On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:13:33PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: > >Most tools like k3b, nautilus and xcdroast are designed to be pretty > >front-ends to cdrecord. Due to licensing issues with cdrecord, some > >Debian developers have created a fork called wodim. My understanding is > >that wodim is a drop-in replacement for cdrecord. > > There has been a lot of FUD in the last year, but there are definitely no > licensing issues. Debign knows that there are no licensing issues. If Debian > would belive the FUD with the "license issues", then did behave differently. > That is where you are wrong: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/09/msg00002.html "Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and Jörg Schilling released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license. The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL. The FSF itself says that this is the case as do people who helped draft the CDDL. One current and one former Sun employee visited the annual Debian conference in Mexico in 2006. Danese Cooper clearly stated there that the CDDL was intentionally modelled on the MPL in order to make it GPL- incompatible. For everyone who wants to hear this first-hand, we have video from that talk available at [2]." > Cdrtools contain the following sub-packages (shortened and simplified): > > Package name License > ==================== ============== > cdrecord 100% CDDL > > readcd 100% CDDL > > cdda2wav 99% CDDL, uses a few BSD files and a LGPL library > > btcflash 100% CDDL > > rscsi 100% CDDL > > scgcheck 100% CDDL > > scgskeleton 100% CDDL > > mkisofs 100% GPL uses some GPLd libs and two CDDLd libs > > Note that the GPL was listed as "non-free" until about 4 years ago, it is > now accepted as a free license. > Listed as non-free by whom? > Note that the CDDL was listed as free license since it's early beginning in > January 2005. The CDDL is even accepted as free license by Debian. > The question is not one of freeness, but of compatibility with the GPL. > If someone at Debian did have a license problem, it could only be with > "mkisofs" and for this reason, Debian would use a recent cdrtools with the > exception of "mkisofs"..... > > If you read the GPL carefully, you will find out, that the GPL allows a GPL'd > program to depend on non-GPLd libraries as lons as the code in these libraries > is not "derived" from GPL'd code. > > Judge by your own why some people spread the FUD about the "license problems". > Well, IANAL, so I will defer to the opinions of the legal experts. They say there is a problem, and so I am inclined to believe them. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature