Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation
Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts <at> alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Raul Miller <moth <at> debian.org> writes:
[...]
> There's an additional problem: cdrtools, at least as Debian
> distributes it, uses some code for which Schilling is not the
> copyright holder. The HFS support, for example, is copyright Robert
> Leslie, and licensed under the normal, sanely interpreted GPL.
>
> cdrecord is not distributable by anybody, including Schilling, in this
> state.
[...]
cdrtools consists of a bunch of largely independent applications and libraries
(e.g cdrecord, readcd, mkisofs, cdda2wav), debian/copyright lists the licenses
and copyright holders in detail.
The two issues mentioned in this thread influence different parts of cdrtools:
* defaults.c /*
* WARNING you are only allowed to change this filename if you also
* change the documentation and add a statement that makes clear
* where the official location of the file is why you did choose a
* nonstandard location and that the nonstandard location only refers
* to inofficial cdrecord versions.
*
* I was forced to add this because some people change cdrecord without
* rational reason and then publish the result. As those people
* don't contribute work and don't give support, they are causing extra
* work for me and this way slow down the cdrecord development.
*/
This one is used and linked against all applications of cdrtools since 2.01a26
(previously only in cdrecord). If it is GPL incompatible it indeed breaks the
e.g. mkisofs' and cdda2wav's original copyrights.
The second issue
* If you modify cdrecord you need to include additional version
* printing code that [...]
in cdrecord/cdrecord.c only applies to cdrecord which is completely copyrighted
by JS. Therefore he is able to license it as GPL+restrictions and if the
restrictions are still DFSG free we are able to ship it as part of Debian/main.
- If cdrtools stopped being distributed as whole and would be split into
separate tarballs for the different applications, because otherwise this part of
GPL ...
--------------------------
But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work
based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and
thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
--------------------------
... could give us a headache.
cu andreas
Reply to: