Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation
Andreas Metzler <ametzler@logic.univie.ac.at> writes:
> 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
<snip>
> 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.
That's certainly GPL-incompatible. It's an extra restriction. Since
it affects functional behavior, I'd call it non-free. "You must
change this filename" requirements are generally considered non-free,
so I'd expect "You may not change this filename without paying this
fee" requirements to be non-free.
> 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 ...
I think if that could easily be done, and the packages didn't Depend
on each other, then you could say that they're separate works and
merely aggregated into one package.
> --------------------------
> 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
--
Brian Sniffen bts@alum.mit.edu
Reply to: