> As it turns out, it appears that the conditions are > contradictory: > while they grant permissions for the individual components, > some of > the programs in there, taken as a whole (i.e., containing > code under > GPL and code under CDDL, including code from libraries the > program > contains), could only be distributed in violation of both > licenses, so > it couldn't be legally distributed. Like I have said before, there are some distributions that do release cdrtools(original) and I have not heard that they have gotten in trouble :) I will put a direct quote from the following page: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html <quote> The attacks have been based on the fact that cdrtools was licensed under the GPL. As a result, on May 15th 2006 most projects from the cdrtools project bundle have been relicensed under CDDL (giving more freedom to users than the GPL does). </quote> I do not see Joerg suing anyone for using cdrtools. If he does, then many people will start removing it. > > I can see why Debian (and anyone else) would object to > distributing > code under these conditions :-) > > Now, IANAL and I haven't looked into the details, I > draw my > conclusions from the links you posted. > > > Anyhow, even if this is not the exact situation, it appears > that there > may have been another component to the decision to fork. > Other issues > than licensing are clearly visible in the discussion > threads about the > original package and GNU/Linux distributions. This alone > might have > been enough to justify a fork, and the licensing change may > have very > well been just the event that got the trigger pulled. I agree with this :) IT must have been something else instead of the GPL or other excuse to pull the triger. > > -- Regards, Antonio -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
