Re: The legality of cdrecord
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb/wrote: As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. Actually, the later is not completly true. The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his own copyright. Therefore, he does not if he adds code not distributable under the GPL. Unless the license of the non-GPL code prohibits this combination, everything is ok for him. By doing this, the author also implicitly gives a license that contains an exception to the GPL, which allows distributing the resulting binaries. The code actually is under a GPL-with-exception license. Of course, this has some implications: . The license grant is incorrectly worded as it's missing the implicit exception. This is very confusing. Better add an explicit exception notice. . Distributing binaries built from modified source (or built by other persons) may or may not be allowed, depending on the venue. This means the software fails to meet the DFSG. Only an explicit exception notice that grants that right can remedy that. . GPL code from third parties can't be included because its license lacks the exception necessary to distribute binaries. (NB: The source code might still be distributable as seperate packages.) The software can still meet the DFSG, its license is just incompatible with the GPL. Claus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 04:24:00PM +0100, Claus Färber wrote: The _author_ of the GPL code is not able to violate his own copyright. Therefore, he does not if he adds code not distributable under the GPL. Unless the license of the non-GPL code prohibits this combination, everything is ok for him. Agreed. I was referring to downstream modifiers of the original code (which is the context here) but should have made that clearer. By doing this, the author also implicitly gives a license that contains an exception to the GPL, which allows distributing the resulting binaries. The code actually is under a GPL-with-exception license. Hmm. That's _possible_, but I'm not sure I'd want to rely on it. Can you give an example of a situation in which an implicit exception has been relied upon in this way in a free software context? I don't think a court would imply additional terms where the express terms - GPL - are clear and complete, just because an attempt to exercise some of the rights under that licence would violate rights in third-party software under a different licence. This is especially true given the complexity of the implied term (the source code for this software includes code licensed under the CDDL, and such code is distributed under the CDDL and not the GPL). In English law terms, I'm not sure this passes the officious bystander, oh, of course! test.[1] And in any case, I'm not sure it would be particularly desirable if that approach were followed. It would allow people to drive a coach and horses through the GPL by just saying implied exception! whenever a licensing conflict came up. John (TINLA) [1] See http://www.glossaryofmanufacturing.com/o.html#Of for a good explanation of this. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it explicitly allows it. Well, _I_ did already explain why this is the case. You did not give any evidence for your claim. GPL §2b) verifies that the GPL is asymmetric. The fact that you don't understand what derived work means is irrelevant to this discussion. http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf verifies that GPL §2b) is asymmetric. After reading such basic, giant misunderstandings like: The GPL does not prohibit licensees from charging money for selling software copies. However, the GPL itself already provides everyone with a license free of charge. As a result, licensees have no realistic chances to commercialize their copyrights in works that they “derive” from GPLed code. I will not read any further this document, sorry. You will have to back up your claims with people who know what they are talking about. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license. Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations. Don't believe people who do not discuss specific license problems. And above all, don't believe Joerg Schilling, like when he says: Don't believe people who try to be demagogic and don't give evidence for their claims! The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it explicitly allows it. Well, _I_ did already explain why this is the case. You did not give any evidence for your claim. GPL §2b) verifies that the GPL is asymmetric. http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf verifies that GPL §2b) is asymmetric. If you have problems to understand the asymmetric nature of the GPL, try to first understand the difference between: 1) There is water in the bucket 2) The bucket is in water 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work. Yes, and it considers the work as a whole. That includes any libraries that are required to make it run and scripts that are required to make it build. WRONG! Ask Eben MOglen for help in case you did not understand the GPL. He did explain that you are wrong at the press conference for the first GPLv3 draft. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers. Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL library and the GPL program is derived from *both*. And you cannot distribute it because it has incompatible requirements. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence for that non-GPL code. This is a false claim! The GPL does not require to change the license of such other code and any lawyer would laugh on you as this would be illegal. The GPL cannot of course change the license of some other code. However, if that other code isn't under the GPL, you cannot link to it. It is as simple as that. If the author wanted to allow that, he would have chosen the LGPL. And the fact that you can *technically* link GPL code to GPL-incompatible code doesn't make it more legal. The first sentence is correct, all conclusions are of course wrong. BTW: it is obvious that even RMS concurs with me because he did not sue Veritas for publishing a modified version of GNU tar. This Veritas variant of GNU tar: - comes with makefiles and a few inline modification in the GNU tar original source - Needs some libraries that are not under GPL in order to link - These libraries are _not_ part of the work as they have been written for another purpose. - These libraries are not published in source but binary only. - GPL §3 explains that there is a difference between the work and executable work. For the latter you need only to suply everything to reproduce the binary. P.S. This is why cdrtools is GPL compliant but the fork cdrkit is not. cdrkit does not include the cmake program. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work: - You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL. You are basing all of your reasoning on the assumption that a program that uses a library isn't a derived work of the library. Which is technically wrong and would never hold in front of a court. You are confused and don't seem to have problems to understand complex cases where the _direction_ is important. A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:35 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it explicitly allows it. Well, _I_ did already explain why this is the case. You did not give any evidence for your claim. GPL §2b) verifies that the GPL is asymmetric. The fact that you don't understand what derived work means is irrelevant to this discussion. If you continue to missunderstand the term derived work, you don't seem to be a suited discussion partner. http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf verifies that GPL §2b) is asymmetric. After reading such basic, giant misunderstandings like: The GPL does not prohibit licensees from charging money for selling software copies. However, the GPL itself already provides everyone with a license free of charge. As a result, licensees have no realistic chances to commercialize their copyrights in works that they ???derive??? from GPLed code. I will not read any further this document, sorry. You will have to back up your claims with people who know what they are talking about. If you have such basic missunderstandings, you should first start with some basic GPL reading... 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le samedi 10 novembre 2007 à 12:51 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : A GPL work that uses a CDDL library _may_ be a derived work from the CDDL library. The CDDL library is definitely not a derived work of it's uers. Of course. But the *combined work* that is constituted by the CDDL library and the GPL program is derived from *both*. And you cannot distribute it because it has incompatible requirements. You justz vefied again that you did not yet understand the GPL and Urheberrecht. The work is the source of the program only. The executable work is not under GPL. The rules in GPL §3 only require only to allow users to be able to reproduce the binary. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 11/8/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence for that non-GPL code. This is a false claim! The GPL does not require to change the license of such other code and any lawyer would laugh on you as this would be illegal. To clarify: it's not that the GPL requires you to change the licence of other code. It is that the GPL requires certain code (derivative works, build scripts necessary to compile the software) to be licensed under the GPL. You need to reread the GPL to understand it correctly: The GPL requires to publish all from the work to be published under the GPL but not more. - The build scripts in many cases are not part of the work. This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf. This is true for all software that usees other independent build software. This is true in the cdrtools case. Your misunderstanding is that you did not grok the fact that the GPL distinguishes between the work and the whole source. - the work needs to be under GPL - The GPL does not require _anyting_ for the other parts that are needed to create the whole source except that it needs to be published. Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work: - You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL. [ the rest of your claims is just a flollow up mistake ] 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Bulk] Re: The legality of cdrecord
STYLIANOU Konstantinos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: People, Excuse me for braking into this conversation of yours, but I believe this exchange of wit between you does not serve the interests of this lists anymore. Representing only myself, I would kindly ask you not to flood the list any more, because it is getting annoying. I am sure you are both very well acquainted with the netiquette. Please to not send this kind of mail as long as there are useful contributions. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:44:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 11/8/07, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Of course, that still leaves the question of whether the CDDL code is being used in such a way that the GPL would require it to be licensed under the GPL. I'm not in a position to comment on that either way, but the majority consensus seems to be yes. When calculating the the majority consensus on that being a yes are you using Bayesian probability theory or is it just an epistemic community mindset sort of thing? OK, fair point, I should have ended that last sentence at the comma. Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes: The GPL requires to publish all from the work to be published under the GPL but not more. - The build scripts in many cases are not part of the work. This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf. This is true for all software that usees other independent build software. This is true in the cdrtools case. Your misunderstanding is that you did not grok the fact that the GPL distinguishes between the work and the whole source. - the work needs to be under GPL - The GPL does not require _anyting_ for the other parts that are needed to create the whole source except that it needs to be published. I believe the above interpretation is mistaken. See the recent http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. It says, regarding both GPL version 2 and version 3: Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts, and so on. If you want to convince anyone that your interpretation is correct, and apparently that the FSF is incorrect, I believe you need to make a better case. How about writing up a web page that discuss your entire position with quotes from the relevant licenses? Then it would be easier to understand things and discuss this further. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes: The GPL requires to publish all from the work to be published under the GPL but not more. - The build scripts in many cases are not part of the work. This is true for all software that e.g. uses autoconf. This is true for all software that usees other independent build software. This is true in the cdrtools case. Your misunderstanding is that you did not grok the fact that the GPL distinguishes between the work and the whole source. - the work needs to be under GPL - The GPL does not require _anyting_ for the other parts that are needed to create the whole source except that it needs to be published. I believe the above interpretation is mistaken. See the recent http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. It says, regarding both GPL version 2 and version 3: Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts, and so on. Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct! The GPL does require you to provide everything that is needed but it does _not_ require to put more than the work under GPL. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 02:05:05PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the above interpretation is mistaken. See the recent http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html. It says, regarding both GPL version 2 and version 3: Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts, and so on. Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct! The GPL does require you to provide everything that is needed but it does _not_ require to put more than the work under GPL. I can't imagine how you came to this conclusion, as the quoted section states quite the opposite - you need to include the compilation scripts, whether or not you consider them to be part of the work. -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/ pgpK4aSKJFFAQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work. I do not know if you are right or not but it is not what matter. Debian and other distributor may distribute a forked version for whatever reason even for a bad one. I do not believe you will succeed to make Debian change their opinion. So would it be so difficult for you to change the license in other to satisfy Debian (and other Linux distributor)? I think it is the only way you can hope they reconsider the inclusion of cdrtool. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:27:55 +1100, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those following along with this thread, Jörg has either chosen not to respond to Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED], or is not reading the list in which this discussion is taking place. Either of which are his own problem to fix. From his appearance on debian-user-german, I guess that he is not reading this list and expects to be Cced without explicitly asking for it. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: [debian-legal] The legality of cdrecord
Yes, I apologised to Joerg at one point for cc-ing him as well as the list and he said that's what he wanted anyway. John On 09/11/2007, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 08:27:55 +1100, Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those following along with this thread, Jörg has either chosen not to respond to Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED], or is not reading the list in which this discussion is taking place. Either of which are his own problem to fix. From his appearance on debian-user-german, I guess that he is not reading this list and expects to be Cced without explicitly asking for it. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Re: The legality of cdrecord
I do not know if you are right or not but it is not what matter. Debian and other distributor may distribute a forked version for whatever reason even for a bad one. I do not believe you will succeed to make I get the impression that you are not aware of the real problem. There is no license problem in cdrtools and this has been discussed ad nauseum. A few outsiders claim there are problems but they constantly fail to prove their claims. This discussion is not different from others. It did not bring any prove for a problem. The people who claim that there are problems should finally admit that there are no known problems and stop the FUD against the true OSS project cdrtools. there is a problem in wodim. The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that harm the reputation of the Author. The Debian fork is full of extreme bugs and many people are thus completely unable to use the fork at all. You should be aware of the possibility that I (as the Author) could disallow publikshing the fork. Debian change their opinion. So would it be so difficult for you to change the license in other to satisfy Debian (and other Linux distributor)? I think it is the only way you can hope they reconsider the inclusion of cdrtool. This kind of blackmail attempts have been send to me more than once. Cdrtools uses a license that is widely accepted as true OpenSource and even the official Debian statement is that the CDDL is obviously free. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that harm the reputation of the Author. The Debian fork is full of extreme bugs and many people are thus completely unable to use the fork at all. You should be aware of the possibility that I (as the Author) could disallow publikshing the fork. Please don't tell me that I should be aware; I have nothing to do with the fork, so see with authors of wodim. This kind of blackmail attempts have been send to me more than once. I have nothing to do with Debian so I do not like to blackmail you. I simply do not really understand what you are hoping for. The page of cdrkit does not claim that cdrtools are non free; they just say that it is an independent project not affiliated with the original author of cdrtools of which they are derived. That is definitively allowed by the GPL and I do not see how it can harm your reputation. Olive -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 22:10 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license. Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations. Don't believe people who do not discuss specific license problems. And above all, don't believe Joerg Schilling, like when he says: The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. No, it does not. If you think it does, please point the line where it explicitly allows it. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
RE: The legality of cdrecord
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:07 -0800, Yuhong Bao a écrit : That is exactly why the code, not just the build scripts, are CDDL in current versions of cdrtools. Now the remaining problem is about the GPLed library that the CDDL mkisofs links to. Removing HFS support would solve this problem. Yuhong Bao Maybe. Unfortunately, the truth is that we don't care anymore. I don't know anyone in the project who would now trust Jörg Schilling when it comes to licensing or legal issues. And he has proved repeatedly to be stubborn about technical issues which are important to our users. Get over it. The cdrtools crap won't make it back in the archive. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:59 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Please first rething the rest of your text as you did base your claims in a way that misses the fact that the GPL makes a clear difference between the work and the whole source. GPL licensing only applies to the work. Yes, and it considers the work as a whole. That includes any libraries that are required to make it run and scripts that are required to make it build. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:15 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence for that non-GPL code. This is a false claim! The GPL does not require to change the license of such other code and any lawyer would laugh on you as this would be illegal. The GPL cannot of course change the license of some other code. However, if that other code isn't under the GPL, you cannot link to it. It is as simple as that. If the author wanted to allow that, he would have chosen the LGPL. And the fact that you can *technically* link GPL code to GPL-incompatible code doesn't make it more legal. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 11:14 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Other code that is not derived from the GPL code is not part of the work: - You do not need to put non-derived code under the GPL. You are basing all of your reasoning on the assumption that a program that uses a library isn't a derived work of the library. Which is technically wrong and would never hold in front of a court. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 11:46 -0500, Steve Langasek a écrit : If you want my services as an English teacher, you'll have to ask me for a quote; otherwise, finding the errors in your logic is your problem, not mine. Le jeudi 08 novembre 2007 à 17:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : Is this because you need an English teacher or because you have problems understaning complex sentences? Anyway, ask someone in your vicinty for help! A, it's so annoying when you think of something nice to say, just to notice you could only think of it after reading it elsewhere a few minutes before… -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Le vendredi 09 novembre 2007 à 21:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit : there is a problem in wodim. The GPL and the Urheberrecht both forbid to publish modified versions that harm the reputation of the Author. There is nothing like that in the GPL. It only forbids misrepresentation of the Author's work. The Debian fork is full of extreme bugs and many people are thus completely unable to use the fork at all. You should be aware of the possibility that I (as the Author) could disallow publikshing the fork. Well, to do that, you would have to prove: * either that wodim is violating the license - which is not, it is based on entirely GPL code and follows the GPL to the letter; * or that the wodim authors are violating the law - if they do, it is surely not by misrepresenting your work. The whole point of free software is to allow forks. If you can't accept that, you'd better find another hobby. Anyway, I would *love* to see you do attempting to forbid distribution of cdrkit. If you lose, we will all have a good laugh. If you win, the community would have to work on a new, free alternative that would force us to finally get rid of your crappy code. In all cases, that's a big win. Debian change their opinion. So would it be so difficult for you to change the license in other to satisfy Debian (and other Linux distributor)? I think it is the only way you can hope they reconsider the inclusion of cdrtool. This kind of blackmail attempts have been send to me more than once. You must deeply want to see cdrtools back in Debian if you think of such requests as blackmail… Cdrtools uses a license that is widely accepted as true OpenSource and even the official Debian statement is that the CDDL is obviously free. The Debian project also allows OpenSSL code and GPL code, but doesn't accept mixing both without correct exceptions from the copyright holders. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Shriramana Sharma writes: Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: Both versions of the GPL require you to provide all the source necessary to build the software, including supporting libraries, compilation scripts, and so on. Thank you for proving that I am 100% correct! The GPL does require you to provide everything that is needed but it does _not_ require to put more than the work under GPL. I can't imagine how you came to this conclusion, as the quoted section states quite the opposite - you need to include the compilation scripts, whether or not you consider them to be part of the work. Schilling has a point here. The GPL does not explicitly say that whatever puts the complete in complete source code must also be licensed under the same license as the source itself, i.e. under the GPL. From GPLv2: 2(b): You must cause any work [that contains or is derived from the Program] to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Later: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. 3(a): Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above[...]. The plainest reading is that the complete source code -- the work as a whole, including build scripts -- must be licensed under the terms of the GPL. Reading it otherwise requires over-parsing the license or picking things out of context. To borrow a phrase, most of us do not have the political clout to successfully argue that the truth depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL), and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because that would breach the terms of the CDDL. Please read the GPL: The GPL does _not_ require the build scripts to be under GPL. The GPL only requieres them to be distributed. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 12:27:56PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL), and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because that would breach the terms of the CDDL. Please read the GPL: The GPL does _not_ require the build scripts to be under GPL. The GPL only requieres them to be distributed. I believe your interpretation of the GPL and the interpretation by the sane world differ wildly... The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. 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. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. Would suggest that the build scripts need to be distributed under the same licence as the program, so, that'd be the GPL then. Please go and read the GPL and stop telling others to. Stop making stuff up because it suits *your* development model. Thanks, -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects. As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence for that non-GPL code. This is a false claim! The GPL does not require to change the license of such other code and any lawyer would laugh on you as this would be illegal. If you still belive it, give a proof by sending an apropeiate quote from the original GPL text. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 12:27:56PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: category anyway. The question is whether those build scripts themselves can be distributed under the GPL (as required by the GPL), and the answer (as I understand it) is no, because that would breach the terms of the CDDL. Please read the GPL: The GPL does _not_ require the build scripts to be under GPL. The GPL only requieres them to be distributed. The build scripts are considered to be part of the source code (GPL2 §3, GPL3 §1), and therefore must be under the GPL or a compatible licence; the CDDL is neither (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses#CDDL). -- Benjamin A'Lee :: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subvert Technologies :: http://subvert.org.uk/ pgpG12TXIGZSy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The legality of cdrecord
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: You have been aked to proove _your_ claima many time but you did not do. Let us safely asume that as long as you are not able to proove the converse that my claims (being aligned with lawyer statements) are true. You can assume whatever you want, I don't care. I don't owe you any explanations, and everybody else involved is competent enough to have read the text of the GPL and understood its plainly written meaning with only minimal hinting in the direction of the relevant sections, which is all If you are able to read the GPL text, you should agree with me. If you don't, you obviously have problems understanding the GPL text. Is this because you need an English teacher or because you have problems understaning complex sentences? Anyway, ask someone in your vicinty for help! But please do not try to distort the meaning of the GPL. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Bulk] Re: The legality of cdrecord
People, Excuse me for braking into this conversation of yours, but I believe this exchange of wit between you does not serve the interests of this lists anymore. Representing only myself, I would kindly ask you not to flood the list any more, because it is getting annoying. I am sure you are both very well acquainted with the netiquette. Kindly yours, KS Joerg Schilling wrote: Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: You have been aked to proove _your_ claima many time but you did not do. Let us safely asume that as long as you are not able to proove the converse that my claims (being aligned with lawyer statements) are true. You can assume whatever you want, I don't care. I don't owe you any explanations, and everybody else involved is competent enough to have read the text of the GPL and understood its plainly written meaning with only minimal hinting in the direction of the relevant sections, which is all If you are able to read the GPL text, you should agree with me. If you don't, you obviously have problems understanding the GPL text. Is this because you need an English teacher or because you have problems understaning complex sentences? Anyway, ask someone in your vicinty for help! But please do not try to distort the meaning of the GPL. Jörg
