[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Wodim trouble

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg Schilling fokus fraunhofer de> wrote:
Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net> wrote:

> You have refused to cite specific legal problems with cdrkit, so there
> are no "known legal problems" that anyone can see.  The proper reporting
> method is bugzilla.redhat.com; can you point to where you reported them?

It seems that you did never check this as otherwise you did know the reports.


Just with a quick search in the Red Hat Bugzilla, only though distro section Fedora, I found this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=cdrkit&product=Fedora

Listed 39 bugs. A quick look shows a disturbing amount of WONTFIX (ignoring rhbz#472924). But I also see things have still been progressing. However, what I want to know is what prompted the relicense to CDDL in the first place? From what I can see, Jörg Schilling, you are the maintainer and creator of the "original software" cdrtools. Also, why are you so hostile to cdrkit? The implicitly permits forking via its redistribution clause. If you wanted to be able to mix with proprietary code and non-Linux systems, the LGPL would have been just as good. 

While it is true that the GPL permits linking to CDDL libraries, that is only in the case if the library is a "system library," which is a library that is NECESSARY for working on a particular OS. This is usually how it is justified that GPL software can be built using Visual Studio on Windows, even if I personally don't like it. The runtime library in Windows is almost certainly not GPL compatible, as was the case for many other UNIX application runtime libraries at the time. That is what they built into the GPL, not a "free for all" library linking exception.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]