https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c1 Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |meissner@suse.com AssignedTo|opensuse-communityscreening |cfarrell@suse.com |@forge.provo.novell.com | --- Comment #1 from Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.com> 2013-12-27 08:26:49 UTC --- Our legal folks have approved it at least, forwarding to them -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c3 --- Comment #3 from Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@suse.com> 2014-02-26 12:39:43 UTC --- What is the grave problem? It is approved... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c4 --- Comment #4 from qvacfcajdjw@mailinator.com M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com <M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com> 2014-02-26 16:56:35 UTC --- It was *removed* because of these problems. And in fact, Joerg Schilling has threatened SuSE with a lawsuit before, so I don't consider license trouble with him "fun" or "irrelevant": http://lwn.net/Articles/346558/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c6 --- Comment #6 from qvacfcajdjw@mailinator.com M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com <M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com> 2014-02-26 17:48:03 UTC --- It *was* removed. It has recently been re-added to openSUSE:Factory, which is why I'm asking if these issues have suddenly disappeared, or if someone did not know about the history of cdrtools. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c8 qvacfcajdjw@mailinator.com M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com <M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | --- Comment #8 from qvacfcajdjw@mailinator.com M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com <M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com> 2014-02-27 16:28:45 UTC --- Reopening, because there is no publicly available statement on the legal status of cdrtools; and so far you have only commented on the earlier legal threats of Joerg against SUSE, not on the actual GPL-CDDL-Mixing problem that caused the removal ~7 years ago. I'd like to retitle the bug report to:

...

...

Document legal situation of cdrtools licensing

Cooperation problems with Mr. Schilling (and the Anti-SUSE messages that existed in cdrtools and on the web site before) is only one of the problems. The other problem (which sparked the issue in the first place) is that the cdrtools licensing was called "unsatisfiable" before. Because there is GPL code and CDDL code involved. (Which is also why source-only Linux distributions were not affected). cdrkit is called "a fork starting from the last distributable version" for a reason, isn't it? http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/ [...] The relicensed bits include cdrecord and libscg. Other components, such as mkisofs and libparanoia, remain under the GPL and LGPL, respectively. Some of these licenses are unlikely to change; the mkisofs code has copyrights held by a number of people (and companies) other than Mr. Schilling, and going back as far as 1986. Since mkisofs, at least, is built with libscg, the resulting system is a combination of GPL and CDDL-licensed code. In the minds of most observers, this combination is not distributable. Even when current SUSE legal (i.e. Ciaran) follows the reasoning of Mr. Schily (which is apparently on the lines of "libscg is part of the operating system, and therefore excempt from GPL as per:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

Either way, SUSE should (because of the huge discussion which has developed from cdrtools over the years) **document** their position in some statement how they interpret the licenses, and why this makes cdrtools distributable in their opinion when all the other distributions seem to disagree. To make it easy for people to decide whether they follow this reasoning, or not. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c10 --- Comment #10 from qvacfcajdjw@mailinator.com M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com <M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com> 2014-02-28 17:29:54 UTC --- The quoted text is present in cdrtools-3.01/mkisofs/COPYING:

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

As mkisofs as distributed in cdrtools is GPL licensed, and links against libscg, and is accompanied by libscg (which is not a "normally distributed major component" of the operating system; and Schily already confirmed that the "special exception" does not apply here), libscg is considered part of the complete mkisofs source code and therefore MUST be GPL licensed, too. However, currently libscg is CDDL licensed. Therefore, the licensing of cdrtools is INSATISFIABLE, and cdrtools must not be distributed in binary form. Furthermore, mkisofs/Makefile explicitly is GPL licensed, but contains include $(SRCROOT)/$(RULESDIR)/rules.top include $(SRCROOT)/$(RULESDIR)/rules.cmd these files are CDDL licensed. Again, this is an INSATISFIABLE license, as the GPL says "the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable". mkisofs obviously contains CDDL licensed files in its compilation process. @Ciaran Farrell: did I misinterpret anything? Do you still consider the license of cdrtools satisfiable? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c12 --- Comment #12 from Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@inai.de> 2014-02-28 19:40:16 CET ---

libscg is considered part of the complete mkisofs source code and therefore MUST be GPL licensed

If I made a GPL program in 1996 and let it use DirectX 2.0 — which was neither installed by default nor was it "major" at that point — does not mean DirectX has to become GPL (good luck trying to enforce that). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c14 --- Comment #14 from Jörg Schiling <joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> 2014-03-02 12:05:56 UTC --- Let us check the situation..... we have a cup of tea. Several tea experts tasted the tea and confirmed that there is no sugar in the tea. We also have a person that remotely heard about what tea is and that has no clue on what sugar is. This person claims that there is sugar in the tea and that everybody who tastes the tea will loose all his teeth. This person is unable to explain why there should be sugar in the tea even when asked for an explanation. I am not sure whether you know that the legal denomination for such acting is libel and slander. This is a punishable offence in Europe. Until someone is able to verify that there might be a problem, the best way is to ignore the detractors. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c16 --- Comment #16 from Ciaran Farrell <cfarrell@suse.com> 2014-03-03 11:17:45 UTC --- (In reply to comment #13)

Where is Ciarans review then? So everybody can see whether it was done thoroughly. Because everybody else seems to think there is an licensing problem here!

Who is "everybody"? And for that matter, who are you? Assuming that this bug was opened for openSUSE, can I assume you have some interest in openSUSE - and if so, why aren't you contacting the Board, who are the only body who can make an 'official statement' like you are requesting. If you have no interest in openSUSE, you are wasting our time.

I recommend you come forward with some hard reviews, and not just claims such as "reviewd by various lawyers" (that nobody has seen before, and that are unwilling to state this openly).

You either don't understand what this involves or you are purposefully oversimplifying it. Either way, if you want some kind of statement regarding a package on openSUSE, talk to the Board. You certainly won't find me divulging my client's information - not on a public bugzilla, and not to bob-nospam.

All we have are YOUR claims there are these reviews.

There is quite a lot of academic opinion on what constitutes a derivative work and the results of such. There is also a deal of caselaw.

I'd like to finally get some clear legal review, why (or why not) there is a licensing problem (or not). I'm open to both, but I'd like to finally see a thorough independent review; not Schily screaming "there is no problem" on one side, and everybody else running away from cdrtools saying "we can't be sure".

Talk to your lawyer then. He/she is best placed to give you a review. Not sure what you mean by 'independent' review though. My review will be focused on my client. A review by another lawyer working for another linux distribution will be focused on their clients. Some distributions have public mailing lists where they discuss legal matters. You will probably find some discussion there.

Until then, the only sane/safe way is to keep cdrtools banned.

I'm not convinced. Again, if this matter is of concern to you, please do contact the openSUSE Board for an official position. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c18 --- Comment #18 from Jörg Schiling <joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> 2014-03-06 23:08:18 UTC --- If you believe that there is a problem, you should be able to name lawyers and to quote legal reasoning that proves a problem. Instead you are forwarding no more than libel and slander from a person that cannot even remotely explain what kind of problem he believes to see. A person that prevents discussions as he of course knows that he cannot prove his claims... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErsprjkKjBc -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c20 --- Comment #20 from Jörg Schiling <joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> 2014-03-10 12:13:18 UTC --- If you had a scientific background, you would understand that you did not send any evidence that could prove a problem. You just have become a victim of people that attack cdrtools for no reason. Even if Mr. Callaway was a lawyer (I have a mail from him that confirms he is not a lawyer), he would need to prove a problem, but all he did, was writing something like: There is a problem or There are others that claim the same, so it must be right ..but the these "others" did never send more than "there is a problem". I asked him several times to send evidence to prove a problem, but he did never send more than "there is a problem". So even 8.5 years after Eduard Bloch and Jörg Jaspert started to use this license thing as a red herring on the social attacks they initiated in May 2004, there is no more than pointless accusations. You have been asked to name a reason why you believe that there is a problem but your replies have either been "there is a problem" or contained quotes from the GPL that do not apply to cdrtools, because they oly target the special case of incomplete sources. If you still don't like to believe me, I recommend you to ask a specialized lawyer for an explanation. You may need to spend 200 Euro, but you wasted time that is worth more in the past already..... You of course can continue to believe in the attacks from Eduard Bloch, but then you need to use a GPL interpretation that is not covered by the words in the license text and you would make all Linux distros illegal with this interpretation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c22 --- Comment #22 from Jörg Schiling <joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> 2014-03-24 20:29:14 UTC --- Let us check whether bob nospam may have a scientific background... - I canot find scientific contributions from bob nospam - On the other side, bob nospam ignores scientific rules and does not send evidence for a self-claimed problem, even when asked. I am sorry, but I cannot se why I should have done something wrong here. It seems that you missinterpret the situation. Various lawyers did check cdrtools and could not find a problem. This includes Sun legal, Oracle legal and SuSe legal. This is a SuSE bugtracking board and you have been given the answer from SuSe legal that SuSE legal approved cdrtools for SuSE. The SuSE lawyer Ciaran has been very obvious that SuSE approved cdrtools, didn't you read that? Nobody needs to prove the absence of a problem, the fact that the distros that checked the license ship cdrtools is proof enough. You seem to disagree and you claimed to see a problem, so it is your task to prove your self claimed problem. You continue to ignore this and claim there is a problem. But if you like to convince people that there may be a problem, you should do your homework and send evidence for your claims. Your claims cannot even be seen as a personal opinion, as the difference between libel/slander and a personal opinion is that a person having a personal opinion is able to prove his claims. BTW: The CDDL of course is an approved OpenSource license and it is even amongst the 9 most important OSS licenses: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html P.S.; As mentioned many times before, each "work" in cdrtools is completely under one specific license, there is no license mix in sub-projects. If you are in fear of license aggregations in software collections, you cannot use Linux...regardless of the distro you are using. You are claiming to see a problem since 3 months and Debian claims the same since nearly 9 years, but neither you nor Debian nor any other person did ever send evidence for a problem. It is obvous that the best way to deal with this kind of unproven claims from laymen is to ignore them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856805#c24 --- Comment #24 from qvacfcajdjw@mailinator.com M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com <M8R-2yr72d@mailinator.com> 2014-04-01 14:48:07 UTC --- Again, please stop doing personal attacks. You are ruining your reputation.

P.S.; As mentioned many times before, each "work" in cdrtools is completely under one specific license, there is no license mix in sub-projects.

This is obviously incorrect. As mentioned above, mkisofs/Makefile is GPL licensed, but contains: include $(SRCROOT)/$(RULESDIR)/rules.top include $(SRCROOT)/$(RULESDIR)/rules.cmd these files are CDDL licensed. To all what I know of the GPL, you cannot just "include" a CDDL licensed file in a GPL project. The scripts are explicitely considered part of the "complete source code", and that is what the GPL applies to - they MUST be GPL licensed, too. For all I can tell, the critics of your licensing may be right! Given this situation, I will not distribute cdrtools (even if you continue insulting me, and trying to attack me personally by name). If necessary, I will setup a blacklist for the cdrtools package, and/or switch to a different distribution. Because as is, A) I have yet to see evidence of this issue being irrelevant, and B) you seem to be a person I do not want to work with. Sorry. Further attacking and insulting me will not make me consider your software ever again. Only a published, legal binding statement by a lawyer will convince me. No some fake organization like OSSCC.net, which is you again: http://www.osscc.net/en/impressum.html and which does actually not say that this mix of licenses is valid, but only that pure CDDL is considered opensource. But we don't have pure CDDL or pure GPL here. We have a license mix here. Oh, and of course if you would just dual-license the code appropriately, you could solve all of these issues very easily. But it seems that you do want these issues to continue. Why do you not solve them by relicensing the build scripts? Maybe, because you want to sue us later? I cannot risk that. I need a known-good license before I give a compiled cdrtools to anybody. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.