I also hope this helps somehow. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Karl Berry via RT <licensing@fsf.org> Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 1:42 AM Subject: [gnu.org #544172] Fwd: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit To: chantry.xavier@gmail.com Hello Xavier, Eben just sent me this summary of his discussion with Jörg Schilling on the subject of the cdrtools mkisofs. He said that it can be republished/posted anywhere. When/if you do that, please do so *in its entirety*. All too easy for things to be taken out of context, so let's at least get the full version out there. Hope this helps somehow. Thanks, karl@gnu.org Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:24:23 -0500 From: Eben Moglen In September 2008, I was asked by Mark Shuttleworth if I could help Canonical discuss with Jörg the measures necessary to include cdrtools in Ubuntu. I spoke to Jörg by phone at first to explain my role, and then by email. I reminded him in doing so that I had agreed with him about the acceptability of combining GPL'd code with a C-library under CDDL in order to make the Debian/GNU/OpenSolaris stack called Nexenta. (I believe this part of our conversation is the source of Jörg's mistaken statement that I somehow indicated that cdrtools is non-infringing, although the issue of the "system library exception" in GPLv2 is completely distinct from the problem presented by the CDDL-licensed libraries libscg and libschilly combined with GPL'd mkisofs in cdrtools.) After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken. We told Jörg that as far as we could see he was the only copyright holder on the CDDL'd libraries, which he confirmed. In that case, I pointed out, he could give all the permission necessary to solve the problem, without any license changes: he simply needed to give permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions. We drafted for him the thirty-nine words needed: "You are permitted to link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL." Jörg disputed our analysis. He argued to us: (1) that the binary mkisofs is not derivative of the CDDL-licensed libraries because it merely links to them; and alternatively that (2) CDDL Section 3.6 ("Larger Works") permits the combination. He claimed to have German legal advice confirming him on point (1), but without regard to his German legal analysis, which differs from that of our German lawyers, the argument is incorrect as a matter of law, at least in the United States, and GPL'd mkisofs (whose copyright is at stake) is a US work to which US copyright law applies under the Berne Convention. As to his point (2), while CDDL Section 3.6 permits combination with code under other licenses, it nonetheless requires that "the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the [combined program]." Since it is impossible to observe certain requirements of the CDDL while simultaneously respecting the GPL's prohibition of additional restrictions (GPLv2 Section 6), the CDDL Section 3.6 permission is insufficient to allow the combination. Hence the permission we advised him to grant. Though Jörg continued to argue that he didn't *need* to grant the permission, he never explained why, in the face of opposing legal analysis on behalf of the copyright holders of mkisofs he didn't *want* to grant a harmless permission that would allow his work to be included in Canonical's Ubuntu distributions. After weeks of discussion and many hours of my time and the time of my associate Aaron Williamson, Mark Shuttleworth decided there was no point in further fruitless negotiation and I agreed. SFLC was not paid for its work by any party.