Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system

[Måns Rullgård <mru@inprovide.com>]

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> writes:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>> Summary: a while ago, Joerg Schilling (upstream) replaced the
>> copyright headers in the files of his build system inside of the
>> cdrtools package with references to a CDDL license context.
>>
>> In #350739, the reporter claims that we and JS are violating the GPL
>> because not all files required to create the executable work are
>> available under the GPL license.
>
> It's not that they have to be available, it's just that they have to
> be compatible. [Moreover, JS violation of the GPL isn't interesting
> because he's presumably the copyright holder, and can therefore do
> whatever he wants with his work.]

Even if JS can do whatever he wants, Debian can't lawfully distribute
a work with inconsistent license terms.

>> CDDL is considered GPL-incompatible for linking with GPLed code.
>
> Not just linking; it's the creation of a derivative work of a GPLed
> work. Frankly, I don't see how you can argue that cdrecord is not a
> derivative work of the GPLed part of cdrecord and the build system.

I disagree.  The final executable is no more a derivative of the build
system than it is of the compiler.  After all, no parts of the
makefiles end up inside the executable.

>> We have the option of splitting the source package into code (GPLed)
>> and meta-code (CDDL). Would that be suitable for main?
>
> I don't see how this would get around the GPL incompatibility issues,
> as the build system is only useful for cdrecord.

Not that I'd go so far as to call it useful, but JS does use the same
makefile templates for other software.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com