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

[Pierre Schmitz]

Am Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2010 13:40:08 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
> Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please
> > > show me a report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a
> > > legal problem with the original software.
> > 
> > Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not.
> 
> In the legal system I live and in case you live in the USA for you too,
> _you_ would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the
> original software.
> 
> Either do this or stay quiet.
> 
> Jörg

The point is that nobody of us can proof for sure if it's legal or not. So 
it's quite pointless to continue arguing here.

Personally I have no objections against having a cdrtools package in our 
repository if someone wants to maintain it.

Licenses are important, but one shouldn't be too picky about it. If I remember 
correctly the initial question was if it is legal to distribute a GPL licensed 
software build with CCDL licenses build system. Both licenses are 100% free 
and both parts have the same author.

In this case we only have a very theoretical problem which might be 
interesting for lawyers but has no real impact. Even if the licenses are not 
compatible there wont be any real consequences.

However, I am still with Allan here. All this situation was initially caused 
by Jörg himself and talking about a proof but not actually providing it does 
not help.

PS: I wonder if this discussion will come to a conclusion before optical discs 
are obsolete.

-- 

Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre