed. Why are people still complaining about licensing since it's now a 100% moot point with cdrdao? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
License of cdrdao will be changed
Hi all, I had to learn this week that cdrdao currently violates the license terms of the included libedc_ecc code which is intellectual property of Heiko Eissfeldt. The cdrdao project has the permission to use the libedc_ecc code but the GPL does not apply to the libedc_ecc code itself. Other projects may only use and distribute the libedc_ecc code with explicit permission of Heiko Eissfeldt. Therefore, I will restrict the GPL license for cdrdao so that section 2 of the GPL will not apply to the libedc_ecc code. I will shortly prepare a new cdrdao release with the new license terms and remove all older releases from sf.net. I am sorry that I have violated the copyrights of Heiko Eissfeldt but I truly did not do that intentionally. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Mueller Tel: +49 89 67808848 Ramsmeierstr. 1Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 85579 Neubiberg, Germany -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On 22 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote: Date: 22 Sep 2002 13:15:57 +0200 From: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cdwrite list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain Subject: License of cdrdao will be changed Hi all, I had to learn this week that cdrdao currently violates the license terms of the included libedc_ecc code which is intellectual property of Heiko Eissfeldt. The cdrdao project has the permission to use the libedc_ecc code but the GPL does not apply to the libedc_ecc code itself. Other projects may only use and distribute the libedc_ecc code with explicit permission of Heiko Eissfeldt. Therefore, I will restrict the GPL license for cdrdao so that section 2 of the GPL will not apply to the libedc_ecc code. I will shortly prepare a new cdrdao release with the new license terms and remove all older releases from sf.net. The GPL license explicitly states that you may not make further restrictions on the license. In other words, it is not possible to say My program is GPLv2, plus you cant do this or that. It is prohibited. If the GPL license conflicts with the license of another component in the software, you must either remove the GPL conflicting parts, or alternatively relicense your software with a different license than the GPL. You can't GPL part of your program however, and have GPL incompatible code linked into it. -- Mike A. Harris Looking for Linux software? http://freshmeat.net http://www.rpmfind.net http://filewatcher.org http://www.coldstorage.org http://sourceforge.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 19:01, Mike A. Harris wrote: [...] Therefore, I will restrict the GPL license for cdrdao so that section 2 of the GPL will not apply to the libedc_ecc code. I will shortly prepare a new cdrdao release with the new license terms and remove all older releases from sf.net. The GPL license explicitly states that you may not make further restrictions on the license. In other words, it is not possible to say My program is GPLv2, plus you cant do this or that. It is prohibited. If the GPL license conflicts with the license of another component in the software, you must either remove the GPL conflicting parts, or alternatively relicense your software with a different license than the GPL. You can't GPL part of your program however, and have GPL incompatible code linked into it. I tend to believe this but can you please let me know where this is stated in the GPLv2 license text (I mean the part about making restrictions to the license). I'm assuming here that you are quiet familiar with this topic so that it is easy for you to find it. I already scanned the license text but could not find something matching. The libedc_ecc code is held in a library which gets statically linked to the cdrdao executable. The library is not available as a separate package so that the cdrdao sources ship with the libedc_ecc sources. The libedc_ecc sources are strictly separated from the remaining cdrdao sources. Does this count as linking GPL incompatible code in? If I currently cannot release cdrdao under GPL I'll temporarily freeze the project and remove all releases. Maybe Heiko decides to put the libedc_ecc code under GPL, now, because I think the cdrtools are also subject to this problem. If not I'll implement the required code myself and reactive cdrdao when I'm finished. Heiko: Please give me one more day for solving this issue until I take further actions. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Mueller Tel: +49 89 67808848 Ramsmeierstr. 1Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 85579 Neubiberg, Germany -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Sunday 22 September 2002 21:46, Andreas Mueller wrote: On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 19:01, Mike A. Harris wrote: [...] Therefore, I will restrict the GPL license for cdrdao so that section 2 of the GPL will not apply to the libedc_ecc code. I will shortly prepare a new cdrdao release with the new license terms and remove all older releases from sf.net. The GPL license explicitly states that you may not make further restrictions on the license. In other words, it is not possible to say My program is GPLv2, plus you cant do this or that. It is prohibited. If the GPL license conflicts with the license of another component in the software, you must either remove the GPL conflicting parts, or alternatively relicense your software with a different license than the GPL. You can't GPL part of your program however, and have GPL incompatible code