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:34:48AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: You have been aked to proove _your_ claima many time but you did not do. Let us safely asume that as long as you are not able to proove the converse that my claims (being aligned with lawyer statements) are true. You can assume whatever you want, I don't care. I don't owe you any explanations, and everybody else involved is competent enough to have read the text of the GPL and understood its plainly written meaning with only minimal hinting in the direction of the relevant sections, which is all that matters here. If you want my services as an English teacher, you'll have to ask me for a quote; otherwise, finding the errors in your logic is your problem, not mine. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: The legality of cdrecord
Not anymore. Now almost all of the program is CDDL, except 2 libraries, one GPL, and one LGPL. mkisofs links to the GPL library, and that is the remaining problem. And it can be solved by removing HFS support. Yuhong Bao _ R U Ready for Windows Live Messenger Beta 8.5? Try it today! http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/WindowsLiveMessenger
RE: The legality of cdrecord
The build scripts are considered to be part of the source code (GPL2 §3, GPL3 §1), and therefore must be under the GPL or a compatible licence; the CDDL is neither (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses#CDDL). That is exactly why the code, not just the build scripts, are CDDL in current versions of cdrtools. Now the remaining problem is about the GPLed library that the CDDL mkisofs links to. Removing HFS support would solve this problem. Yuhong Bao _ Are you ready for Windows Live Messenger Beta 8.5 ? Get the latest for free today! http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/WindowsLiveMessenger
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 01:21:25PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 11/8/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence for that non-GPL code. This is a false claim! The GPL does not require to change the license of such other code and any lawyer would laugh on you as this would be illegal. To clarify: it's not that the GPL requires you to change the licence of other code. It is that the GPL requires certain code (derivative works, build scripts necessary to compile the software) to be licensed under the GPL. If you are not the author of that code then you have to then consider whether you have the right to license that code under the GPL. In the case of CDDL-licensed code, the answer is no, because the CDDL requires the code to be licensed under the CDDL, which contains restrictions that are then incompatible with the GPL. Of course, that still leaves the question of whether the CDDL code is being used in such a way that the GPL would require it to be licensed under the GPL. I'm not in a position to comment on that either way, but the majority consensus seems to be yes. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes: John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence for that non-GPL code. This is a false claim! The GPL does not require to change the license of such other code and any lawyer would laugh on you as this would be illegal. If you still belive it, give a proof by sending an apropeiate quote from the original GPL text. This has already been provided in this thread. For those following along with this thread, Jörg has either chosen not to respond to Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://mid.gmane.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED], or is not reading the list in which this discussion is taking place. Either of which are his own problem to fix. -- \ [T]he question of whether machines can think [...] is about as | `\ relevant as the question of whether submarines can swim. | _o__) —Edsger W. Dijkstra | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:44:56PM +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: On 11/8/07, John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Of course, that still leaves the question of whether the CDDL code is being used in such a way that the GPL would require it to be licensed under the GPL. I'm not in a position to comment on that either way, but the majority consensus seems to be yes. When calculating the the majority consensus on that being a yes are you using Bayesian probability theory or is it just an epistemic community mindset sort of thing? OK, fair point, I should have ended that last sentence at the comma. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On 07/11/2007, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects. As has been said already, the GPL does allow non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects, but it requires that code then to be distributed under the GPL. But to do so may infringe the licence for that non-GPL code. To take an extreme example, including proprietary source code in software that was then distributed under the GPL would not infringe the GPL, but it would certainly infringe the copyright in that proprietary code. The same principle applies with a free licence such as the CDDL. my claims (being aligned with lawyer statements) are true. I'd be interested to know which lawyer statements you are referring to (genuine question - feel free to mail me the details off-list if you've previously posted them here). John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
