On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:29 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Jan de Groot <jan@jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio?
Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL.
You are obviously not correct, check Solaris.....
libcdio has two legal problems:
1) It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code. Most people believe that this is not permitted.
2) libcdio is based on code that is available under
- GPLv2 _only_
- CDDL
The related code was never made available under a different license. The "Autor" of libcdio first claimed that the code is "GPLv2 or any later" now he claims it is GPLv3. He did however never ask the real author of the related code for permission to do this license change and he now as a result of his violations would definitely not get this permission.
Please stop spreading this nonsense.
It is you who spreads nonsense :-(
Please stop this!
1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license to ordinary GPL in section 3. 2) I found some bugreport on launchpad with that claim from you, but besides that, I can't find any information. The bugreport says you should take it up with the FSF, but somehow I can't find any reference about that. If linking GPL and CDDL code together isn't a problem for you and your lawyers, then I don't know why 1) would be a problem for you either. As for your claims, there's still an open question for you: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/011082.htm...