Feature changed by: Chuck Norris (bugmenot12) Feature #311186, revision 29 Title: original cdrtools Package Wishlist: Done Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: openSuSE distributes the package wodim instead of the package cdrtools. The reason this happens is a claim of the Debian maintainers that the present license of the package cdrtools is incompatible with GPL. However, even if it were the case, it does not make a good reason to exclude cdrtools from openSuSE. + However, the licensing issue was the reason why cdrtools was removed + from openSuSE the first place! Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: cdrtools is better maintained and it is less buggy. Discussion: #1: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-01-31 22:22:32) See also: Many Linux distributions now come with broken variants of cdrtools (http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html) #2: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-07 12:39:23) This topic has been done to death, not least in the huge flamewar on the Debian mailing list between the cdrecord author and some of the Debian developers. It's not based on some half-arsed claim by the Debian maintainers either: all the major distributions, including the commercial ones Redhat and Novell, have looked at the legal implications of the license on cdrecord and determined that they can't legally distribute it. This is a very good reason for not including cdrtools in Opensuse. Plus, cdrkit (wodim etc.) is still being developed. #3: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-07 13:07:03) (reply to #2) Any documents to back up your claims? I am particularly interested in an official and verifiable statement for Novell. #4: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-07 13:30:43) (reply to #3) You can read the whole sordid tale here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109 (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109) Even some of the Debian developers believed that the licence change was motivated by personal problems between them and Joerg Schilling. Redhat's reasoning for the Fedora project: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00000.html (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00000.html) From some of the Opensuse developers: http://lists.suse.de/opensuse-factory/2009-07/msg00054.html (http://lists.suse.de/opensuse-factory/2009-07/msg00054.html) Note here that the developers don't believe that patches to cdrecord get accepted upstream. And also that since these messages were posted cdrkit has started releasing again. Discussion on this is just beating a long dead horse - if you want cdrecord just head over to software. opensuse.org untick "Exclude user's home projects" and search - it's there. #5: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-07 14:26:01) (reply to #4) If you want official statements try the release notes: http://www.novell.com/linux/releasenotes/x86_64/openSUSE/10.3/#15 And there's nothing more verifiable than the fact that cdrkit is used in all the major distros in place of cdrecord. Another informative thread: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-January/006688.h... #6: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-07 19:51:02) (reply to #5) This caused both my brain and my machine to overheat :-) Unfortunately, the release notes (http://www.novell.com/linux/releasenotes/x86_64/openSUSE/10.3/#15.) do not say why cdrtools are dropped. The informative thread (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2009-January/006688.h...) does not name the party whose copyright laws are offended by cdrtools . The present source of cdrtools , 3.01, contains two components licensed under GPL: autoconf and mkisofs . autoconf is a build tool so it is irrelevant. mkisofs is indeed GPL but it is a separate program, therefore it can coëxist with CDDL software if it is distributed as a separate package. #7: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-07 20:18:05) (reply to #6) The first post in the Debian bug I posted lays out what the problem is quite clearly. "In cdrtools 2.01.01a03 license of several makefiles have been changed to a custom version of CDDL, which is a non-GPL- compatible license." Nothing to do with autoconf. Unless the cdrecord author has reversed those license changes none of the major Linux distros will pick up cdrecord again, that horse has been flogged to death many times #8: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-07 21:08:37) (reply to #7) CDDL, modified or not, is incompatible with GPL, at least if we believe the FSF (believe the FSF) (the reasons why it is deemed incompatible are not explained.) If this were reason to drop cdrecord , we would have to drop flash-player as well, wouldn’t we? #9: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-07 21:29:04) (reply to #8) No. The cdrecord licence is (at least in the opinion of most Linux distros) not legally valid because it puts CDDL licensed files in a GPL program. That is why they