-----Original Message----- > Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 09:45:42 +0100 > Subject: Re: [arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs > cdrkit > From: Jan de Groot <jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: General Discusson about Arch Linux <arch-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 09:37 +0100, Jan de Groot wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 03:55 +0100, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > > > I request using the original cdrtools in place of cdrkit. I know > > > that it > > > actually was that way once but it was changed due to uncertainty > > > about licensing issues. It appears that these issues are now > > > solved with the conclusion that there are non while cdrkit is > > > actually the offender. > > > > > > > Last time I checked, cdrtools was not distributable because of > > licensing issues. mkisofs is GPL, the lib it links to is CDDL. GPL > > can't link to CDDL while staying GPL, so the resulting binary is > > illegal. > > Unless Joerg got approval from all contributors and changed mkisofs > > to CDDL, or if the lib it links to was re-licensed to a > > GPL-compatible license, mkisofs is distributable, otherwise it's > > illegal to do so. > > > > Seems Joerg actually did some changes: he added an exception to the > CDDL licensed libraries that allow creating a larger work as long as > it's licensed under an OSI-approved license. Last time I checked this > exception wasn't present. > > > Hello, the only reason I did not move cdrtools to community was that license reason. So if that is no showstopper anymore, I can maintain it. Regards Stefan
