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

Re: cdrtools

On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 08:39 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > On Fri, 07 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > > > 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 holder.
> > 
> > It seems to be an offtopic here, but could you please elaborate a
> > little bit further, which particular statement of which license
> > prevents it?
> It's pretty obvious if you read the CDDL and the GNU GPL, but just to
> make it abundantly clear for those who don't read licenses for fun:
> CDDL 3.1 requires that Covered Works made available in Executable form
> requires the Source Code form to be distributable only under the CDDL;
> CDDL 3.4 disallows additional restrictions. CDDL 6.2 (patent
> retaliation) is a restriction not present in the GPL.
> GPL 2 requires all of the work when distributed together to apply to
> the GPL. GPL 6 dissallows additional restrictions. GPL 2c is a
> requirement not present in the CDDL.
> As you can see, they're incompatible with eachother in either
> direction. Indeed, I've been told by those involved in the CDDL
> drafting that this was done by design. [See the video of the Solaris
> discussion if you want to see someone talk about it; you can also see
> me discussing this issue and others as well in the same video.]

After reading [1] and discussing the issue with Joerg, it is still
remains unclear to me why resulted CDDL + GPL licensed work can not be
legally redistributed in Debian. Joerg actually clarified quite a bit
and his clarifications seems more reasonable than yours, i.e.

"""It may be the main point that people fear that compiling cdrtools
creates unredistibutable binaries. I see no reason why binaries may
be unredistibutable as I don't see any contradictory requirements
from CDDL/GPL. Both licenses are source licenses and require to make the
source available in case a binary is distributed. This is no
contradiction but just the same requirement."""

[1] http://bugs.donarmstrong.com/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350739


Reply to: