[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 Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 04:25:45PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> cdrtools uses this library, too, the license is:
> ----------------------------------------
> 	The libedc_ecc sources are protected intellectual property
> 	of Heiko Eißfeldt.
> 
> 	The libedc_ecc sources are definitely not under GPL.

[Please Cc me on replies.]
Hello,
cdrecord can compiled without linking against libedc_ecc (edit
cdrecord/Makefile), it still works with reduced functionality, ie. you
cannot use the -raw* modi for data-tracks. According to JS this is ATM
mainly a problem for low cost cd-writers (Phillips OEM) with broken
firmware. - These writers don't support SAO, so you are stuck with TAO.

Proposed solution:
Upload a new version of cdrtools-nolibedc_ecc (1.11a36) to main but
remove libedc_ecc for the source. Build misofs, cdda2wav, cdrecord-dev
and additionally a new package named cdrecord-nolibedc from this
source package - document the fact that libedc has been disabled in
manpage and package description. This package should have
Provides|Replaces|Conflicts with cdrecord.

Upload a new version of cdrtools to non-free, which has complete
upstream sources and does not include the patches from Debian that
change cdrecord, ie. especially 03_cdr_mmap. Only build a binary
package cdrecord from this source-package, that Replaces|Conflicts
with cdrecord-nolibedc.

Anything that has versioned depends on cdrecord will have to change
them to Depends: cdrecord-nolibedc (version) | cdrecord (version).

Is it ok for a package in main to have
Depends: something_in_main | something_in_non-free?

I've chosen cdrecord-nolibedc/cdrecord instead of
cdrecord/cdrecord-nonfree because I think that the package cdrecord
should contain what it always has been: a full fledged version.
This'll keep breakage for users a minimum.

Comments?
               cu andreas

Attachment: pgp33wvBZ1QwG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: