Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts <at> alum.mit.edu> writes: >> Raul Miller <moth <at> debian.org> writes: > [...] >> There's an additional problem: cdrtools, at least as Debian >> distributes it, uses some code for which Schilling is not the >> copyright holder. The HFS support, for example, is copyright Robert >> Leslie, and licensed under the normal, sanely interpreted GPL. >> >> cdrecord is not distributable by anybody, including Schilling, in this >> state. > [...] > > cdrtools consists of a bunch of largely independent applications and libraries > (e.g cdrecord, readcd, mkisofs, cdda2wav), debian/copyright lists the licenses > and copyright holders in detail.
> The two issues mentioned in this thread influence different parts of cdrtools: > > * defaults.c /* > * WARNING you are only allowed to change this filename if you also <snip> > This one is used and linked against all applications of cdrtools since 2.01a26 > (previously only in cdrecord). If it is GPL incompatible it indeed breaks the > e.g. mkisofs' and cdda2wav's original copyrights. That's certainly GPL-incompatible. It's an extra restriction. Since it affects functional behavior, I'd call it non-free. "You must change this filename" requirements are generally considered non-free, so I'd expect "You may not change this filename without paying this fee" requirements to be non-free. > The second issue > * If you modify cdrecord you need to include additional version > * printing code that [...] > in cdrecord/cdrecord.c only applies to cdrecord which is completely > copyrighted > by JS. Therefore he is able to license it as GPL+restrictions and if the > restrictions are still DFSG free we are able to ship it as part of > Debian/main. > - If cdrtools stopped being distributed as whole and would be split into > separate tarballs for the different applications, because otherwise this part > of > GPL ... I think if that could easily be done, and the packages didn't Depend on each other, then you could say that they're separate works and merely aggregated into one package. > -------------------------- > But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work > based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of > this > License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and > thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. > -------------------------- > > ... could give us a headache. > cu andreas -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
