[gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Carsten Lohrke]

As discussed here¹, the author of cdrtools, Jörg Schilling, violates the GPL 
in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed makefiles as 
well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL lately. Debian 
seems to fork² cdrtools therefore.

Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed cdrtools-2.01.01 
alpha ebuilds from the tree.


Carsten


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
[2] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Lars Weiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 717 bytes --]

* Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> [06/09/01 14:44 +0200]:
> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed cdrtools-2.01.01 
> alpha ebuilds from the tree.

I don't think so.

We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
not free.  The only problem I see is, that you can't decide
if you want to install the "free" parts of cdrtools only, or
everything.  I prefer a splitted installation for every
single part of cdrtools, but Jörg will not separate them.

Regards, Lars

-- 
Lars Weiler  <pylon@gentoo.org>  +49-171-1963258
Gentoo Linux PowerPC    : Strategical Lead and Release Engineer
Gentoo Infrastructure   : CVS Administrator
Gentoo Foundation       : Trustee

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer]

Tach Lars,                                  0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)

Lars Weiler schrieb:
> * Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> [06/09/01 14:44 +0200]:
>> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
>> cdrtools-2.01.01 alpha ebuilds from the tree.
> I don't think so.
> We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
> not free.

 That is not the point.  Mixing GPL software with CDDL dependencies (or  
vice versa) is not allowed, the build scripts and some vital libraries are  
CDDL in cdrecord and FSF declared this "GPL incompatible" (see XFree86  
some years ago).

V-Li

-- 
Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3
http://www.gnupg.org/

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 344 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 14:51, Lars Weiler wrote:
> We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
> not free.

The problem is not that it's not free*, but that linking GPL and CDDL code 
violates the GPL. If the whole cdrtools code were CDDL, there were no 
problem. 

*The OSI considers the CDDL as free.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Luis Medinas]

On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 15:24 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 14:51, Lars Weiler wrote:
> > We have a lot of other applications in the tree, which is
> > not free.
> 
> The problem is not that it's not free*, but that linking GPL and CDDL code 
> violates the GPL. If the whole cdrtools code were CDDL, there were no 
> problem. 
> 
> *The OSI considers the CDDL as free.
> 
> 
> Carsten
I'm sure that situation will be fixed by the upstream (Jörg) since it
violates GPL license. About the debian fork we will take a look at it
and see where's going.

-- 
Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~metalgod


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 15:45, Luis Medinas wrote:
> I'm sure that situation will be fixed by the upstream (Jörg) since it
> violates GPL license. About the debian fork we will take a look at it
> and see where's going.

Read the Debian bug. Jörg Schilling is badmouthing Debian developers and tells 
everyone that they should _believe_him_ that the CDDL is compatible with the 
GPL, while no one else thinks so. It is unlikely that the overly 
self-convinced Jörg Schilling will change his mind. I'd be surprised, if the 
situation will be fixed upstream.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Luis Medinas]

On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 16:59 +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 15:45, Luis Medinas wrote:
> > I'm sure that situation will be fixed by the upstream (Jörg) since it
> > violates GPL license. About the debian fork we will take a look at it
> > and see where's going.
> 
> Read the Debian bug. Jörg Schilling is badmouthing Debian developers and tells 
> everyone that they should _believe_him_ that the CDDL is compatible with the 
> GPL, while no one else thinks so. It is unlikely that the overly 
> self-convinced Jörg Schilling will change his mind. I'd be surprised, if the 
> situation will be fixed upstream.
> 
> 
Now i know the real story since i've been talking with Debian
Maintainers. So there's isn't anything to say but we are working close
to upstream and they actually offer commit access to maintainers of
another distros. Cdrkit project sounds much more like an open project
than cdrtools so i'll be with them. This was pretty much what happened
with Xfree/Xorg. So cdrtools will be the "close" project and cdrkit the
"open" project. Like i said before Gentoo joined this new project.
Now the license problems are fixed and we can ship this on our portage
tree tarballs for our new releases etc...

The package is in the tree and it's asking for testing before i can
remove it from pkg.mask and provide the cdrtools virtual.

-- 
Gentoo Linux Developer
http://dev.gentoo.org/~metalgod


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

On Tuesday 05 September 2006 05:38, Luis Medinas wrote:
> Now the license problems are fixed and we can ship this on our portage
> tree tarballs for our new releases etc...
Err, I think the problem was for binpkg, we could already ship cdrtools on the 
portage tree tarballs... ebuilds are GPL2.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 230 bytes --]

On Monday 04 September 2006 23:38, Luis Medinas wrote:
> Now the license problems are fixed and we can ship this on our portage
> tree tarballs for our new releases etc...

there was/is no problem beyond our livecds/binpkgs
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Lars Weiler]

* Luis Medinas <metalgod@gentoo.org> [06/09/05 04:38 +0100]:
> The package is in the tree and it's asking for testing before i can
> remove it from pkg.mask and provide the cdrtools virtual.

Now, cdrkit is in the tree.  Furthermore I added
cdrtools-2.01.01a08 to the tree.  That's the latest GPLed
version of cdrtools.  We never had that version in the tree
(we did a move from a07 to a09), so it's ~arch currently.

metalgod and I will reactivate the cdrtools-virtual, so that
we can include more and other possible applications for
cd-burning into portage.  I heard about reactivating
Freedrtools as well.

Regards, Lars

-- 
Lars Weiler  <pylon@gentoo.org>  +49-171-1963258
Gentoo Linux PowerPC    : Strategical Lead and Release Engineer
Gentoo Infrastructure   : CVS Administrator
Gentoo Foundation       : Trustee
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Luca Barbato]

Luis Medinas wrote:
> Now i know the real story since i've been talking with Debian
> Maintainers. So there's isn't anything to say but we are working close
> to upstream and they actually offer commit access to maintainers of
> another distros. Cdrkit project sounds much more like an open project
> than cdrtools so i'll be with them. This was pretty much what happened
> with Xfree/Xorg. So cdrtools will be the "close" project and cdrkit the
> "open" project. Like i said before Gentoo joined this new project.
> Now the license problems are fixed and we can ship this on our portage
> tree tarballs for our new releases etc...
> 

cmake for a C program is a BIG shortsight.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 673 bytes --]

I'm the first to not like Schilling's ways, but...

On Friday 01 September 2006 14:44, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> building GPL software with CDDL licensed 
> makefiles
Can't see how this is pertinent, I can build BSD licensed software with 
autoconf that is GPL, and use GCC to compile..

> as well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL 
> lately.
This is a bit more debatable, he *can* link it, if he can change mkisofs 
license to allow linking to non-GPL-compatible code.
Of that, I'm not sure tho.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer]

Tach Diego,                                  0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò schrieb:
>> as well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL
>> lately.
> This is a bit more debatable, he *can* link it, if he can change mkisofs
> license to allow linking to non-GPL-compatible code. Of that, I'm not
> sure tho.

 As Schily is not the only one who has contributed code to mkisofs he  
can't change its license all on his own.



V-Li

-- 
Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3
http://www.gnupg.org/

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 576 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 02:00, Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote:
>  As Schily is not the only one who has contributed code to mkisofs he  
> can't change its license all on his own.
That's why I said I wasn't sure :) Still, if I remember correctly he gets the 
copyright assignment for cdrtools, if he has the copyright of mkisofs, even 
if others have contributed and gave him the assignment, he can change the 
license.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: cdrtools license issues

[Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer]

Tach Diego,                                  0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò schrieb:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 02:00, Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer wrote:
>>  As Schily is not the only one who has contributed code to mkisofs he  
>> can't change its license all on his own.
> That's why I said I wasn't sure :) Still, if I remember correctly he
> gets the copyright assignment for cdrtools, if he has the copyright of
> mkisofs, even if others have contributed and gave him the assignment, he
> can change the license.

 I think he would, if he could (too lazy to check).

V-Li

-- 
Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3
http://www.gnupg.org/

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1577 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 15:08, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> I'm the first to not like Schilling's ways, but...
>
> On Friday 01 September 2006 14:44, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > building GPL software with CDDL licensed
> > makefiles
>
> Can't see how this is pertinent, I can build BSD licensed software with
> autoconf that is GPL, and use GCC to compile..

The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be licensed 
under the GPL. A system to create make files (such as autoconf) is not as 
such part of the work. Completely automatically generated makefiles do not 
qualify either as they do not fall under copyright law (they are not original 
works). It seems however that the makefiles included in the cdrtools package 
should fall under the GPL. 

This however does not mean necesarilly that Joerg Schilling violates the GPL 
as one cannot violate ones own copyright. If there is code that is not his 
however, he would violate the GPL.
>
> > as well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL
> > lately.
>
> This is a bit more debatable, he *can* link it, if he can change mkisofs
> license to allow linking to non-GPL-compatible code.
> Of that, I'm not sure tho.

The GPL sucks in linking respect. Given the GPL however linking GPL-ed 
software to non-system libraries that are not GPL licensed (Not even LGPL) is 
a violation of the GPL. The GPL is very vague on the subject though.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 512 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be licensed
> under the GPL.
It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual code. I think it's one of 
the gray points.

Still it does not make any sense to ship the makefiles under CDDL and the rest 
under GPL ... it's just insane.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 622 bytes --]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006 16:31:51 +0200 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
| On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
| > The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be
| > licensed under the GPL.
|
| It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual code. I think
| it's one of the gray points.

The GPL is pretty explicit about build scripts that're used to build
GPL code. It's also pretty explicit that generated content, such as
what autoconf produces, is not covered by the GPL.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaranm at ciaranm.org


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 16:31, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 15:36, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > The build scripts are part of the source code. And as such must be
> > licensed under the GPL.
>
> It's opinable, as you don't mix them with the actual code. I think it's one
> of the gray points.

Actually the GPL specifically states that build scripts are part of the source 
code explicitly.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 793 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 16:42, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Actually the GPL specifically states that build scripts are part of the
> source code explicitly.
And requires you to make it available, but it doesn't strictly require its 
license terms to be the same. Maybe I'm confused a bit, but for what I can 
understasnd of the license, he _can_ license them under CDDL... but when we 
get them together with the source code, GPL still applies; which means CDDL 
applies only on the makefiles by themselves. I never said it made sense, 
understand me, but it doesn't actually create a GPL violation, as we still 
get them as GPL'd software.

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> As discussed here?, the author of cdrtools, J?rg Schilling, violates the GPL 
> in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed makefiles as 
> well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to CDDL lately. Debian 
> seems to fork? cdrtools therefore.
> 
> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed cdrtools-2.01.01 
> alpha ebuilds from the tree.

No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
and live cds.  We do not have to do anything with the package in
portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that does the violating
(and only if they then redistribute the built binary).

Same rule as the binary kernel modules situation.

So we are just fine, one of the advantages of being a source-based
distro :)

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1209 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
> No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
> and live cds.  We do not have to do anything with the package in
> portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that does the violating
> (and only if they then redistribute the built binary).

Well, I for one would rather not give a user the option to screw themselves to 
this magnitude with a simple "emerge cdrtools".  There's people that aren't 
reading this list, and aren't going to know what's going on.  It's unfair to 
them.

> Same rule as the binary kernel modules situation.

The only way I see this similar is if the kernel actually had subdirectories 
containing said binary modules.

We have an alternative stated [1].  I think we need to focus more on the 
problems of using the alternative, then dealing with what some consider to be 
a rather sketchy legal dispute.

[1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn
-- 
Chris White
Gentoo Developer aka:
ChrisWhite		cpw
ChrisWhite|Work	WhiteChocolate
VanillaWhite		Whitey
WhiteLight		WhiteCheese
WhiteSugar		WhiteButter
WhiteWall		WhiteLemon
WhiteApple		WhiteBlanket
WhiteEnergy		WhiteWhite

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

Chris White wrote:
> We have an alternative stated [1].  I think we need to focus more on the 
> problems of using the alternative, then dealing with what some consider to be 
> a rather sketchy legal dispute.
> 
> [1] http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn

WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
sanity).


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 808 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 12:46, Jakub Moc wrote:
> WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
> don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
> do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
> sanity).

What are talking about?  Debburn is the debian fork suggested in the original 
post.  The whole point of it IS to make it respect the GPL.  Also if you stop 
and look at the URL, it's an svn repository with the SOURCE for it.  Most 
people don't svn repository binaries.

-- 
Chris White
Gentoo Developer aka:
ChrisWhite		cpw
ChrisWhite|Work	WhiteChocolate
VanillaWhite		Whitey
WhiteLight		WhiteCheese
WhiteSugar		WhiteButter
WhiteWall		WhiteLemon
WhiteApple		WhiteBlanket
WhiteEnergy		WhiteWhite

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --]

Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 12:46, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> WTH is debburn??? Geeez, make the folk respect GPL like everyone else, I
>> don't want any debburn. Besides, we don't distribute any binaries (if we
>> do on release media, we'll have to stop until JS regains a bit of mental
>> sanity).
> 
> What are talking about?  Debburn is the debian fork suggested in the original 
> post.  The whole point of it IS to make it respect the GPL.

Wonderful. Make upstream respect it, instead of forking.

>  Also if you stop 
> and look at the URL, it's an svn repository with the SOURCE for it.  Most 
> people don't svn repository binaries.

You've probably misunderstood me, I was referring to the "oh, we need to
get rid of cdrtools ASAP" call, not to the link you've posted.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 771 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 15:18, Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
> > No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
> > and live cds.  We do not have to do anything with the package in
> > portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that does the violating
> > (and only if they then redistribute the built binary).
>
> Well, I for one would rather not give a user the option to screw themselves
> to this magnitude with a simple "emerge cdrtools".  There's people that
> aren't reading this list, and aren't going to know what's going on.  It's
> unfair to them.

set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing your 
ideals by removing the package is wrong
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 627 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 13:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing your
> ideals by removing the package is wrong
> -mike

Ok, where the hell did I even say to remove it.  People that are saying that 
just need to stop, wtf.  I'd rather just focus on the "GPL" safe alternative 
that's less likely to screw people over.
-- 
Chris White
Gentoo Developer aka:
ChrisWhite		cpw
ChrisWhite|Work	WhiteChocolate
VanillaWhite		Whitey
WhiteLight		WhiteCheese
WhiteSugar		WhiteButter
WhiteWall		WhiteLemon
WhiteApple		WhiteBlanket
WhiteEnergy		WhiteWhite

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 912 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 16:28, Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 13:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing
> > your ideals by removing the package is wrong
> > -mike
>
> Ok, where the hell did I even say to remove it.  People that are saying
> that just need to stop, wtf.  I'd rather just focus on the "GPL" safe
> alternative that's less likely to screw people over.

sounds like you need to re-read your own e-mail:
> Well, I for one would rather not give a user the option to screw themselves
> to this magnitude with a simple "emerge cdrtools".  There's people that
> aren't reading this list, and aren't going to know what's going on.  It's
> unfair to them.

if you werent implying "remove the package" when you said "not give a user the 
option", then what else could you possibly be talking about
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 953 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 13:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> if you werent implying "remove the package" when you said "not give a user
> the option", then what else could you possibly be talking about
> -mike

Working on an the presented alternative, debburn, like I've been saying in 
pretty much all my emails!  This way we can say "Hey, if you're worried about 
the licensing for this package, here's an alternative".  Yes, I'd also like 
to find the alternative closest to cdrtools that's GPL because the vast 
majority of CD burning packages out there use it.  Heck, dvdrtools is GPL, 
you could use that.  As long as we have an alternative to point users to, 
good.  THAT'S what I'm trying to say.

-- 
Chris White
Gentoo Developer aka:
ChrisWhite		cpw
ChrisWhite|Work	WhiteChocolate
VanillaWhite		Whitey
WhiteLight		WhiteCheese
WhiteSugar		WhiteButter
WhiteWall		WhiteLemon
WhiteApple		WhiteBlanket
WhiteEnergy		WhiteWhite

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 685 bytes --]

Chris White wrote:
> Heck, dvdrtools is GPL, 
> you could use that.  As long as we have an alternative to point users to, 
> good.  THAT'S what I'm trying to say.

Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently
(homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expect a
rapid development there). So, we apparently need even more forks now,
like debburn. When will people learn... :/


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Chris White]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1270 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 14:47, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently
> (homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expect a
> rapid development there). 

Hey ruby's had their entire server down for 2 days!  We sure can expect rapid 
development there!  Hey MySQL's server went down yesterday!  We sure can 
expect rapid development there!

> So, we apparently need even more forks now, 
> like debburn. When will people learn... :/

One more fork, sounds like "even more fork(s)" to me!  It has a reason for 
being forked too, this isn't like random "Hey let's go fork cause we feel 
like it".  The reason why I'm recommending looking into debburn is because 
it's a possible alternative to cdrtools which doesn't require thinking into 
the license, and possibly screwing onself over.  Heck, would you rather the 
user had no option than not installing the one package that powers just about 
all off the linux cd burning programs out there?

-- 
Chris White
Gentoo Developer aka:
ChrisWhite		cpw
ChrisWhite|Work	WhiteChocolate
VanillaWhite		Whitey
WhiteLight		WhiteCheese
WhiteSugar		WhiteButter
WhiteWall		WhiteLemon
WhiteApple		WhiteBlanket
WhiteEnergy		WhiteWhite

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Alec Warner]

Chris White wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 14:47, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Yeah, that's the previous fork that's been package.masked recently
>> (homepage returns nifty internal server error now, we sure can expect a
>> rapid development there). 
> 
> Hey ruby's had their entire server down for 2 days!  We sure can expect rapid 
> development there!  Hey MySQL's server went down yesterday!  We sure can 
> expect rapid development there!
> 
>> So, we apparently need even more forks now, 
>> like debburn. When will people learn... :/
> 
> One more fork, sounds like "even more fork(s)" to me!  It has a reason for 
> being forked too, this isn't like random "Hey let's go fork cause we feel 
> like it".  The reason why I'm recommending looking into debburn is because 
> it's a possible alternative to cdrtools which doesn't require thinking into 
> the license, and possibly screwing onself over.  Heck, would you rather the 
> user had no option than not installing the one package that powers just about 
> all off the linux cd burning programs out there?
> 

Chill out ;)

Package: app-cdr/cdrtools Herd: media-optical Maintainer: media-optical

(media-optical): metalgod, pylon

Technically it would be their call, as far as what goes on in the
package.  Gentoo itself has no obligation other than to stop
distributing binaries (solar, that means tinderbox as well).

If people want to work on alternatives for this package (debburn, or
whatever) then they are free to do so (as is true for any package).  I
don't particularly see how this is a big situation.

The only legality would be that we are somehow aiding in the GPL
violation by hosting the source, and I doubt that would hold up anywhere.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Olivier Crete]

On Fri, 2006-01-09 at 16:20 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 01 September 2006 15:18, Chris White wrote:
> > On Friday 01 September 2006 11:26, Greg KH wrote:
> > > No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
> > > and live cds.  We do not have to do anything with the package in
> > > portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that does the violating
> > > (and only if they then redistribute the built binary).
> >
> > Well, I for one would rather not give a user the option to screw themselves
> > to this magnitude with a simple "emerge cdrtools".  There's people that
> > aren't reading this list, and aren't going to know what's going on.  It's
> > unfair to them.
> 
> set the LICENSE variable and/or add an ewarn to the ebuild ... pushing your 
> ideals by removing the package is wrong
> -mike

Maybe we should p.mask the versions that contain and un-redistributable
mix of CDDL and GPL code.

-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Lars Weiler]

* Olivier Crete <tester@gentoo.org> [06/09/01 16:31 -0400]:
> Maybe we should p.mask the versions that contain and un-redistributable
> mix of CDDL and GPL code.

Or add a big, blinking warning.

Regards, Lars

-- 
Lars Weiler  <pylon@gentoo.org>  +49-171-1963258
Gentoo Linux PowerPC    : Strategical Lead and Release Engineer
Gentoo Infrastructure   : CVS Administrator
Gentoo Foundation       : Trustee
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 817 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 14:26, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:44:59PM +0200, Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > As discussed here?, the author of cdrtools, J?rg Schilling, violates the
> > GPL in his application, by building GPL software with CDDL licensed
> > makefiles as well as linking mkisofs to libscg, which he relicensed to
> > CDDL lately. Debian seems to fork? cdrtools therefore.
> >
> > Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed
> > cdrtools-2.01.01 alpha ebuilds from the tree.
>
> No, we should just stop distributing the prebuild image in our release
> and live cds.  We do not have to do anything with the package in
> portage, as it is the user who builds cdrtools that does the violating
> (and only if they then redistribute the built binary).

i agree completely
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1921 bytes --]

On Friday 01 September 2006 20:26, Greg KH wrote:
> So we are just fine, one of the advantages of being a source-based
> distro :)

Um, rereading term three of the GPL, you're right of course. The question 
remains how do we flag this. LICENSE="GPL-2 CDDL-Schily" in case of 
cdrtools!? Yes, the latter is the license file we have in the tree and 
looking at it, the only difference to the CDDL is that it includes an 
additional notice, which sets the court to Berlin, Germany.

Also we need to have a file that lists clashing licenses, so Portage (at least 
in a future, caring about licenses) will trow warnings, when binary packages 
get build. I mean we claim to be a meta-distribution, but I don't think 
projects basing their binary distributions on Gentoo can feel safe a bit with 
regards to lisensing. We do absolutely nothing to care for that right now.


While thinking about it, other issues came to my mind:

- Ciaran pushed for not installing license/copyright information 
in /usr/share/doc/${PF}. But a lot of our licenses in /usr/portage/licenses 
list specific copyright holders - of a single package, others have a 
different copyright line of course. Wouldn't this be copyright infringement, 
to distrbute a images based on Gentoo, but do not include the correct 
licenses!?

- There is at least one case we can't map right now. Think about the 
following: An ebuild licensed GPL, depends on another one, licensed CPL. Both 
licenses are incompatible. It's impossible to distinct (within our 
LICENSE="foo" stuff), if the CPL licensed tool is only used to generate 
something at compile time and also used but not linked to at runtime, to the 
case the GPL licensed application links to a library, the CPL licensed ebuils 
provides. Again, binary distributions building on Gentoo are lost.
The package I have in mind is media-gfx/graphviz in this case.


Carsten

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 969 bytes --]

Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed cdrtools-2.01.01 
> alpha ebuilds from the tree.

I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread spawned
from the 20060817 rawhide report [1].)

There are also the dvdrtools [2] fork of it as well as libburn [3] (which, as I
understand it, has a bunch of wrapper scripts to be able to interpret and
implement various of its functionality, thus (mostly) suitable a drop-in
replacement for cdrtools.

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2006-August/msg00644.html
[2] http://www.arklinux.org/projects/dvdrtools
[3] http://icculus.org/burn/
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
> > Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed cdrtools-2.01.01 
> > alpha ebuilds from the tree.
> 
> I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
> due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread spawned
> from the 20060817 rawhide report [1].)

No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built binary,
same as Debian.  We don't do that, so there is no issue for us[1].  See
my other response in this thread for details.

thanks,

greg k-h

[1] As long as we take the binary off the live cd and the install image.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Peter Gordon]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 757 bytes --]

Greg KH wrote:
>> I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
>> due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread spawned
>> from the 20060817 rawhide report [1].)
> 
> No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built binary,
> same as Debian.  We don't do that, so there is no issue for us[1].  See
> my other response in this thread for details.
> 
> [1] As long as we take the binary off the live cd and the install image.

Thanks for the clarification, Greg. :)
-- 
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Gentoo Forums Global Moderator
GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint:
  DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479
My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 251 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Alec Warner]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
>> Carsten Lohrke wrote:
>>> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed cdrtools-2.01.01 
>>> alpha ebuilds from the tree.
>> I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change
>> due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread spawned
>> from the 20060817 rawhide report [1].)
> 
> No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built binary,
> same as Debian.  We don't do that, so there is no issue for us[1].  See
> my other response in this thread for details.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
> [1] As long as we take the binary off the live cd and the install image.

and the tinderbox[1.5]

[1.5] http://tinderbox.x86.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/app-cdr/
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 167 bytes --]

On Saturday 02 September 2006 00:01, Alec Warner wrote:
> and the tinderbox[1.5]
>
> [1.5] http://tinderbox.x86.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/app-cdr/

fixed
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Lars Weiler]

* Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> [06/09/01 19:32 -0700]:
> No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built binary,
> same as Debian.  We don't do that, so there is no issue for us[1].  See
> my other response in this thread for details.
>
> [1] As long as we take the binary off the live cd and the install image.

I guess, it's already too late now.  cdrtools-2.01.01a10 is
included in the GRP-set of 2006.1.  At least for those
arches, which distribute GRP-sets.

Regards, Lars
-- 
Lars Weiler  <pylon@gentoo.org>  +49-171-1963258
Gentoo Linux PowerPC    : Strategical Lead and Release Engineer
Gentoo Infrastructure   : CVS Administrator
Gentoo Foundation       : Trustee
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list