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

[Thomas Bächler]

Am 27.01.2010 10:31, schrieb Allan McRae:
> Joerg,
> 
> The only thing that will definitely change our minds with regards to
> this is actually seeing a copy of the report saying the linking
> performed with cdrtools is not an issue due to license restrictions.
> Until that time, this discussion is going nowhere and makes you appear
> trollish with your replies.

I disagree. It seems that most of the mkisofs code was actually written
by Jörg himself or written while the package was under Jörg's
maintainership (only a small portion is from the original author, who
has no interest in it anymore), so I would consider him the defacto
copyright holder on mkisofs, which means he is the only one who could
sue us if linking the GPL-code against a CDDL library would in fact
violate the GPL. Now as he is the one who claims that this is NOT a
problem, he won't do that. This is a non-issue, nothing will happen to
us, nobody will be pissed, nobody will sue us, everything will just be
better and the world will be a happier place.

+1 from me to dump cdrkit and to move back to cdrtools. The only reason
this discussion ever started is because someone THOUGHT that this MIGHT
become a problem, but wasn't even sure about it. As Jörg pointed out, it
was never proven that the GPL and CDDL are incompatible in that way,
some people just SUSPECTED it MIGHT be that way. Do you see how many
"maybe"s are in there? This is the typical Debian license paranoia,
which Arch has never had, and hopefully won't get it anytime soon.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/attachments/20100127/b394fdbe/attachment.bin>