Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu

Bug #213215 reported by pandion on 2008-04-07
168
This bug affects 34 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Linux Mint
Medium
Clement Lefebvre
Baltix
Medium
Mantas Kriaučiūnas
cdrtools (Fedora)
Invalid
Medium
cdrtools (Ubuntu)
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

After receiving an update for Ubuntu Gustsy Gibbon v7.10, CD and DVD burning is now broken (other versions may also be affected). I remember seeing the original cdrtools files listed as being replaced or removed during the update, but didn't know the problems it was going to cause so I allowed the update to proceed. After the update, all I am able to burn are coasters. Initially I thought K3B was the cause, but Brasero and Nautilus also have the same problems and are unable to successfully burn CDs or DVDs properly (I am writing this from a different PC so I don't have the error messages at the moment). After doing some research on this problem, I found that the original cdrools utilities (which worked and were able to successfully burn both CDs and DVDs on the affected PC prior to the update) had been replaced with a broken fork (which explains the messages I saw regarding replacing/removing these files during an update). The presence of the broken version can be confirmed by checking the Programs being used for burning within K3B or from the command line. The link below to the cdrecord website has some information regarding this broken fork and how to confirm the version installed. Last time I checked, this problem has not been corrected through an update and fixing it manually is not something I know how to do yet. This needs to be fixed through an update. Hopefully this broken fork has not found it's way into the upcoming Hardy Heron release.

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html

Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Roy Jamison (xteejx) wrote :

Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make Ubuntu better. You reported this bug a while ago and there hasn't been any activity in it recently. We were wondering is this still an issue for you? Can you try with latest Ubuntu release? Thanks in advance.

Roy Jamison (xteejx) wrote :

We'd like to figure out what's causing this bug for you, but we haven't heard back from you in a while. Could you please provide the requested information? Thanks!

Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
status: Incomplete → New
summary: - Broken Fork of cdrtools Installed with Updates
+ Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu

There is no special information to provide. It's just a fact that cdrkit packages are illegally distributed (by creating illegal links named cdrecord etc.) and is even so flawed that if you install original cdrtools, they will keep replacing its executables.

We just should go back to the original tools, that's all.

Roy Jamison (xteejx) wrote :

Marking as Wishlist and Confirmed.

Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
status: New → Confirmed

Until any decision will be made, you can use this ppa:

ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools

Runs much better than the Ubuntu-Packages. Another thing to meantion is that since Ubuntu provides the "Fake"-Packages, I've got burning Problems very often. Erasing a DVD failed always, only buying Nero-Linux solved the Problem for me.

Download full text (3.7 KiB)

Hey thanks! It's been awhile since I've checked that bug report. They've asked if I've had the same issue with newer versions of Ubuntu.. but the PC gets used a lot and I just haven't had the time for a complete new install etc. (it's planned though).

I added that to my Software Sources on Gutsy and also added the Signing Key as in the instructions. After updating the Sources, do I just have to install/reinstall "cdrecord" and "mkisofs", or is there also supposed to be a "CDRTools" package that should be installed to replace "CDRKit"?

When I finally get around to it I plan to reinstall the PC with a clean install of Lucid Lynx (or possibly Hardy Heron). I just have so much other stuff to do that I'm still running Gutsy for now, and have been dual booting WinXP when I need to burn something (which is a pain when I'm working on something and have to boot XP just to burn a disc). I haven't tried burning with either Hardy or Lucid, so I thought I'd ask.. Do those versions have the same issues?

Thanks again!

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrtools/+bug/213215
https://launchpad.net/~brandonsnider/+archive/cdrtools

--- On Wed, 5/12/10, Thorsten Reinbold <email address hidden> wrote:

> From: Thorsten Reinbold <email address hidden>
> Subject: [Bug 213215] Re: Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
> To: <email address hidden>
> Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 8:30 AM

> Until any decision will be made, you
> can use this ppa:
>
> ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools
>
> Runs much better than the Ubuntu-Packages. Another thing to
> meantion is
> that since Ubuntu provides the "Fake"-Packages, I've got
> burning
> Problems very often. Erasing a DVD failed always, only
> buying Nero-Linux
> solved the Problem for me.
>
> --
> Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in
> Ubuntu
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct
> subscriber
> of the bug.
>
> Status in “cdrtools” package in Ubuntu: Confirmed
>
> Bug description:
> After receiving an update for Ubuntu Gustsy Gibbon v7.10,
> CD and DVD burning is now broken (other versions may also be
> affected).  I remember seeing the original cdrtools
> files listed as being replaced or removed during the update,
> but didn't know the problems it was going to cause so I
> allowed the update to proceed.  After the update, all I
> am able to burn are coasters.  Initially I thought K3B
> was the cause, but Brasero and Nautilus also have the same
> problems and are unable to successfully burn CDs or DVDs
> properly (I am writing this from a different PC so I don't
> have the error messages at the moment).  After doing
> some research on this problem, I found that the original
> cdrools utilities (which worked and were able to
> successfully burn both CDs and DVDs on the affected PC prior
> to the update) had been replaced with a broken fork (which
> explains the messages I saw regarding replacing/removing
> these files during an update).  The presence of the
> broken version can be confirmed by checking the Programs
> being used for burning within K3B or from the command
> line.  The...

Read more...

This is the Statement of Jörg Schilling, the creator of cdrtools, from our Forum (www.ubuntuusers.de). I've translated this to english:

"It is up to Mark Shuttleworth, who has not met his promise, unfortunately, to integrate the cdrtools again in Ubuntu. This promise he has given me at OSCON 2008 in Portland. Then he let himself be persuaded by people that, unfortunately, have persuaded him against their better knowledge, there were licensing issues with the cdrtools. Sun says although the legal department clearly, there are no problems and also the advisory attorney OpenSource.org a generalized statement (with legal documents) to add in a positive form."

So, whats up here?

Just to be complete: the original Quote can be found here:

http://forum.ubuntuusers.de/topic/kleines-projekt-mit-paketverwaltung-die-schil/3/

@16:54

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Wodim really is a very broken and obsolete package, while it should be providing an important part of the Linux 'desktop' experience. Please cut the licensing b/s and switch Ubuntu back to cdrtools, which actually _works_... Thanks!

Mårten Woxberg (maxmc) wrote :

Everything is explained in detail here:
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html

André Cotte (acotte) wrote :

i've also had problems with CD and DVD burning with Ubuntu Now that I'm aware of this bad fork, I ask you to replace all these programs with the original.

I'm not shure if it is Ok to post this here, but Jörg Schilling (cdrtools Developer) and another User (Antiqua) from our Forum are building actual Ubuntu-Packages in this Thread, where you can download them:

http://forum.ubuntuusers.de/topic/kleines-projekt-mit-paketverwaltung-die-schil/5/

75 comments hidden view all 127 comments

Cdrtools use an open development process. During the design of a new feature it is always possible to influence the implementation by making better proposals. This allows the best idea to win. The design of libsiconv happened in May 2007 and proposing to use $DEST_DIR/lib/share/siconv before the end of Summer 2007 did most likely have a 100% chance to get accepted.

Now the implementation exists since 3.5 years and it seems to be too late to modify a path that exists since a long time on various platforms. Since June 2010, there is cdrtools-3.00-final and this creates a need to maintain binary compatibility.

Regarding the need for suid root:

The permission of the files mentioned above has little influence on the behavior of cdrtools. There are other reasons that require root privileges. There have been some people that in the past tried to remove related error messages in the code. The result of such changes has been unspecific late abortions that make it impossible to debug the related problem.

In theory, Linux could be enhanced to permit a root-less installation of cdrtools. This root-less feature is possible on Solaris since at least year 2004 and since then, I am trying to get in contact with Linux distributions to add the needed features. Once a notable Linux distribution will add the needed userland support for fine-grained privileges as a non-deselectale part of the base system, I see nothing that prevents to create a root-less cdrtools installation for Linux as well. For now, there is no way to avoid suid-root for cdrtools on Linux.

Regarding file capabilties...

This may be a way to avoid suid root. The URL you mentioned however does not point to the needed information:

So far, I am only aware of a Linux distro from Turkey that supports them. What is the state in Redhat? Is it a base feature that cannot be removed from the system?

Are the support-commands always present?

If the feature is not in libc, is the related library always present?

Is is easy to set up a VirtualBox with an installation that allows to check the features on whether they support everything that is needed?

If the basic constraints are met, it may be something that could be added next year.....

(In reply to comment #30)
> Regarding file capabilties...
>
> This may be a way to avoid suid root. The URL you mentioned however does not
> point to the needed information:
>
> So far, I am only aware of a Linux distro from Turkey that supports them. What
> is the state in Redhat? Is it a base feature that cannot be removed from the
> system?
Just nit picking - Not Redhat, but Fedora. And I don't know.
>
> Are the support-commands always present?
Which commands? When?
>
> If the feature is not in libc, is the related library always present?
You can specify needed library in spec file (for building). For runtime, rpm and yum solves dependencies, libraries are autorequired and installed with package.
>
> Is is easy to set up a VirtualBox with an installation that allows to check the
> features on whether they support everything that is needed?
I don't know.
>
> If the basic constraints are met, it may be something that could be added next
> year.....

I checked the content of the RPMs on Solaris and it seems to be OK. I do not
have a RedHat system running here.

Hello,

I'mm currently in a job transfer and cannot look at it, I'll check how difficult is to add support for libcap-ng to cdrtools.

The policycoreutils_setuid.patch is pretty neat, I'll check the capabilities along with the pfexec settings that can be done on Solaris for cdrtools and see if there's a match.

http://people.fedoraproject.org/~dwalsh/policycoreutils_setuid.patch

According to the %caps line in the patch this seems pretty easy to do, I'll check it on Thursday back home.

Regards,
--Simone

A few years ago, I checked the Linux caps and it seems that except for the needed SCSI settings that seem to be unclear for me on Linux, there is a 1:1 match with the other privileges used with pfexec on Solaris.

In any case, cdrecord, cdda2wav and readcd all need to actively maintain the capabilities at runtime as they need to give up "file_dac_read" after opening the SCSI devices. For this reason, there is a need for similar support code as already present for Solaris. If this would not be done, cdrecord could burn any local file (regardless of the calling user) which is not intended.

79 comments hidden view all 127 comments
Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

It seems, that Jörg Schilling recommends to use cdrtools from ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools repository, see https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrtools/+bug/556595/comments/4 :

Schily wrote on 2010-04-07:
> I recommend you to first upgrade to recent original software:
> http://cdrecord.berlios.de/
> https://launchpad.net/~brandonsnider/+archive/cdrtools

I've checked cdrtools_3.00-0ubuntu1~ppa1 from ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools sources packaging and can confirm, that these packages are original cdrtools-3.00 packages without any patches applied.

Also I copied cdrtools-3.00 from ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools to main Baltix GNU/Linux repository - ppa:baltix-members/ppa

Changed in baltix:
assignee: nobody → Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas)
importance: Undecided → Medium
status: New → In Progress
80 comments hidden view all 127 comments

BTW: Could you please pack cdrtools-3.01a01?

It fixes a bug that has been recently unveiled by k3b.

Hello, I've been on holiday, here are the rpms.

http://www.kosgroup.com/simosimo/

I made a %global define at the beginning of the spec file, by setting the alpha version and bumping the version the Source URL and other pointers gets updated.

I can also supply 32 bit builds built with mock if someone needs them.

btw, I'm no programmer but I tried anyway to add libcap-ng to cdrecord. Of course this comes without success, I was able to link cdrecord to libcap-ng.so.0 but didn't get the capabilities, probably there's the need for some other patch.

If someone wants to add support I'll be happy to test it on RHEL and Fedora. According to the documents it should just be a matter of adding something like tis:

#ifdef HAVE_LIBCAP_NG
#include <cap-ng.h>
#endif

#ifdef HAVE_LIBCAP_NG
        capng_clear(CAPNG_SELECT_BOTH);
        capng_updatev(CAP_IPC_LOCK, CAPNG_EFFECTIVE|CAPNG_PERMITTED, CAP_SYS_ADMIN, CAP_SYS_NICE, -1);
        capng_apply(CAPNG_SELECT_BOTH);
#endif

libcap-ng is not included yet in RedHat Enterprise Linux, just Fedora. RHEL 5+ has just libcap.

I can make a conditional build for rhel 5/6 and Fedora in the same rpm if someone provides the patches.

Regards,
--Simone

Hello, just re-uploaded the packages for a typo.

I just noticed that setting an empty RUNPATH doesn't seem to work anymore for cdda2wav, here's the output of rpmlint:

cdda2wav.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/cdda2wav ['/usr/lib', '/opt/schily/lib']
cdda2wav.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/cdda2wav root 04755L
cdda2wav.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/cdda2wav 04755L
cdrecord.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/sbin/rscsi root 04755L
cdrecord.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/sbin/rscsi 04755L
cdrecord.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/readcd root 04755L
cdrecord.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/readcd 04755L
cdrecord.x86_64: E: setuid-binary /usr/bin/cdrecord root 04755L
cdrecord.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/cdrecord 04755L
mkisofs.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
mkisofs.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man8/isoinfo.8.gz 33: a special character is not allowed in a name
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 2 warnings.

Setting an empty RUNPATH works perfectly for me. What make program do you use?

If you have the standard ELF utilities installed, you can call:

dump -Lv cdda2wav

to get a list that includes the RUNPATH if present.

BTW: there seems to be something wrong in the check program as it gives a strange complaint about isoinfo.8

Sorry no elfutils here, the machines I currently use are in production. Running mock avoids me installing anything that relates to development but have all dependencies and checks controlled in a chroot environment.

I made a few test, with 3.00 setting an empty RUNPATH doesn't set rpaths, in 3.01a01 an empty RUNPATH generates the above situation. Putting again the following in the spec file solves the problem:

sed -i -e 's@-R$(INS_BASE)/lib -R/opt/schily/lib@@g' DEFAULTS/* DEFAULTS_ENG/*

I've updated the packages again with that and the isoinfo.8 encode.

http://www.kosgroup.com/simosimo/

Regards,
--Simone

I did just run a test on Linux and I cannot reproduce your problem. Calling:

smake RUNPATH=

definitely does not use any -R option for the final link commands.

Could you explain what's about isoinfo.8?

This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

85 comments hidden view all 127 comments
Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Ok great.. so when do we - after more than 2 years - see these packages FINALLY in Ubuntu?

86 comments hidden view all 127 comments

Simone, it seems your link gives a 404 now. Any plans to re-post your packages, or repackage for Fedora 15?

Hello,

I've put again 3.01a05 signed packages for fc15/el5 at the same link:

http://www.kosgroup.com/simosimo/

Unfortunately in a month I will not be able to access that site anymore, so if someone could offer some space I'd be happy to mantain packages for el5/6 and fc14/15.

Regards,
--Simone

you of course could start a project at berlios.de

I still don't understand why RedHat distributes 6 year old software that
misses 50% of the features of a recent version? Cdrkit in addition is of
dubious legality while the original software hat positive legal reviews
from several lawywers.

Is RedHat really interested in actively supporting anti-OSS campaigns?

Simone, thanks for the updated package. Maybe you can package these for rpmfusion? They take packages with a variety of licences, so if the issue for fedora is just the license then shouldn't this be fine?

Jörg, thanks for all the work on cdrtools. I'm genuinely curious in the following, not trying to troll. Now that Sun has been swallowed up by Oracle, which I think we can all agree really is anti-OSS in that they have effectively killed a number of open source projects since buying Sun, why not switch your code back to GPL? Wouldn't that at least be a good test of the veracity of Red Hat/Fedora/Debian claims that they truly believe the CDDL is an incompatible license?

I know this isn't a place for a long discussion, so I'm just going to bow out now.

The change towards the CDDL was not related to Sun but was a reaction
on an anti-OSS anti-GPL act from Debian.

At a time when cdrecord was 100% GPL (in Summer 2005), Debian started
to claim that there was a license change in cdrecord although absolutely
nothing was changed in cdrecord. Debian claimed there was a GPL
violation as a result of a non-existent and just alleged license change.

At that time, people could have given help to me.....

Nobody helped. In special, the FSF did not help against this anti-OSS
anti-GPL act from Debian.

As a reaction on the attacks from Debian and as a restult on the missing
help from others, I decided to change the license so Debian could no
longer claim that there was a GPL license violation as there was no
GPL anymore in cdrecord. After the license change on May 15 2006,
cdrecord was 100% CDDL. Debian continued to claim a GPL violation
in cdrecord. So it is obvious that Debian is not interested in any
kind of relation to reality.

As a result, the FSF did loss one of the top 10 GPL OSS projects in the world.
Why do they now weep bitter tears on the lost project?

As the reason for the license change still exists, why do you believe that
another license change would help?

The current situation is a result from the attacks from Debian and a result
from the missing help from the FSF and from the OSS community.

Jörg, I have been following this since the beginning. I still do not understand every single bit of the story but I can say that people have been doing strange and also stupid things. Even worse, people have tried to discredit you personally for whatever reasons.

In the end, the situation is bad for everyone, especially users, most of which don't even care about the license and just want their CD recording software to work. But companies like Red Hat have to care about licenses. Not being a lawyer, I cannot judge the legal aspect myself. Personally, I don't really have a problem with the CDDL, but I have to give credit to Red Hat who have been around for a long time and have made a lot of correct decisions (even if this particular one may not be the correct one...)

So, would another license change help? I can't tell. But I know the best thing for users would be to get cdrecord 3.x shipped by default in Fedora, Red Hat, etc. This should be the goal and I would advice all parties involved to get over the problems of the past. Red Hat legal should have another look and propose whatever license they think would meet their needs... I am sure that whatever license that would be, it would be fine for cdrecord to use (provided a license change is possible). Anyway, a first step would be to declare willingness to change license.

It is obvious that RedHat does not care about legality.

Cdrkit is of questionable legality - RedHat is informed but RedHat
does not care and ships cdrkit.

During the past 10 Years, GNU VCDimager was illegal and based on
a Copyright violation (this was recently confirmed by Suse lawyers).
The FSF and RedHat have both been informed - nobody cared about the
legality. With the help from Suse, we have been able to fix this
two months ago.

On the other side, the Sun legal department made a legal review
with the original cdrtools and confirmed that there is no problem.
Early this year, Orcale made a second legal review with a different
background with Oracle lawyers and confirmed that there is no problem.

RedHat legal is unfortunately just trolling and denying a fact based
discussion.

Those who checked legality distribute the original software and do
not distribute cdrkit. Why does RedHat behave different?

If there really was any legal argument against cdrtools, it would be
easy to publish the argument and to have a fact based discussion with
various other lawyers. The fact that Redhat does not give any argument
against cdrtools confirms that RedHat legal has no legal argument
against cdrtools.

Ask RedHat for the real reasons for their decision, it cannot be
based on a legal fact.

91 comments hidden view all 127 comments
Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Another 6 months have passed without any progress here.. Just checking in, showing that somebody still cares about this.. *sigh*

Ben M. (bmhm) wrote :

If there were source-only-packages (i.e. no pre-built binaries), there would be no licencing-problems. Because of this, Gentoo can provide (source-)packages without violating any licences[1].

Also, Canonical might want to spend some money on this issue as Oracle (former: SUN) did to prove whether there is a licence violation in distributing binaries or not. See #7.

[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Nobody is violating a license for distributing cdrtools either in source or in binary form.

If you believe the people who claim that there is a problem, then Ubuntu as a whole would be undistributable as Ubuntu is full of similar constructions.

I had a discussion with Till Jaeger (the most well known OSS lawyer) and he confirmed that under the most pessimistic assumptions (that come from people only who do not own Copyright on cdrtools and thus are irrelevant anyway) you may need to use dynamic linking.....to avoid any problems.

But let us look at the current situation: Ubuntu is distributing cdrkit that is definitely in conflict with the Copyright

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__14.html because it intentionally introduced bugs to attack my reputation

http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__13.html because Copyright signs have been removed

It seems that it is Ubunu's intention to be in conflict with the law - is this the reason why Ubuntu does not like to distribute a legal solution based on the original sources?

Ben M. (bmhm) wrote :

Jörg, I did not want to propose the idea that there actually are licencing problems. I just wanted to point out that distributing the source only would *definitely* have no licencing problems at all - regardless of Debian's understanding of licence compatiblity.

Would be a win-win for all of us, wouldn't it?

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

If Ubuntu did not distribute the illegal cdrkit, I would fully agree with you.

Please note that I as the Copyright holder also need to admonish people or companies that do not follow a legal path and Ubuntu is in not on a legal path because they publish cdrkit.

On the other side, users like binary installs....

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Schily, can't you as copyright holder 'sort' this licensing stuffs once and for all, to finally get Ubuntu in the 21st century wrt to cd burning ( even though cd burning is becoming sooo 90's by itself .. ;) ) cdrkit just froze on me again while trying to burn an audio cd.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

I have no idea how I could change things since the original software has no license
problems.

