[arch-general] Burning From Command Line

[Jan de Groot]

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:29 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that
> > > dropped libcdio
> > > because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? 
> >
> > Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't
> > want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive.
> > In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions
> > applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL.
> 
> You are obviously not correct, check Solaris.....
> 
> libcdio has two legal problems:
> 
> 1)	It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code.
> 	Most people believe that this is not permitted.
> 
> 2)	libcdio is based on code that is available under
> 
> 	-	GPLv2 _only_
> 
> 	-	CDDL
> 
> 	The related code was never made available under a different
> 	license. The "Autor" of libcdio first claimed that the code 
> 	is "GPLv2 or any later" now he claims it is GPLv3. He did 
> 	however never ask the real author of the related code for 
> 	permission to do this license change and he now as a result
> 	of his violations would definitely not get this permission.
> 
> > Please stop spreading this nonsense.
> 
> It is you who spreads nonsense :-(
> 
> Please stop this!

1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL.
This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to
gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license
to ordinary GPL in section 3.

2) I found some bugreport on launchpad with that claim from you, but
besides that, I can't find any information. The bugreport says you
should take it up with the FSF, but somehow I can't find any reference
about that.

If linking GPL and CDDL code together isn't a problem for you and your
lawyers, then I don't know why 1) would be a problem for you either.

As for your claims, there's still an open question for you:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/011082.html