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

Re: cdrtools

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:38 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > I completely fail to see any logic here:
> > * cdrtools, obviously completely non-free, is in main
> what? you think if it is non-GPL than it should go to non-free? This
> is nonsense.

No. The primary issue is that the mixture of a GPL+CDDL work creates a
work that cannot be distributed by anyone else but the copyright

We don't even have to get into the argument of whether or not the CDDL
is DFSG Free or not so long as this is the case. See #377109 et al.

> And, please, don't tell me that CDDL is less free than 3-clause BSD,
> etc.

Clearly it is, but that's not at issue here.

> I'd like to see current Debian leaders to comment on this
> *political* issue and stop minority discrimination right there.

The people involved in maintaining the cdrtools package have been
commenting on this issue. They're the ones whose opinion actually
matters first. [ftpmaster's opinion is next; unless you're calling for
a GR about CDDL.] In this case, the bug has been refered to the
tech-ctte, so when they make a ruling, you'll know about it.

> > * dvdrtools, a fork of the last GPLed version, is in non-free
> dvdrtools - totally useless effort. Besides, its known to be buggy
> and linux-only which is against Debian philosophy therefore should
> never be in main.

Something being linux-only has never precluded it from being
distributed in main, just like a program which only runs on a single
architecture. Even then, the only kernel we officially support right
now is the linux kernel.

Don Armstrong
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
 -- Mark Twain 

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: