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

[pyther]

On 01/27/2010 11:18 AM, kludge wrote:
> On 01/27/2010 09:49 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>    
>> Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:17:01 -0500
>> schrieb pyther<pyther at pyther.net>:
>>
>>      
>>> Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is
>>> huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some
>>> odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk
>>> for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they
>>> would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court.
>>> This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the
>>> donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to
>>> the hiring of a lawyer).
>>>
>>> Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life.
>>> It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to
>>> take the "risk."
>>>        
>> I doubt that someone will go directly to court. If someone sees
>> licensing issues he most likely will first ask the Arch devs to remove
>> cdrtools from the repos. If this will be the case, they can just remove
>> it and revert to cdrkit. This won't cost anything.
>>
>> If there really was such a legal issue I bet no other distribution
>> would have cdrtools in its repos or many other distributions would have
>> been sued already. So why should Arch Linux after many years the first
>> distro to be sued?
>>
>> And as I've already written I can't find the CDDL in the cdrtools
>> source package. I can only find the GPLv2. So cdrecord and mkisofs are
>> both licensed under the GPLv2.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Heiko
>>
>>      
> here's a proposal for the future of this discussion:
>
> 1) Joerg is no longer allowed to participate in the the discourse unless
> directly questioned.
>
> 2) Allan: ditto.
>
> 3) All other participants work toward creating a formal proposal and
> then debating and resolving reservations about that proposal, each in turn.
>
> 4) Aaron, as overlord, set a sunset clause on the discussion period, act
> as moderator (or delegate if he's sick of this shit), and maintain final
> approval/veto over the proposal that emerges.
>
> Anyone?
>
> -kludge
>    
I disagree.

Allan should be able to participate because he is a core developer. 
However, I think this needs to go to arch-dev-public or maybe better yet 
arch-dev-private (if this issue isn't already there).

 From that point the developers can talk among themselves what they want 
to do as it is their project. Then if they choice they can let use know 
the results.

This isn't a democracy, it is a dictatorship. Luckily the dictators are 
nice and listen to the community every now and then.

~pyther