linked into it. I tend to believe this but can you please let me know where this is stated in the GPLv2 license text (I mean the part about making restrictions to the license). I'm assuming here that you are quiet familiar with this topic so that it is easy for you to find it. I already scanned the license text but could not find something matching. The libedc_ecc code is held in a library which gets statically linked to the cdrdao executable. The library is not available as a separate package so that the cdrdao sources ship with the libedc_ecc sources. The libedc_ecc sources are strictly separated from the remaining cdrdao sources. Does this count as linking GPL incompatible code in? Well, as you say it gets statically linked in. So yes, that counts as linking the code in. Since you can't take out libedc_ecc and use it in another program, its license is clearly not GPL-compatible. This means that if cdrdao is published under the GPL, linking them is against the cdrdao license. However, if you publish something under a modified GPL, ie one without the viral component, then as far as I can see it would be possible. This would however change the license terms for the rest of cdrdao as well (it would effectively turn into an LGPL license I think). Lourens -- GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
To: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED], The libedc_ecc code is held in a library which gets statically linked to the cdrdao executable. The library is not available as a separate package so that the cdrdao sources ship with the libedc_ecc sources. The libedc_ecc sources are strictly separated from the remaining cdrdao sources. Does this count as linking GPL incompatible code in? Well, as you say it gets statically linked in. So yes, that counts=20 as linking the code in. Since you can't take out libedc_ecc and use=20 it in another program, its license is clearly not GPL-compatible.=20 This means that if cdrdao is published under the GPL, linking them=20 is against the cdrdao license. However, if you publish something under a modified GPL, ie one=20 without the viral component, then as far as I can see it would be=20 possible. This would however change the license terms for the rest=20 of cdrdao as well (it would effectively turn into an LGPL license I=20 think). It will not as the exception is limited to the edc library. Jörg EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) chars I am Jorg Schilling URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Sunday 22 September 2002 23:15, Andreas Mueller wrote: On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 22:47, Lourens Veen wrote: On Sunday 22 September 2002 22:30, Joerg Schilling wrote: From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] However, as libedc is not GPLd the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a result of this missing hint other people did believe that libedc is GPLd. Yes, the LICENSE file was removed from that directory. That's a mistake. And as you say the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc_ecc because it's not under the GPL. It does, however, apply to cdrdao. The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE file (in fact no license file at all) at the time I fetched it. I was in contact with Heiko at that time and he also did not mention any restrictions. Of course this does not excuse my mistake - I should have explicitly asked for placing it under GPL. My apologies. I assumed it was the same code as in the libedc directory of cdrtools, which does have a LICENSE file. I assumed it had been cleaned up at some point by someone thinking it was just another copy of the GPL and that having one in the package would be enough. I didn't mean to imply you or anybody else removed it on purpose. Regarding the license terms I think we should wait for Mike A. Harris's answer to my question as he is an expert on this topic. He clearly stated that GPLd software cannot have non GPLd parts. The only open question is if they way cdrdao handles the libedc_ecc code can count as linking in non GPLd libraries. Depending on the answer I'll have to react... Yeah. I'm not an expert either. We'll see. Lourens -- GPG public key: http://home.student.utwente.nl/l.e.veen/lourens.key -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Joerg Schilling wrote: You can't GPL part of your program however, and have GPL incompatible code linked into it. This statement is not correct I tend to believe this but can you please let me know where this is stated in the GPLv2 license text (I mean the part about making restrictions to the license). I'm assuming here that you are quiet familiar with this topic so that it is easy for you to find it. I already scanned the license text but could not find something matching. If you are the author you may put the under whatever license you like. You can put code that you have written under whatever license(s) you like. However, when you accept code contributions from other people into your source code, they are the copyright owner of that code. In order to _change_ the license of the software, you must get all of the people who have ever contributed code to the software to agree to the license change, or to assign the copyright of the code they've contributed to you. Only once all parties have agreed to the license change and/or reassigned their copyright to you, can you change the license of the code, or release it under a multiple license which they've agreed to. I can't speak for every software author or contributor out there, but I know if anyone ever changed the license on a GPL'd piece of software and that I had contributed to under the terms of the GPL license, and I had not explicitly handed them my copyright and did not agree to the license change, I would be calling a lawyer instantly. If in doubt however, one should contact a copyright/patent lawyer. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On 22 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote: Date: 22 Sep 2002 23:15:53 +0200 From: Andreas Mueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], cdrdao-devel list [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heiko Eißfeldt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed On Sun, 2002-09-22 at 22:47, Lourens Veen wrote: On Sunday 22 September 2002 22:30, Joerg Schilling wrote: From: Lourens Veen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] However, as libedc is not GPLd the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a result of this missing hint other people did believe that libedc is GPLd. Yes, the LICENSE file was removed from that directory. That's a mistake. And as you say the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc_ecc because it's not under the GPL. It does, however, apply to cdrdao. The libedc_ecc source code did not contain such a LICENSE file (in fact no license file at all) at the time I fetched it. I was in contact with Heiko at that time and he also did not mention any restrictions. Of course this does not excuse my mistake - I should have explicitly asked for placing it under GPL. This brings up a different twist then. If the source code did not contain any license file at all, and did not have any license in any of the files, it would IMHO be licenseless. Wether or not the law would interpret it to be public domain, and hence useable however, or the law would interpret it to be unuseable without a specific license and require you to contact the author to get a specific license statement, would likely vary greatly from country to country, and jurisdiction to jurisdiciton. That would be one for a copyright/patent lawyer to answer. In theory at least, it's possible you could ship it anyway in such a case. But myself would probably honor the author's request even if he messed up by not including a license, just for gentleman's understanding and ethical reasoning... Then I'd probably re-implement the missing bits from scratch, or try to find some other amiable solution. Regarding the license terms I think we should wait for Mike A. Harris's answer to my question as he is an expert on this topic. He clearly stated that GPLd software cannot have non GPLd parts. The only open question is if they way cdrdao handles the libedc_ecc code can count as linking in non GPLd libraries. Depending on the answer I'll have to react... GPL'd software can have non-GPL'd parts, so long as the licensing terms of the other parts do not add any additional restrictions on the usage of the source code beyond what the GPL states. This is what allows you for example to use BSD (without the advertising clause) licensed code in GPL programs directly. The BSD license is freer than the GPL, so GPL'd software can use BSD licensed code in it. The BSD license that has the advertising clause however is incompatible with the GPL because it creates an additional restriction that must be met, and that conflicts with section 6 of the GPL, which states that you may not impose additional restrictions on the work licensed under the GPL. This is how the GPL protects freedom of the code, by ensuring that when you've got GPL'd code, no one can remove any of the rights that the GPL provides you with. They cannot restrict you in any way beyond what the GPL license states. That means that they can not say This program is GPL licensed except for section 4 and 7 of the GPL. The GPL does not permit them to do that. Any author who puts up software under the GPL, and adds any form of additional restriction invalidates the license. It's their program, so they don't have to worry about any legal problems because they own it. However, anyone _else_ who takes that code, and redistributes it, modifies it, copys it, etc. is violating the license because the terms conflict with each other. It's up to the author of a program to put a license on it which is legally proper, and GPL plus restrictions is not. When they do that, they merely disallow others from legally redistributing their code. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: License of cdrdao will be changed
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Lourens Veen wrote: However, as libedc is not GPLd the viral part of the GPL does not apply to libedc - no matter what's written in the GPL. The problem is that Andreas did not make this clear before. As a result of this missing hint other people did believe that libedc is GPLd. Having thought about it some more, I think we're both correct. cdrdao cannot be published under the GPL, because then linking it to libedc would violate the license. It would however be possible to put a license on it that has everything the GPL has with the special exception that the author of cdrdao allows you to link it with libedc, even if the libedc license does not give you the rights specified in the GPL. Ofcourse then cdrdao would no longer be published under the GPL, but it (that is cdrdao without libedc) would still be under a GPL-compatible license. In order to do that, would require every person who has contributed source code to cdrdao to agree to the change of license, or to agree to assign all copyrighted code they've contributed to the author. I think a much more amiable solution is to replace any parts that potentially violate/invalidate the GPL with code that is GPL compatible. Changing the license just removes freedom anyway. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
