[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Matthew Basset: What do you mean, it's still in Fix Released state. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
He first changed to Fix Committed by mistake, then changed back to Fix Released. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
In any case, it is wrong: You cannot fix a nonexisting problem. Cdrtools of course is distributable. ...and Ubuntu still distributes a buggy, dead and undistributable fork instead of original software :-( -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Oops -- pressed the wrong button. Have reverted my accidental change (I am surprised I was able to make it though!) ** Changed in: cdrtools (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Released = Fix Committed ** Changed in: cdrtools (Ubuntu) Status: Fix Committed = Fix Released -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Submitter asserts The CDDL contains restrictions not present in the GPL without citation, making the assertion nonactionable. Does there exist a clear and detailed argument about the incompatibility asserted? I find in other places that the use of CDDL'ed smake to build is identified as a blockage. GPL v2 requires the build scripts, but not the build tools be distributed. GPLv2: 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. Including the smake scripts appears to be required. Including (binary or source) smake in the OS distribution may or may not be required by the next sentence in the GPLv2: 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. (As an aside, ..., forking smake seems far more likely to be a successful project than cdrkit has ever been.) GPL v3 requires the build scripts and explicitly allows the nondistribution of smake: The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. smake seems to qualify as a generally available free program which is not part of the work and therefore its inclusion does not seem to be required under GPLv3. Overcoming the smake blockage seems straightforward. Assuming the other unidentified blockages are similarly trivial, forward motion seems easy. Without actually identifying these other blockages, it is impossible to classify them as trivial or not. So, what are the asserted blockages, in sufficient detail that they can be evaluated? -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
It seems to me that a major part of the discussion here is whether it would be legal to distribute cdrtools if some of the people who contributed to cdrecord (and other parts?) under the GPL objected to the fact that it is now CDDL. Are those contributors known? If so, can't they be asked to clearly state whether or not they object? If they don't then there is no issue - if they do, then regardless of the legal situation it is probably best not to distribute their contributions, given that the FOSS community is based on the whole on good will and respect of other people's work. And even if tracking down the contributors is a bit tricky, there should be enough interested people to make the job easier - and perhaps the nice people at lwn.net could be asked to put a short article on their front page about the issue. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
First let me point to something important: The fork cdrkit is in conflict with the Copyright law and for this reason undistributable (neither in binary nor in source). The fact that some Linux distributors distribute cdrkit seems to unveil a social problem. We currently have a strange situation where some Linux distributors distribute non-legal software and at the same time refuse to distribute the legal original software while claiming this is a result of so-called license problems. There are even other OSS projects that are based on code from cdrtools (e.g. GNU vcdimager) that do not legally use the code they took from cdrtools. Vcdimager did e.g. did claim that the code is under GPL although that code never has been published under GPL by it's author and the author did never give permission to put this code under GPL. So it seems that even the FSF has a very strange interpretation of legality. If the Linux distributors would really do things based on a legal analysis, they would of course not distribute vcdimager and cdrkit. If those Linux distributors would be serious, they would distribute the original cdrecord, cdda2wav, readcd, as the only GPLd program that uses non-GPLd code is mkisofs. THe rest is 100% CDDL. It is obvious that some Linux distributors have a social problem that needs to be addressed. The GPL is very clear about the fact that GPLd code may call non-GPLd code. If this was not the case, then all Linux distributions would be illegal. So even with mkisofs, there is no problem as mkisofs only does what the GPL intends to be OK. The lisense change did happen 3.5 years ago and the related contributors of the GPLd code of course know about the license change. Nobody who owns Copyright on related code did ever even try to discuss the current situation, so it is obvious that what happens with mkisofs (a work under GPL calls code from _other_ works being not under GPL) is not only intended to be legal by the GPL but also accepted by all Copyright holders. The dispute was started by a completely unrelated person who owns absolutely no Copyright on cdrtools and who for this reason cannot sue people for what happens in cdrtools. Meanwhile, some Linux distributions (e.g. Suse) did start to distribute cdrtools again. What we need to discuss now is merely whether Ubuntu likes to stay at the dark side or whether Ubuntu makes fact based decisions and comes back to the FOSS community that collaborates. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
