Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

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