Re: cdrtools - GPL code with CDDL build system
#include <hallo.h>
* Francesco Poli [Tue, Mar 21 2006, 12:18:37AM]:
> > >> D-L v. JS, now that's a flame war I'd like to see ;-)
> > >>
> > >> Flaming aside, this is a non-issue. The source for cdrecord
> > >contains > invariant sections (those obnoxious "warnings" about using
> > >device > names), so it's certainly not DFSG-free.
> > >
> > > Aaargh! :-(
> > > I was hoping this problem had been fixed...
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > How can such a package still be in main with this non-freeness?
> > > I'm surprised that nobody filed a serious bug for this...
> >
> > I guess everyone has just gotten used to Schilling's inane ramblings,
> > and ignores him without further thought.
>
> I used to hope that "ignoring upstream insane statements" doesn't
> include ignoring DFSG-freeness issues with the package, though!! :-(
Relax. Let's expect an answer to
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=350739 - either
cdrtools will be declared as licensed under the GPL or not under GPL, then
we know what we are on. And yes, we shold face the possibility of the
removal of cdrtools from Debian.
> > > since dvdrtools is in non-free too...
> >
> > Someone's launched an investigation into the reason for this. Let's
> > wait and see what comes back.
>
> Assuming that its debian/copyright file is accurate (in Debian sid), it
> seems that the same license (and added restrictions, passed off as
> "license interpretation") applies.
> If this is the case, my bet is that dvdrtools is in non-free for pretty
> the same reason why cdrtools should not be in main (at least, not as it
> is now)...
> Awkward! :-(((
Don't count much on dvdrtools, it has no active upstream at all (no, I
don't mean the guys whoes only heroic act was the replacement of the
Schilly build system with autodev-stuff).
Eduard.
Reply to: