Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > There are some people who claim that there is a legal problem with the > > original software but none of the persons who spread this claim (including > > people from redhat) did ever make a valid legal statement that could > > confirm a problem. As there are no valid legal arguments _against_ the > > situation in cdrtoools, there is obviously no way to discuss things and we > > need to rate the claims against cdrtools as libel. > > They are making a very concrete claim: if one piece of some program is under > the GPL, the ENTIRE program, including all its libraries, MUST be under the > GPL or a compatible license. This is confirmed e.g. by the FSF: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs You seem to miss that the license mkisofs is using is called "GPL" and not "GPL FAQ", so the quoting you mention do not apply. The GPL requires the entire work to be under GPL and the "entire work mkisofs" _is_ of course under GPL. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (uni) joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