don't want to distribute it. Flash, on the other hand, is a completely separate program licensed under a legally valid license. The Flash license, even though it's not open source, allows re-distribution - which is why you'll find it in the non-oss ("non open source") repository. #10: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-07 22:27:56) (reply to #9) cdrecord puts CDDL-licensed files into what GPL program? ( cdrecord itself is CDDL) #11: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-07 22:47:51) (reply to #10) I should have said it the other way round (GPL parts in a CDDL licensed program). Again just read the Debian link in my first post - the first post in that bug explains the problem as clear is it can be explained. quote:"In cdrtools 2.01.01a03 license of several makefiles have been changed to a custom version of CDDL, which is a non-GPL-compatible license." #12: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-08 00:07:56) (reply to #11) There are no GPL parts in cdrtools, except for mkisofs which can easily be taken out. #13: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-08 00:55:24) (reply to #12) It still looks like a mix of CDDL and GPL, including the custom build system he has in there. It's also only had one release in nearly 7 years now (in 2009 AFAICT) and from the comments by developers in forums he won't accept patches from other people. Even if the GPL/CDDL ambiguity was fully resolved by removing the last bits of GPL code there's no chance that Linux distros would include CDDL stuff when there's a perfectly good GPL project that does the same thing, and actually gets some development done. #14: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2011-02-10 16:46:10) (reply to #13) Yeah? cdrkit lacks DVD+ and BD support, do I need say more? #15: Tim Edwards (tk83) (2011-02-10 17:27:44) (reply to #14) But dvd+rw-tools does, and is installed by default, used by apps such as Kde and has no licensing issues. #16: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-10 21:21:35) (reply to #13) Jörg says: ‘I am accepting any patches that make sense and that are portable.’ His target of choice is Solaris. #17: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-11 10:22:27) (reply to #10) Problem: mkisofs (GPL) links to libschily (CDDL) #18: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-11 10:31:39) (reply to #17) IMHO, GPL code can link to commercial libraries (although not the other way round). It is discouraged but legally possible. #19: Michal Marek (michal-m) (2011-02-11 14:17:00) (reply to #18) No, unless these libraries are a normally part of an operating system, which is not the case of libschily. #21: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-11 17:21:07) (reply to #19) So how can be Dev-C++ distributed under GPL? Delphi libraries are not part of an operating system either. #22: Michal Marek (michal-m) (2011-02-14 10:25:08) (reply to #21) Dev-C++ is a Delphi program, right? I'm not a lawyer to asses this, but the delphi libraries could be considered part of the "compiler" as well. #23: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-14 17:06:23) (reply to #22) Options: * Build it with a customised compiler that allows extending it with CDDL libraries; I am not sure whether such a compiler is available. * Alternatively, if libschily is adopted as part of the operating system, everyone should be happy. Thoughts? #24: Michal Marek (michal-m) (2011-02-14 17:17:50) (reply to #23) OK, come back once libschilly is "normally distributed" with the compiler... #20: Christopher Yeleighton (yecril71pl) (2011-02-11 17:19:03) (reply to #18) It seems the problem is that CDDL does not allow linking GPL to it (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2011-02/msg00089.html) : * After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken. This is incorrect, CDDL compliance is broken, if anything. * while CDDL Section 3.6 permits combination with code under other licenses, it nonetheless requires that "the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the [ combined program ]." Since it is impossible to observe certain requirements of the CDDL while simultaneously respecting the GPL's prohibition of additional restrictions (GPLv2 Section 6), the CDDL Section 3.6 permission is insufficient to allow the combination. This is still as vague as can be, so the best I can do is to paste the relevant texts here: CDDL: * You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Software with other code not governed by the terms of this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the Covered Software. Here are the points: 1) There is no need to distribute mkisofs with libschily. 2) Note the "mistakes" made by Mr. Moglen, here in italic. #25: Chuck Norris (bugmenot12) (2013-12-22 16:24:41) Beware. Despite this licensing issue being UNRESOLVED, cdrtools has been added to factory: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/multimedia:apps/cdrtools -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/311186