Ubuntu just seem to ignore facts and instead ships dead software that even has
problems with legality.

Ubuntu obviously is not independent and is no more than a vassal of Debian that
verified that they are not interested in OSS and did not start shipping cdrtools even
though they gave the promise to do so to Simon Phipps.

Do you have an idea (an explicit proposal) on how to change this situation?

Changed in linuxmint:
status: New → Incomplete
importance: Undecided → Medium
assignee: nobody → Clement Lefebvre (clementlefebvre)
milestone: none → lmde-upcoming

I'm marking this as affecting Linux Mint and I'd be happy to chat with you Schily to understand the problem fully and to see if we can solve it. Feel free to contact me by email, or directly via IRC at #pimpmymint on irc.spotchat.org.

If after this discussion we decide that we want to fix this issue in Linux Mint we'll try to convince Debian first in an attempt to let it flow from upstream to all derivatives.

Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

Hi Clement,

Please inform us (Baltix GNU/Linux operating system developers) here about
the results of your conversation with Schily.
We also wanna to include original up-to-date cdrecord instead of old and
buggy fork wodim.
It would be nice to use the same cdrecord package for Linux Mint and Baltix GNU/Linux

On Sat, Sep 03, 2011 at 03:36:10AM -0000, Clement Lefebvre wrote:
> I'm marking this as affecting Linux Mint and I'd be happy to chat with
> you Schily to understand the problem fully and to see if we can solve
> it. Feel free to contact me by email, or directly via IRC at #pimpmymint
> on irc.spotchat.org.
>
> If after this discussion we decide that we want to fix this issue in
> Linux Mint we'll try to convince Debian first in an attempt to let it
> flow from upstream to all derivatives.

--
Labanaktis/Good luck,
Mantas Kriaučiūnas Jabber ID: <email address hidden> GPG ID: 43535BD5
Public organization "Open Source for Lithuania" - www.akl.lt
Geriausios biuro programos verslui ir namams - http://openoffice.lt
Prekyba naujais ir atnaujintais kompiuteriais su Linux OS - http://tinklas.eu
Naudok Baltix GNU/Linux sistemą savo kompiuteryje - http://baltix.lt

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Hi Mantas,

what kind of discussion do you believe is necessary?

Cdrtools is legal OSS and thus there is no need for a contract to use it.

As Debian did change seveal users of cdrtools with the intention to make it hard to replace cdrkit by the original software, you may need to remove these changes in order to get a usable overall system.

BTW: I tried to see Clement in the IRC to no avail. It may be a good idea to have a dicsussion via mail.

Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

Hi Schily,

I don't need any discussion, I just don't have enough time to maintain
cdrecord package, so, I simply need good cdrecord package + bugreporters
and deb package maintainers, which can help to fix major problems :)

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 01:32:41PM -0000, Schily wrote:
> what kind of discussion do you believe is necessary?
>
> Cdrtools is legal OSS and thus there is no need for a contract to use
> it.
>
> As Debian did change seveal users of cdrtools with the intention to make
> it hard to replace cdrkit by the original software, you may need to
> remove these changes in order to get a usable overall system.
>
> BTW: I tried to see Clement in the IRC to no avail. It may be a good
> idea to have a dicsussion via mail.

--
Labanaktis/Good luck,
Mantas Kriaučiūnas Jabber ID: <email address hidden> GPG ID: 43535BD5
Public organization "Open Source for Lithuania" - www.akl.lt
Geriausios biuro programos verslui ir namams - http://openoffice.lt
Prekyba naujais ir atnaujintais kompiuteriais su Linux OS - http://tinklas.eu
Naudok Baltix GNU/Linux sistemą savo kompiuteryje - http://baltix.lt

@Schily: I should be on #pimpmymint (irc.spotchat.org) most of the time. If I'm not there, you can contact oscar799 and she should be able to get in touch with me. I'm working on the code at the moment so I tend to turn the IRC off (too distracting), sorry for my absence :) I'd like to chat with you, because it's not only about the technical side of things, there's a whole political/social element to it and so rather than asking questions by email, I'd love to be able to have an interactive chat and a proper discussion with you. Do you spend time on freenode otherwise? If so what's your nick over there?

@Mantas: I'll update the bug report to let everyone know. Ideally I'd like the solution to be the same across all Debian derivatives, especially for a component of this importance.

Changed in linuxmint:
status: Incomplete → Confirmed

Well, I had a conversation with Schily. As far as the political/social aspects go, I'm satisfied with his explanations and I strongly feel he needs our support. As much as possible, we should push to get the original cdrecord, mkisofs, cdda2wav... into Debian.

I'm still not at ease with the technical side of things and I don't fully comprehend the extent of the problem.. how wide it is, how many packages it affects and how many use cases can be impacted by possible regressions.

I need to know more about Brasero, libburn etc.. so I'm hoping we'll have another chat about these.

The status of packages like "wodim" (aka cdrecord), "genisoimage" (aka mkisofs), "icedax" (aka cdda2wav), who are not only based on the 2004 codebase of the tools they renamed, but apparently filled with patches the original developer finds buggy ... these, in my opinion, need to be dropped.

I'll be happy to talk about this on the Debian derivatives mailing list in an effort to get Debian to tackle the problem upstream, so it can flow downstream towards LMDE, Debian derivatives, Ubuntu and Linux Mint.

If we don't get anything done upstream, we'll need to assess how this would affect compatibility and maintenance for us. At the very least we could maintain Jorg's current codebase and make it easier for Mint/LMDE users to switch to it.

So in brief, I can't guarantee anything yet, but I can confirm the problem and the fact that this needs a solution.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

I did not publish a new cdrtools release since june even though there is
new code (e.g. available in the "schily" source consolidation).

If you like to make a binary package, please contact me so I can make a new
cdrtools source release and give some advise on how to compile things the
best way.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

A new cdrtools version has been released, if you like to create a binary package, please use this one.

BTW: Meanwhile, the only currently known bugreport has been verified to be a false alarm.

For:
 https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257241

the reporter send the CLI parameter to repeat the call and I cannot see any problem here.

Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Any update? :)

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Clement told me that he likes to approach Debian at <email address hidden> but I did not hear from him since 3 weeks.

76 comments hidden view all 127 comments

Hello,

I'm still building rpms with the latest versions of cdrtools for el5, el6 and fc15.

Sorry to ask here, but how can I push the rpms on repos.fedorapeople.org? I already have an account @fedorapeople.org but the instructions say I have to apply to a group before having the rights to upload.

Apart from cdrtools I have other rpmlint/mock built packages that I would like to host somewhere.

Thanks,
--Simone

(In reply to comment #49)
> Sorry to ask here, but how can I push the rpms on repos.fedorapeople.org? I
> already have an account @fedorapeople.org but the instructions say I have to
> apply to a group before having the rights to upload.
>
> Apart from cdrtools I have other rpmlint/mock built packages that I would like
> to host somewhere.

Unfortunately, I can't give you an answer, I've no experiences with that.

Generally, you can ask on fedora list, but please mind that "Do not distribute anything on fedorapeople.org that Fedora itself cannot distribute for legal reasons. Nothing on the ForbiddenItems list or otherwise non distributable by Fedora." [1], so cdrtools shouldn't be included in repos.fedorapeople.org, AFAIK.

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/fedorapeople.org#Allowable_content

Well, according to:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses

my understanding is that CDDL programs are fine for distributing inside Fedora and that licenses identified as "good" could be in the main repositories as well. CDDL is also a valid license value when checking packages with rpmlint.

It's funny because this debate about the license of cdrtools shouldn't even exist, but I'm not there to start a flame.

Do you know which list among the many provided of the Fedora Project is the right one?

Thanks,
--Simone

(In reply to comment #51)
> my understanding is that CDDL programs are fine for distributing inside Fedora
> and that licenses identified as "good" could be in the main repositories as
> well. CDDL is also a valid license value when checking packages with rpmlint.

You're right that CDDL itself isn't problem, but combination of CDDL and GPL code seems to be (see http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00000.html).

> Do you know which list among the many provided of the Fedora Project is the
> right one?

I'd go for the devel list.

There is no combination of CDDL and GPL in cdrtools.

Cdrtools is a set of more than 25 separate projects (or "works" when using the wording of lawyers). Each of the different projects is completely under a single license only. 4 projects are still under GPL, 2 projects are under the BSD license, the rest is CDDL.

A detailed decription is available in the file COPYING, but it seems that the linux distributors that support the attacks from Debian did never read that file...

BTW: The whole dispute was initiated by by some unfriendly people from Debian and was nothing but a red herring to distract from the real problem: the Debian packetizer changed and the new packetizer that was unwilling to collaborate.

And in case you don't know, the license change was a reaction on the attacks against the project. If people did like to have everything stay unter GPL, these people would need to have supported me in 2005, but this did not happen.

Anyway, Linux distributions are made from many projects under many different licenses and nobody reported a problem resulting from that aggregation.

Jörg, thanks for explanation how you understand that. But we just have to follow our lawyers' status.

I am not sure what you like to tell me with this text....

There is not is single lawyer that could find any legal problem in the cdrtools package, so what problem do you have?

Please note that the mail you quoted in your previous post is from a person who is not willing to expose himself with the problems. The quoted mail contains nothing than a bunch of unlrelated blabla. (*)

If one of your lawyer did really see a problem, why does he keep it secret? Why did companies like Sun that really asked laywers made a decission against cdrkit and pro cdrtools?

What redhat is doing with cdrtools is called pointless bashing, as there was never a single legal argument from redhat against cdrtools. Do you really like to continue this way?

RedHat lost it's credability with the way it deals with cdrtools. It would be nice to see this changed and it would be nice if we could start a fact based discussion. Are you ready for a fact based discussion?

*) redhat e.g. closed many still valid bug reports against cdrkit; arguing with the number of bugs in the redhat buglist is childish. In special if you watch related discussions in the net where more and more people inform others that they needed to go to cdrtools in order to be able to work again.

Download full text (6.4 KiB)

I've seen that there's a06 available, but I'm not able to build it.
I just swapped the version in the spec file and tried to rebuild but it seems to get stuck in a loop:

EBUG: make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/cdrtools-3.01/btcflash'
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ==> MAKING DIRECTORY "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc"
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./cd_misc.c': File exists
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./cd_misc.c': File existsln:
DEBUG: failed to create symbolic link `./io.c': File exists
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./io.c': File exists
DEBUG: cp: `../cdrecord/cd_misc.c' and `./cd_misc.c' are the same file
DEBUG: cp: `../readcd/io.c' and `./io.c' are the same file
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./misc.c': File exists
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./misc.c': File exists
DEBUG: cp: `../cdrecord/misc.c' and `./misc.c' are the same file
DEBUG: ln: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./scsi_cdr.c': File exists
DEBUG: failed to create symbolic link `./scsi_cdr.c' ==> MAKING DEPENDENCIES "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/misc.d"
DEBUG: : File exists
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./scsi_scan.c': File exists
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `./scsi_scan.c': File exists
DEBUG: cp: `../cdrecord/scsi_cdr.c' and `./scsi_cdr.c' are the same file
DEBUG: ==> MAKING DEPENDENCIES "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/skel.d"
DEBUG: cp: `../cdrecord/scsi_scan.c' and `./scsi_scan.c' are the same file
DEBUG: make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/cdrtools-3.01/btcflash'
DEBUG: make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/cdrtools-3.01/btcflash'
DEBUG: ==> MAKING DEPENDENCIES "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/scsi_scan.d"
DEBUG: ==> MAKING DEPENDENCIES "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/scsi_cdr.d"
DEBUG: ==> MAKING DEPENDENCIES "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/cd_misc.d"
DEBUG: ==> MAKING DEPENDENCIES "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/io.d"
DEBUG: make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/cdrtools-3.01/btcflash'
DEBUG: make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/cdrtools-3.01/btcflash'
DEBUG: ==> COMPILING "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/skel.o"
DEBUG: ==> COMPILING "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/io.o"
DEBUG: ==> COMPILING "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/cd_misc.o"
DEBUG: ==> COMPILING "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/scsi_cdr.o"
DEBUG: ==> COMPILING "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/scsi_scan.o"
DEBUG: ==> COMPILING "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/misc.o"
DEBUG: ==> LINKING "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/btcflash"
DEBUG: make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/cdrtools-3.01/btcflash'
DEBUG: ==> MAKING "all" ON SUBDIRECTORY "SRCROOT/cdda2wav"
DEBUG: make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/cdrtools-3.01/cdda2wav'
DEBUG: ../RULES/local.cnf:43: OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/Inull: No such file or directory
DEBUG: ../RULES/local.cnf:44: OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc/local.cnf: No such file or directory
DEBUG: ==> MAKING DIRECTORY "OBJ/x86_64-linux-cc"
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ==> MAKING SYMLINKS in .
DEBUG: ln: failed to create symbolic link `xxzzy.345': File exists
DEBUG: ln: ln: failed to creat...

Read more...

I have no idea where the "DEBUG:" messages are from, but it looks like you are using a buggy "make" program, or you did modify the source tree in an inapropriate way?

gmake has several well known bugs that even have been accepted by it's maintainer in 1998 already, but these bugs are still not fixed. It was always a problem to support make programs like gmake that do not behave as documented, but if you ignore the incorrect warnings from gmake and if you are OK with the fact that gmake may not stop it's work when an error is encountered, you still should be able to use gmake if you are on Linux (there are many other OS where gmake compiles fine but does not work at all).

I recommend to use "smake" as smake is known for not having problems and as smake works on more platforms than gmake.

The easiest way to start is to download the complete set of "schily" sources from:

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily/

If you call "gmake" on that source tree, it will first build a bootstrap "smake" (using shell scripts) and then use that bootstrap smake to compile the rest.

If your problems stay with the official compile method, we need to have a closer look at what you are doing. cdrtools-3.01a06 as well as schily-2011-08-29 are known to compile without problems on a sane Linux installation.

Hint: if you like to remove possible official compile results, call "./.clean".

(In reply to comment #55)
> RedHat lost it's credability with the way it deals with cdrtools. It would be
> nice to see this changed and it would be nice if we could start a fact based
> discussion. Are you ready for a fact based discussion?

I believe you that a fact based discussion can solve the problem. Nevertheless, I'm not the right person who to discuss with and this is not the right place to
discuss, since bugzilla is a bug tracking tool. If you really need to start a
new discussion, fedora legal list seems to be a better place to begin.

I have successfully rebuild a f14 x86_64 packages using simosimo's f15 ones (cdrtools-3.01-a05.1.fc15.src.rpm) and update tarballs from schilly site (3.01-a06...)

Honza: That list is run by an unfriendly person who is unwilling to a fact based discussion and who blocked me from that list.

As the person in question did not yet send any legally valid claim, it may be better to get a direct contact with a redhat lawyer.

Giandomenico: do these rpms contain the build scripts, so I could see where problems may be caused?

Thanks, it worked. I changed the spec file from:

export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
make GMAKE_NOWARN=true INS_BASE=/usr INS_RBASE=/ MANDIR=man %{?_smp_mflags} \
        COPTX=-g LDOPTX=-g RUNPATH=

to:

./.clean
export CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
make GMAKE_NOWARN=true INS_BASE=/usr INS_RBASE=/ MANDIR=man %{?_smp_mflags} \
        COPTX=-g LDOPTX=-g RUNPATH=

and that indeed fixed the problem, I built succesfully a06. It seems there's
some leftover into the original tarball.

