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

Re: cdrtools

On Mon, 2006-07-10 at 18:42 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006, Erast Benson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 20:15 -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > NB: Please follow Debian list policy and refrain from Cc:'ing me.
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > 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.
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> The clarifications unfortunatly basically ignore the crux of the
> rather straightforward explanation above. Indeed, what you have quoted
> below is typical of the oversimplification present throughout this
> discussion about what the licenses actually say, and what they mean:
> 
> >     [...] 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.
> 
> Regardless, both Jörg and yourself are welcome to have your own
> opinion on this matter and act accordingly. What I have explained is
> my interpretation, and it leads to how I would act, and how I think
> Debian should act as well.
> 
> I unfortunatly do not have any additional time to spend laboriously
> explaining this issue, so unless there are very specific (and brief)
> arguments as to why my interpretation is incorrect, I'll stop
> repeating myself (and bothering -devel) by participating further in
> this discussion of ossified assertions.

I don't think you can that easily close this thread. And I doubt that
Joerg needs to provide any other additional arguments other then he
already provided.

Don't forget that Joerg were main developer of cdrtools for quite some
time and we should respect his point of view on how result of his work
for the last (what 10 years?) should be licensed. Debian is built on top
of contributions made by people like Joerg. Besides, Joerg made a good
point on why he thinks that his mix of CDDL and GPL code is OK. Please
provide real fact arguments aligned with general license interpretation
rules, if none provided, I suggest to close those bugs.

Erast
Reply to: