On 02/06/2011 04:26 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Nicolaus Millin
wrote: Having the RPM package meta information in my database I just had to create the two lists mentioned above.
- OS_RPM_licenses.txt is an alphabetical list of all tracked RPMs alphabetically sorted by RPM name with their respective license information / license tag retrieved from their RPM package meta information.
- OS_license_types.html is an alphabetically sorted list of all different license tags that are present in my database (right column). In the left column you?ll find one example of an RPM with this type of license. I thought this to be handy for a quick overview of the different license types. Clicking a RPM link you get to a page with detailed information about this RPM. By clicking the button "Homepage" on this detailed RPM information page you can have a closer look into a project where you usually find its license information.
How did you retrueve the data seen inside?
by retrieving the repository RPM meta information from each repository and putting it into my database.
Well, then the base you got the data from seems to be mostly wrong...... at least if I check the program names against the claims in that list.
cdrecord | CDDL, GPL, Other License(s), see package wrong....
Correct: cdrecord is 100% CDDL, there is no GPL inside, there is no other license
cdda2wav | CDDL, GPL, Other License(s), see package wrong....
Correct: cdda2wav contains _no_ GPL code. It is CDDL with one file under BSD and it links against CDDL libs, against a single BSD lib and against single library (libparanoia) that is under LGPL-2.1 with versions since May 2006.
mkisofs | CDDL, GPL, Other License(s), see package wrong....
Correct: mkisofs is 100% GPL, it links against one lib under BSD license and against some libraries under CDDL, but this does of course not affect the license of the "work mkisofs" - otherwise you would need to e.g. call GNU tar on Solaris CDDL+GPL
smake | CDDL correct ;-)
star | SUN Common Development and Distribution License 1.0 correct ;-)
wodim | GPLv2 ; GPLv2+ wrong....
Correct: wodim is 100% GPLv2
icedax | GPLv2+ wrong....
Correct: icedax is GPLv2; note that cdrkit is based on a cdrtools version from September 2004 and at that time, base64.c and base64.h have been (as a result of an action from an upstream coder) illegally published under GPL. iceday still did not fix that problem.
genisoimage | GPLv2+ wrong....
Correct: genisoimage is under GPLv2, it links against libraries under GPLv2 and as is derived from cdrtools from September 2004, there may be unaddressed license problems..............
vcdimager | GPLv2+ wrong....
Correct: vcdimager contains a major part (a Reed Solomon coder) that is _not_ under GPL at all. The code has been derived from an Implementation from Heiko Eißfeld who created it for the cdrtools project but made it available only to people who asked for permission to use it but definitely not under GPL: vcdimager claims that the related code is under GPL and for this reason, vcdimager is violating Copyright law.
libcdio | GPLv2+ wrong....
Correct: libcdio is based on code from cdd2awav, that in former times has been published under GPLv2, For this reason, libcdio cannot be published under GPLv2+
Note that there are other problems with libcdio: libcdio is usually called from LGPL code and it is questionable whether this is legally correct. For this reason, Sun did remove libcdio from Solaris in Autumn 2006 and replaced it by a library that calls cdda2wav from a pipe
My impression is that there is a need for a more in depth license review....
8 from 10 programs I checked are not listed correctly.
Jörg
Now you are prodding me a bit too hard. I maintain multimedia:libs and I know that those libs mostly libcdio are used in the backend of most, if not all media players. How many years have you known this and how long ago was it that you informed upstream and a reference to the report is needed because you have proven yourself not very good at unbiased factual communication maybe it was the wording of your bug report, you did use a bug report?. By unbiased I'm referring to the influence that your ego has. Which other major distros are you informing about this or is this a vendetta against openSUSE? Or do we have a case that openSUSE is too lenient with your illogical licensing statements and inflammatory comments. Huh Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org