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

Re: cdrdao license issues show that cdrtools package is non DFSG, too?



On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:20:31AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Andreas Metzler <ametzler@downhill.at.eu.org>
>> cdrecord has this:
[...]
>> | -  The fact that cdrecord is linked against libedc_ecc does not
>> |    make libedc_ecc licensed under GPL. Section 2 of the GPL does
>> |    not apply in this special case.
 
> This is very confused writing. Apparently the cdrecord author has
> tried to follow Eißfeld's fudful instructions about GPL without
> actually checking what the GPL says in its section 2.

Hello!
He probably wanted something like fetchmail, with s/OpenSSL/libedc_ecc/
| Specific permission is granted for the GPLed code in this
| distribition to be linked to OpenSSL without invoking GPL
| clause 2(b).

> <http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?forum_id=213313> implies that
> a free (partial?) replacement for libedc_ecc is being worked on.
> One may hope that it can be plugged into cdrecode as well.

It has to be, it is the same library.

> Warning: the "andreasm" behind the sourceforge notice seems to be
> different from the Andreas Metzler in this thread.

Yes, you,ll usually find me as ametzler@something.

>> |         If you create a work derived from cdrecord, you may not ship
>> |         this derived work with libedc_ecc.

> Conflicts with the second half DFSG #3 and/or DFSG #9. This clause
> will have to go even if a replacement for libedc_ecc is found/made.

The author is trying to tell that libedc_ecc is non-free software
and that you needed explicit permission from its author to use it in
your own project, even if it were a fork of cdrtools.

| Even if you create a work derived from cdrecord, you may not ship
| this derived work with libedc_ecc, you'll have to get explicit
| permission from libedc_ecc to use it.
                  cu andreas

PS: Branden could you please Cc me on your replies, too? - The
    Mail-fup2 is set accordingly, thanks.

Attachment: pgpFKSkJOoDsE.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: