On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:29 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Jan de Groot <jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that > > > dropped libcdio > > > because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio? > > > > Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't > > want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. > > In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions > > applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. > > You are obviously not correct, check Solaris..... > > libcdio has two legal problems: > > 1) It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code. > Most people believe that this is not permitted. > > 2) libcdio is based on code that is available under > > - GPLv2 _only_ > > - CDDL > > The related code was never made available under a different > license. The "Autor" of libcdio first claimed that the code > is "GPLv2 or any later" now he claims it is GPLv3. He did > however never ask the real author of the related code for > permission to do this license change and he now as a result > of his violations would definitely not get this permission. > > > Please stop spreading this nonsense. > > It is you who spreads nonsense :-( > > Please stop this! 1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license to ordinary GPL in section 3. 2) I found some bugreport on launchpad with that claim from you, but besides that, I can't find any information. The bugreport says you should take it up with the FSF, but somehow I can't find any reference about that. If linking GPL and CDDL code together isn't a problem for you and your lawyers, then I don't know why 1) would be a problem for you either. As for your claims, there's still an open question for you: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/011082.html
