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

[Joerg Schilling]

Allan McRae <allan at archlinux.org> wrote:

> On 28/01/10 00:31, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > The GPL claims to be a valid OSS license.
> >
> > In order to become a valid OSS license, a license must not only follow the
> > weak rules from the FSF but also follow the more stringent rules from the
> > OpenSource initiative:
> >
> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> >
> > The OSI did mark the GPL as a non-free license some years ago because some
> > people from the FSF did write strange claims about the GPL. As a reaction, the
> > FSF replied that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant
> > to: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
> >
> > We for this reason may safely asume that the GPL of course allows to publish
> > two independent OSS projects in a single archive. See OSS definition
> > paragraph 9.
>
> This is where your argument fails and it has been the stumbling block in 
> all previous debates on this issue.
>
> The GPL may allow separate projects to be distributed in the one 
> tarball, but it considers scripts necessary to build a project part of 
> the same project.  This is the issue.
>
> You claim they are separate projects; others claim the GPL does not 
> allow that.  Your evidence that this is allowable is a mysterious 
> private email that apparently says all is OK...
>
> That is almost insurmountable.  If a lawyer provided a statement saying 
> that it was legal and was prepared provide a defense in case of any 
> issues, then we may be able to talk about this again.
>
> Until that point, nothing productive can be achieved discussing this 
> issue, so I will not continue reading this thread.
>
> Allan