I agree that it would be surprising if said contributors did not know of the licence change, and that if they have not complained yet it would be surprising if they had issues with it. Again though, are those contributors known? If they can be contacted and confirm that they are satisfied then the current objections to distributing cdrtools will become pretty much unmaintainable, even from the point of view of the people who are objecting now. And presumably everyone who wants to burn CDs will be the happier for it. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
First, you need to know the background information: wodim and cdrkit in general is undistributable because it is in conflict with the Copyright law and the GPL. The original cdrtools have absolutely no license problem. This was proved two times by an in depth license review made by the Sun legal departement. I don't care about the FSF GPL FAQ because it is in conflict with the GPL license text. The FSF GPL FAQ was not written by lawyers but by a laymen who is (acording to Eben Moglen) incorrectly informed. The GPL was made intentionally compatible with _any_ library under _any_ license and this is one important reason why there is no license problem with the original code. If you like to read non-biased information about the GPL, I recommend to read the GPL review made by the lawyer of the OpenSource initiative: http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GPL.PDF and a word by word discussion in: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf Note that even Debian agreed on March 6th 2009 to go back to the original cdrtools as soon as possible. Ubuntu should become legal too and go back to recent well maintained and legal original software instead of using a questionable and buggy fork. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
@Schily: In regards to your claim of There is no issue as the GPL allows non-GPL code to be used from a GPLd project, this only applies to licences that are GPL-compatible. CDDL is not one such licence: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html Therefore, a special exception needs to be granted by the copyright holders of the GPL code before it can be linked to CDDL libraries: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs Now, the above links all refer to the opinion of the Free Software Foundation, and I realise that it's not a universally-agreed opinion. However, in looking at the source licence notices on mkisofs (as distributed with cdrtools-2.01.01a39), there is a multitude of contributors who have licensed their code under GPLv2+, without said special exception, and it's quite possible that at least some of these authors share the FSF's view of GPL licensing. I apologise for flogging a dead horse; really, I came to this thread because I was quite frustrated about not having cdrtools (specifically cdrecord) to use on Hardy Heron, and sought to discover why it was removed. Unfortunately for me (as somebody wishing to use cdrtools without having to build my own package), the premise of this bug report is quite justifiable: read according to the FSF stance, mkisofs really cannot be distributed. Personally, I don't use mkisofs all that much, and would therefore be happy with a middle ground where all the cdrtools packages are reinstated, bar mkisofs. However, regardless of whether Ubuntu would agree to go along this path, the mkisofs licensing issue should be fixed, either by getting in touch with all the copyright holders for a special exception, or by dual-licensing the parts that mkisofs uses. I understand that both paths are really troublesome: the former because you have to track down lots of authors; the latter because you have to identify all the CDDL code that mkisofs uses, all the code that said CDDL code uses, and so on and so forth, and arrange to have them dual- licensed, and if some of these have other copyright holders, then to have their assent to the dual-licensing as well. Anyway, long story short, I'm just writing as a happy user of cdrtools who is now unhappy that it can no longer be distributed with Ubuntu. Lately I have coastered two CDs trying to burn the new OpenSolaris 2008.05 release with cdrkit, and am only too glad to see cdrtools return. I don't know if the above can really be resolved at all, but this is my hope that it will. All the best! -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Will remove the following packages from hardy: cdda2wav | 10:2.01.01a33-0ubuntu2 | amd64, hppa, i386, ia64, lpia, powerpc, sparc cdrecord | 10:2.01.01a33-0ubuntu2 | amd64, hppa, i386, ia64, lpia, powerpc, sparc cdrtools | 10:2.01.01a33-0ubuntu2 | source mkisofs | 10:2.01.01a33-0ubuntu2 | amd64, hppa, i386, ia64, lpia, powerpc, sparc --- Reason --- (vorlon) inconsistent license, not distributable (LP #177154) -- Going to remove the packages now. Continue (y/N)? y Deleting... done. ** Changed in: cdrtools (Ubuntu) Status: New = Fix Released -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Your claims are a result of missreading the GPL - sorry your claims are wrong. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
How did this get uploaded in the first place? I thought we were shipping the sanitised Debian version without the licensing mess. Or... there's always the option of using the LRM/volatile method and distributing the two incompatible libraries separately (link on demand in a tmpfs). :) Ideally the software and library would be made available together under a single license (CDDL or GPL) which would solve all the issues. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
There is no issue as the GPL allows non-GPL code to be used from a GPLd project. The GPL _only_ forbids to use GPLd code from non-GPL projects, but this does not happen in cdrtools -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Please, not again. Do I really have to lose all respect I had some time ago for you guys? All of the sudden everybody appears to be hero. My knowledge of the licences is at the point where I understand most of it, but I'm not a lawyer, so I don't wanna get into that discussion. Cdrtools, Cdrkit, Libburnia. Three friendly competitors on the FOSS arena in the area of cd-recording. There have been numerous discussions (even inside Ubuntu, I'll get to that later) what to use, what should be uploaded, what shouldn't and what is the way of the future. I believe I will say no lie if I claim that anyone but siretart wasn't interested at all. We discussed, we fought, we made technical arguments, we made human arguments, yet everyone choose to let it pass by. I used to say ages ago that cdrkit isn't and cannot be the way of the future. Nobody was developing it, and all maintaince that was taking place in it was changing build system and pull changes from the cdrtools which were under GPL. That was Debians choice, that was your choice. They had all rights to do it, if you look at the licence. They choose to *improve* the software. Yet again, a valid point in this world of ours. Ideology mattered, people did not. I was flamed and insulted. Yet what I used to say back then became the truth. People used to say cdrtools shouldn't be used of it's licence(s) and it's maintainer, who often took wrong approach with discussion to people. I am not here to discuss what's he or what you're like, but me and Thomas talk with him with mostly no spark between us. Our discussion are strictly technical. O, why can't we just all get along? Licences? What about people? Shouldn't people be more important? Did we forget once again why we are here? And can't we just get around the desk, and create an agreement? We decided to give users choice. Isn't that what Free/Open Source software is all about? And collaboration? Plus if that wasn't enough, it was put in Multiverse to prevent any possible arguments against it licence-wise. We talked with Schily, he agreed to help with bugs on LP and it doesn't get any better then that when you have upstream author helping with bugs. Wrong approach sometimes? Perhaps ... But we need to help ourselves, we need to help Schily, and he will help us. All I ever saw was flaming, with no technical and human discussion from any side. Who will make the first move? Will it be us? Or will you do another fork? I am a Libburnia developer. I do not see the future... ... but I know we all need to collaborate to make sure future is bright for each and every one of us. I know each and every one of you do great work, let's not forget that, so please don't think I have anything against you. I am no one in the Ubuntu community, I understand, but I did help form this decision of uploading cdrtools, and I firmly stand behind it. Sincerely, M. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Under the existing licensing, cdrtools simply can't be legally distributed at all. By doing so we are infringing the copyright of several people. Keeping it in multiverse doesn't help that. The solutions are either for the libraries and build system to be relicensed under terms compatible with the GPL (keeping them under the CDDL as well is perfectly acceptable), for all the other copyright holders to grant permission for the current licensing or for cdrtools to be removed from the archive. The latter should be done in any case, until the situation is resolved. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 177154] Re: cdrtools is undistributable
Matthew, please try to avoid writing such claims before we had the chance for a discussion on the topic. I am sure you will change your mind as you cannot require constraints that cannot be ensured even for a 100% GPL program. -- cdrtools is undistributable https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/177154 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
