Bug 472924
Summary: | consider switching to upstream cdrtools | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Martin Jürgens <ma> |
Component: | cdrkit | Assignee: | Roman Rakus <rrakus> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 10 | CC: | john.brown009, rrakus, schily, tsmetana |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-05-06 10:15:09 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Martin Jürgens
2008-11-25 16:55:49 UTC
This bug has been triaged The CDDL copyright is still not favoured. The cdrkit fork is in conflict woth GPL and Copyright and cannot be legally distributed. The original software on the other sdide is aproved free software. There even was a full legal review done by the Sun legal department. The result of this review is that ar are no problems. Sun distributes the original software. I strongly recommend RedHat to upgrade to the origial cdrtools in order to become legal. The CDDL is an aproved free license. whats the reason for closing it wontfix? Said in comment #2 is a different free license really a reason for not shipping a tool which is being actively mantained and has more features than the current one? Yes, it is. At the least, it is not acceptable in fedora. CDDL alone is not bad, but: 1) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-August/msg00023.html 2) https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-January/msg00024.html 3) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List This is why I have to closing it wontfix. Sorry, but these URLs do not point to valid information. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2007-August/msg00023.html Just holds an invalid claim - there is no verification for this claim https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-January/msg00024.html Also contains an invalid claim but not verification. The URL inside points to the claim of a troll but does not contain valid information. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List Is a list that contains incorrect information about the GPL compatibility to other licenses..... Here are some facts: - The fork distributed by Redhat contains a hard Copyright violation and thus cannot be legally distributed. - The license used by cdrtools has been veryfied by seceral lawyers and none of the lawyers could find any problem. - Even the FSF confirms that linking GPL programs against CDDL libs is legal and the FSF is interested to see GPL software on OpenSolaris So the question is: Why does redhat prefer to distribute illegal software and tries to avoid a legal solution? Jörg, didnt you want to publish the legal review of the Sun lawyers? That would help I think. Martin, the problem with diplomacy is that sometimes your sources don't like to be quoted. What I cann tell you however is that (with the help from Simon Phipps from Sun), we made an agreement with Debian and Debian will switch back to the original software soon. The agreement was made on March 6th. |