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

Re: Bug#218073: ITP: dvdrtools -- DVD writing program

Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org> said:

> Julien Delange <julien@gunnm.org> wrote:
>> Package: wnpp
>> Severity: wishlist
>> * Package name    : dvdrtools
>>  Version         : 0.1.5
>>  Upstream Author : Bernhard Rosenkraenzer <bero@arklinux.org>
>> * URL             : http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/dvdrtools/
>> * License         : GPL
>>  Description     : DVD writing program
>> dvdrtools is a fork of cdrtools/cdrecord with suport for writing
>> to DVDs
> [...]
> Make sure to read "Begin restricted code ..." in cdrecord/cdrecord.c,
> which requires changing the status message to show that this is not
> cdrecord but a fork. (GPL 2c).

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

I do not interpret that as a need to change the status message to show
that this software is a fork.

It just talk about a copyright notice, copying conditions and
warranties, nothing about the fact that the software is forked or not.

It would anyway be very problematic to interpret this license that
way. Any big modification can be seen as a fork...

> Iirc dvdrtools does not do that and cdrecord's author regularily
>breathes fire over that.

In fact, it seems that the cdrecord's author regularily breathes fire
about dvdrtools, which project he seems to consider as a harm to his

> This was also the reason why this package was already removed once
>from the distribution (it was packaged under the name dvdrecord

Any insighful pointers?

>From what I found via google, you seems to be a little bit... how to
say that... especially favorable to the cdrecord author: according to
you were ok to leave messages in favor of non-free software in
cdrecord in the debian package, which is a position I can hardly
defend or even understand.

At the bug removal, it talks about a "restricted code for quality

       * Begin restricted code for quality assurance. 
         * Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remove the 
         * Copyright and version printing code below! 
         * If you modify cdrecord you need to include additional version 
         * printing code that: 
         *      -       Clearly states that the current version is an 
         *              inofficial (modified) version and thus may have bugs 
         *              that are not present in the original. 
         *      -       Print your e-mail address and tell people that you 
         *              will do complete support for this version of cdrecord. 
         *      -       Tell the users not to ask the original author for 
         *              help. 


I'm not sure at all this is GPL-compatible or DFSG-compliant. Does
someone already look into that question?
One thing is sure, it has nothing to do with GPL 2c.

Mathieu Roy

  | General Homepage: 		http://yeupou.coleumes.org/		|
  | Computing Homepage:		http://alberich.coleumes.org/  		|
  | Not a native english speaker:					|
  |	http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english 	|

Reply to: