Erast Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't forget that Joerg were main developer of cdrtools for quite some > time and we should respect his point of view on how result of his work > for the last (what 10 years?) should be licensed. Debian is built on top > of contributions made by people like Joerg. Besides, Joerg made a good > point on why he thinks that his mix of CDDL and GPL code is OK. Please > provide real fact arguments aligned with general license interpretation > rules, if none provided, I suggest to close those bugs.
1) The GPL requires that all scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable be released under terms compatible with the GPL. 2) The Schily makefile system is licensed under the CDDL. 3) The Schily makefile system is used to control compilation and installation of the executable 4) The CDDL is not compatible with the GPL Now, this can quite easily be worked around by Joerg agreeing that all of the software in the cdrecord tarball can be treated under the terms of the CDDL (assuming that he has the right to do so, of course - any significant patches that have been contributed by people under the terms of the GPL would have to be rewritten or permission granted by the authors). Then it just ends up being a "Is CDDLed material acceptable for Debian?" argument, which is much more straightforward but not really suited for the debian-devel mailing list. (For what it's worth, I have no great objection to the CDDL. Most of the aspects of it that people claim to be unhappy with are also in the MPL, and we still ship Mozilla quite happily. Yes, I know that most of Mozilla is also available under the GPL. I don't really see why that's relevant...) -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
