Re: Bug#218073: ITP: dvdrtools -- DVD writing program
Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> wrote:
> 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...
I don't know, but read together with "If the software is modified by
someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what
they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by
others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations." it is
not that insensible that "appropriate copyright notice" should
reflect the fact that is a fork.
Whether the fact that cdrecord waits some time at startup to give time
to press Ctrl-C qualifies as "normally reads commands interactively"
is a different question.
[...]
>> This was also the reason why this package was already removed once
>>from the distribution (it was packaged under the name dvdrecord
>>then).
> Any insighful pointers?
No, it was just the stuff above.
[snip, does not apply to current packages in debian-archive]
> At the bug removal, it talks about a "restricted code for quality
> assurance"
> * 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.
> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=193619>
> 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.
Redirecting to debian-legal.
The intent of the code is the same as the "tainted"-stuff in the Linux
Kernel, to make it easy to differ between original Code and modified
code especially in bug-reports.
cu andreas, wondering why people don't use dvd+rw-tools.
Reply to: