On 01/27/2010 09:49 AM, Heiko Baums wrote: > Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:17:01 -0500 > schrieb pyther <pyther@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is >> huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some >> odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk >> for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they >> would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court. >> This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the >> donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to >> the hiring of a lawyer). >> >> Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life. >> It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to >> take the "risk." > > I doubt that someone will go directly to court. If someone sees > licensing issues he most likely will first ask the Arch devs to remove > cdrtools from the repos. If this will be the case, they can just remove > it and revert to cdrkit. This won't cost anything. > > If there really was such a legal issue I bet no other distribution > would have cdrtools in its repos or many other distributions would have > been sued already. So why should Arch Linux after many years the first > distro to be sued? > > And as I've already written I can't find the CDDL in the cdrtools > source package. I can only find the GPLv2. So cdrecord and mkisofs are > both licensed under the GPLv2. > > Greetings, > Heiko > here's a proposal for the future of this discussion: 1) Joerg is no longer allowed to participate in the the discourse unless directly questioned. 2) Allan: ditto. 3) All other participants work toward creating a formal proposal and then debating and resolving reservations about that proposal, each in turn. 4) Aaron, as overlord, set a sunset clause on the discussion period, act as moderator (or delegate if he's sick of this shit), and maintain final approval/veto over the proposal that emerges. Anyone? -kludge