I talked to someone on IRC and looks like the only license issue concerns mkisofs. This links to both GPL and CDDL code and this is illegal. This is of course a lie: None of the programs in cdrtools has license problems. cdrecord and other programs are 100% CDDL. mkisofs is GPL but uses CDDL library code. This is intentionally allowed by the GPL as the GPL is a highly asymmetric license. The GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects. No non-GPL source is based on or derived from GPL code. In particular, I just got an email from the author of cdparanoia that he has already given permission to the author of cdrtools to use the cdparanoia code as it was LGPL. This is also a lie - cdparanoia _was_ _not_ LGPL! The paranoia code was under GPLv2 only. I created a library from the code and I asked the paranoia author for the permission to change the license to LGPL. This was needed as libparanoia is used by a CDDL projekt. BTW: The reason for the Debian fork was definitely not a license problem but the missing will from a few Debian maintainers to cooperate. 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:38:39PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: mkisofs is GPL but uses CDDL library code. This is intentionally allowed by the GPL as the GPL is a highly asymmetric license. The GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects. No non-GPL source is based on or derived from GPL code. I think the question is not whether there is an infringement of the GPL, but whether there is an infringement of the CDDL. According to the FSF, the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL because of the notice provisions and patent retaliation clause (6.2) in the CDDL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). If CDDL-licensed code is included in a GPL program, then this will breach the CDDL, which requires modifications to be licensed under the CDDL. But if the CDDL licence is used, then this will conflict with the GPL. So the question is whether the CDDL library code in mkisofs is being used in such a way that it should in fact be licensed under the CDDL. If so, then by my reading that is a breach of the CDDL, not of the GPL. John (IAAL, but TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
John Halton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:38:39PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: mkisofs is GPL but uses CDDL library code. This is intentionally allowed by the GPL as the GPL is a highly asymmetric license. The GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects. No non-GPL source is based on or derived from GPL code. I think the question is not whether there is an infringement of the GPL, but whether there is an infringement of the CDDL. It is not! According to the FSF, the CDDL is incompatible with the GPL because of the notice provisions and patent retaliation clause (6.2) in the CDDL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). Don't belive a site that publishes an incorrect FAQ for their own license. Don't believe people who make inappropriate generalisations. Don't believe people who do not discuss specific license problems. If CDDL-licensed code is included in a GPL program, then this will breach the CDDL, which requires modifications to be licensed under the CDDL. But if the CDDL licence is used, then this will conflict with the GPL. It definitely does not as the CDDL explicitly allows to use CDDL code with code under different licenses. The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. OS distributors that asked their lawyers _do_ publish the original cdrtools. Only laymen claim that there is a problem 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:38:39PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: I talked to someone on IRC and looks like the only license issue concerns mkisofs. This links to both GPL and CDDL code and this is illegal. This is of course a lie: None of the programs in cdrtools has license problems. mkisofs is GPL but uses CDDL library code. This is intentionally allowed by the GPL as the GPL is a highly asymmetric license. The GPL forbids GPL code to appear inside non-GPL project, but it allows non-GPL code to appear in GPL projects. Oooh, let me give that a try. I'm a millionaire who lives in a house on the beach. I'm a millionaire who lives in a house on the beach. I'm a millionaire who lives in a house on the beach. Drat, it didn't work. I guess repeating a thing doesn't make it true after all! -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The legality of cdrecord
The CDDL-licensed code is not included in the GPL program; the CDDL only applies to the build scripts. Not anymore. Now almost all of the program is CDDL, except 2 libraries, one GPL, and one LGPL. mkisofs links to the GPL library, and that is the remaining problem. Yuhong Bao _ R U Ready for Windows Live Messenger Beta 8.5? Try it today! http://entertainment.sympatico.msn.ca/WindowsLiveMessenger
Re: The legality of cdrecord
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) writes: The GPL explicitely allows to use code under other licenses from GPL code. Please point out exactly where the GPLv2 explicitly permits this. On the contrary, in section 2b, the GPLv2 explicitly requires redistribution under the terms of the GPLv2. = 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: [...] b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. = Redistributing a GPL work in such a way that it's not licensed as a whole [...] under the terms of this license is thus a violation of the license terms on the work. -- \I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said 'pet | `\ supplies'. So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that | _o__) said 'compact cars'. -- Steven Wright | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[debian-legal] The legality of cdrecord
I talked to someone on IRC and looks like the only license issue concerns mkisofs. This links to both GPL and CDDL code and this is illegal. In particular, I just got an email from the author of cdparanoia that he has already given permission to the author of cdrtools to use the cdparanoia code as it was LGPL. Yuhong Bao _ Express yourself with free Messenger emoticons. Get them today! http://www.freemessengeremoticons.ca/?icid=EMENCA122
