Home_greyopenFATE - openSUSE feature tracking > #311186
Dashboard | Search | Sign up | Login

Please login or register to be able to edit or vote this feature.

original cdrtools

Feature state

Package Wishlist
Done

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!

User benefit:

cdrtools is better maintained and it is less buggy
but the license is debated .

Discussion


icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

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.

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

Any documents to back up your claims? I am particularly interested in an official and verifiable statement for Novell.

icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

You can read the whole sordid tale here:
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

From some of the Opensuse developers:
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.

icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

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.html

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

This caused both my brain and my machine to overheat :-)

Unfortunately, the
release notes do not say why cdrtools are dropped.

The
informative thread 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.

icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

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

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

CDDL, modified or not, is incompatible with GPL, at least if we
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?

icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

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.

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

cdrecord puts CDDL-licensed files into
what GPL program?

(
cdrecord itself is CDDL)

icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

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."

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

There are no GPL parts in cdrtools, except for mkisofs which can easily be taken out.

icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

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.

icons/user_comment.png J. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

Yeah? cdrkit lacks DVD+ and BD support, do I need say more?

icons/user_comment.png T. E. wrote: (3 years ago)

But dvd+rw-tools does, and is installed by default, used by apps such as Kde and has no licensing issues.

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

Jörg says: ‘I am accepting any patches that make sense and that are portable.’ His target of choice is Solaris.

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

Problem:
mkisofs (GPL) links to
libschily (CDDL)

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

IMHO, GPL code can link to commercial libraries (although not the other way round). It is discouraged but legally possible.

icons/user_comment.png M. M. wrote: (3 years ago)

No, unless these libraries are a normally part of an operating system, which is not the case of libschily.

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

So how can be Dev-C++ distributed under GPL? Delphi libraries are not part of an operating system either.

icons/user_comment.png M. M. wrote: (3 years ago)

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.

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

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?

icons/user_comment.png M. M. wrote: (3 years ago)

OK, come back once libschilly is "normally distributed" with the compiler...

icons/user_comment.png C. Y. wrote: (3 years ago)

It seems the problem is that
CDDL does not allow linking GPL to it :

  • 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.
icons/user_comment.png C. N. wrote: (3 months ago)

Beware. Despite this licensing issue being UNRESOLVED, cdrtools has been added to factory: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/multimedia:apps/cdrtools

Last change: 3 months ago
Voting
Score: 4
  • Negative: 2
  • Neutral: 0
  • Positive: 6
Feature Export
Application-xmlXML   Text-x-logPlaintext   PrinterPrint