Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 202526
cdrtools is doing bad things with licensing and should be removed
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:40 EST
This bug is filed as part of the FSF compatible licensing audit of Fedora:
Cdrtools is doing bad things with licensing. The upstream author is relicensing
bits of cdrtools as CDDL, when previously, this code was GPL. Since the CDDL and
GPL are incompatible, this mixture of the two licenses is not permissable, and
we should not be shipping this code.
Please note that this is not just the Build tools being relicensed as CDDL, the
upstream author is actually relicensing code as CDDL.
To paraphrase Mr. Corbet, since "... cdrtools cannot be distributed in it
current form, they (distributors) will have no alternative to ceasing
distribution - and that means coming up with a replacement."
Proposed replacement: http://www.arklinux.org/projects/dvdrtools
AFAIK, we could shipping a somewhat older version right? That would atleast give
people something working in most cases. I think trying to find a suitable
replacement before FC-6 is a bad idea.
dvdrtools is the fork from the last version before license tainting.
While the timing here is poor, we need to decide if we are willing to ship FC-6
with a piece of code that is illegal.
(In reply to comment #4)
> dvdrtools is the fork from the last version before license tainting.
AH, good, I forgot it was a fork.
> While the timing here is poor, we need to decide if we are willing to ship FC-6
> with a piece of code that is illegal.
I'm not in the positions to make such decissions but I would say NO!
(In reply to comment #5)
> > While the timing here is poor, we need to decide if we are willing to ship FC-6
> > with a piece of code that is illegal.
> I'm not in the positions to make such decissions but I would say NO!
Neither am I, but I would also say this is a blocker issue for FC-6.
Can we just go back to the old all-GPL version?
We can go back to FC-4's cdrtools-2.0, but this version will cause many problems.
Oh my... I was so happy the current version works...
Maybe someone could do a diff between the latest GPL and the current upstream
release and then if there are not too much changes describe the changes which
are clearly fixes in plain english (iow not code) and then someone else who
didn't look at the diff can reimplement them. Or would that legally still be too
Too much changes... e.g. DVD support.
A real fork of the project or complete rewrite would be the best...
Isn't dvdrtools just that (a fork), surely dvdrtools should be better then a
pretty old version of cdrtools without dvd support?
For DVD support, I took the patches from http://crashrecovery.org/oss-dvd.html
dvdrecord is much older than 2.01
Ok, I'll shut up now. Let me know if there is anything usefull I can do to help.
p.s. Tom, I think its great that FC is being cleaned of this, painfull, but
great! Let me know if I can be of assistance. (I'm quite good in C).
you could rewrite cdrecord from scratch :) maybe by taking growisofs :)
A problem is that even with older versions there are some irritating limits to
> This software is under GPL with the following limitations:
> - You may not modify certain copyright messages in cdrecord.c
> See cdrecord.c for further information.
>- You may (with a few exceptions) not modify the location of the
> configuration file /etc/default/cdrecord.
> See defaults.c for further information.
Long-term libburn seems to be a promising project.
That's nonsensical, you can't impose additional restrictions on top of GPL.
Sure, you can create a license that is "GPL, but slightly different, including
these restrictions" -- but that license won't be even slightly GPL-compatible,
and you certainly can't *add* those restrictions to existing GPL'd code.
What's secret bug #203156?
Matt: internal rhel5 tracking stuff.