[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Cdrtools licensing



On Wed, Apr 05, 2006 at 12:47:42AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>On 10614 March 1977, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
>>>Correct, mkisofs was initially written by someone else. JS claims that
>>>there is not that much code left, but I doubt that he could relicense it
>>>as he likes it.
>> Yup; if needs be, we could even go back to an ancient version before
>> Joerg got involved and fork from there.
>
>Only in theory. In practice we wouldnt be able to go back *that* far, we
>would lose a lot of stuff we need or want in mkisofs. But thats not a
>problem, there were never claims that any file in mkisofs has license
>problems. Its "only" the cdrecord.c part and the build system atm.

True (ish) - mkisofs can use parts of cdrecord source and libscg for
multi-session work too...

>>>Well. He did like Debian the most of the distributions until recently
>>>(where that Bug came up), as we did only very minimal changes to his
>>>code. Seems like one of the last patches, which changed libscg a bit,
>>>made him also angry a bit, but overall it was ok.
>
>> There's a long history of hostility from JS towards several of the
>> distros and the Linux kernel developers; he has a very abrasive style
>> of "discussion" and seems very rarely (if ever) capable of admitting
>> mistakes.
>
>Yesyes, i know that, im cdrtools debian maintainer for some time now. :)

*grin* Just sharing that with the rest...

>> There was some talk quite a while ago between the cdrtools maintainers
>> in several of the large distros about working together to maintain
>> patches and/or a fork, but it bogged down due to lack of time - see
>> freedrtools.freedesktop.org for more details.
>
>Yah. If we go the fork way we would do something similar via our
>existing alioth project probably. But thats for later atm.

Yup.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
Into the distance, a ribbon of black
Stretched to the point of no turning back

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: