[arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

[Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi]

On 01/25/2010 12:50 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> On 26/01/10 01:19, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Jan de Groot wrote:
>>
>>> It seems that GPL and CDDL have some conflicting paragraphs, so even if
>>> CDDL allows linking to GPL with this exception, GPL doesn't allow the
>>> other way around.
>>
>> I am not sure where you have this idea from....
>>
>> The CDDL allows to combine CDDL code with other code
>> and the GPL permits to link any GPLv2 program against any independent
>> library under any license.
>>
>> Note that the GPL is an asymmetric license that disallows code based 
>> on GPLd
>> software but if a program _uses_ a library, the library definitely is 
>> not based
>> on the program code that just uses the library code.
>>
>> The common understanding of the laywers in Germany and the USA on 
>> what's happening
>> when a program links against a library is that this creates a so 
>> called "collective
>> work" which is not a derived work. The GPL definitely allows such 
>> collective works.
>>
>> See page 114 ff. in:
>>
>> http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen is the legal advisor of the OpenSource Initiative 
>> opensource.org.
>
> The FSF interprets that quite differently.
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>
>     This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope
>     that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which
>     makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module
>     covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot
>     legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for
>     this reason.
>
>
> So the debate as it stands is:
>
> FSF says no
> Sun says yes
>
> Now, the FSF has an interest in the GPL as Sun does in the CDDL. So 
> these answers are probably not completely unbiased.  At least one 
> answer is wrong...  the obvious key is knowing which, and we really 
> are not in a position to find out ourselves.
>
> So the only solution I can see is to cover out asses and just not 
> distribute cdrtools.
>
> Allan
>
Hello,

My question is: this is relevant in Arch Linux? I guess that in general 
there are no strong rules about license issues under Arch Linux.

I remember well, that some time ago, I asked some things about some 
packages readline and BSD license. One comment, if I remember correctly, 
is that strictly speaking there would be problems between OpenSSL and 
software that makes use of it.
Finally the conclusion was something like: "Why discuss this? Everything 
is free software!".

So: Why is the opposition? Why comply with details in this particular 
case and in all other not? All is free software at all!

PS: If there's one thing I love about Arch Linux is that it does not 
care about this great parody/paradox about licensing.


Good day \forall

-- 
Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi ( djgera )
http://www.djgera.com.ar
KeyID: 0x1B8C330D
Key fingerprint = 0CAA D5D4 CD85 4434 A219  76ED 39AB 221B 1B8C 330D