I tested RHEL6 i386/x86_64 and Fedora 15/16 i386/x86_64, in RHEL6 I don't get the problem, it seems to be related to Fedora 15+.

The "DEBUG" prefix can be ignored, is just the verbose output of mock, the
Fedora/Redhat tool that is used to create a clean & complete chroot environment
for building packages.

The address space at kosgroup.com/* will be deleted soon, I no longer work for that company.

Giandomenico; are you able to host the packages? I have new spec files with added fixes from new versions of rpmlint.

Regards,
--Simone

There is no leftover in the original tarball, it seems that you added some files that do not belong there.

If you like, you can also host the data on berlios.

I've not added anything, I just changed the %define from "a05" to "a06" at the top of the spec file.

To force cdrecord, readcd and mkisofs higher priority in Brasero in respect to
other plugins run the following as your user:

dconf write /apps/brasero/plugins/cdrecord/priority 1
dconf write /apps/brasero/plugins/mkisofs/priority 1
dconf write /apps/brasero/plugins/readcd/priority 1

I guess that at least in my case the reason for failed dvd writing is libburnia.

dvd+rw-tools by command line works fine as cdrecord with all the {DL-}DVDs I
throw to it and wodim/genisoimage are replaced by my packages so the culprit is probably there.

I'll check if I still get errors with Brasero.

The tarball does not contain incorrect or superfluous files and it compiles out of the box on Linux.

If you did have problems with compiling, some of your actions must have created the files in question.

BTW: some of the bug-reports I received let me asume that gmake under some conditions ignores existing rules. Ignoring rules may cause problems later on.

Well, the "./.clean" has nothing to do with the fix, I incurred in the error of a06 again while building for other archs.

The solution for fixing the build on my systems was removing "%{?_smp_mflags}", the multiple jobs to make.

Regards,
--Simone

Mail referred to https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00000.html is the Fedora legal position on cdrkit. If you have any further considerations, bring it to the legal mailing list. Bugzilla isn't the right place for such discussions.

93 comments hidden view all 127 comments
Bart Verwilst (verwilst) wrote :

Clement, have you been able to get in touch with the Debian guys?

jaymzw (jaymzw) wrote :

This issue has affected me for a long time, I'd be very happy to see it resolved. The cdrkit fork is unmaintained garbage and has produced many coasters. It's a pain to have to reinstall cdrtools manually with every release.

Can the dependencies on cdrkit be removed while the licensing issues are being sorted out so that cdrkit can be properly uninstalled without removing all the CD burning tools?

cesare (wtoro00) on 2012-01-16
Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → cesare (wtoro00)
Mantas Kriaučiūnas (mantas) wrote :

Hi Jörg Schilling,

I'd be very happy to see your original cdrtools software in Debian, Ubuntu, OpenSUSE and other free operating systems.
It seems this can be achieved very easily - you can simply add the thirty-nine words text in sources of some libraries from cdrtools package:
"You are permitted to link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which is licensed under the GNU General
Public License (GPL). If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL."

It's very easy to do and cost nothing :)

Jörg, please, give the permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions.

Please, add this text even if you are 100% sure, that you don't *need* to grant the permission - all users of your original cdrtools software will be very happy if you add this text, because then your package will be included into OpenSUSE, Ubuntu and other Linux-based free OS, according to
https://features.opensuse.org/311186 and http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2011-02/msg00089.html

Jörg, please don't waste your time and don't argue with them even if they are not telling the truth - I've read yours answer (http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2011-02/msg00093.html ) and I agree with you, but you could show your generosity and simply give the permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries.
Thank you very much for all your work and efforts.

I'm pasting some text from email above:
[..]
After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of
cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken.
We told Jörg that as far as we could see he was the only copyright
holder on the CDDL'd libraries, which he confirmed. In that case, I
pointed out, he could give all the permission necessary to solve the
problem, without any license changes: he simply needed to give
permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries
for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source
under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions. We
drafted for him the thirty-nine words needed: "You are permitted to
link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which
is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). If You do,
you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL."
[...]
Though Jörg continued to argue that he didn't *need* to grant the
permission, he never explained why, in the face of opposing legal
analysis on behalf of the copyright holders of mkisofs he didn't
*want* to grant a harmless permission that would allow his work to be
included in Canonical's Ubuntu distributions. After weeks of
discussion and many hours of my time and the time of my associate
Aaron Williamson, Mark Shuttleworth decided there was no point in
further fruitless negotiation and I agreed.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Your request creates the impression that the original cdrtools are not valid OSS.

I am sorrry to see that you are wrong.

I've received a very clear statement from Eben Moglen on that the GPL of course
permits to link GPLd software against any library of any license as this is the
requirement for being able to permit to publish binaries from GPLd programs (such
as gtar) for platforms that do not come with a GPLd or LGPLd libc.

As you should know, the statement you are requesting does not exist from the gtar
Copyright holders in order "to permit to ship gtar binaries for Solaris, AIX or HP-UX",
just because it is commonly agreed that such statement is not needed.

So please do not ask me to do things that you won't ask from other projects.

Matteo Italia (matteo-mitalia) wrote :

Schily, what's wrong with adding those words, even if they are redundant?
If your interpretation of the matter is correct (and I believe it is, although IANAL) you are just making extra-explicit what is already permitted by of your license and the GPL, so you aren't granting any extra permission over what can be done with your code - from your point of view nothing changes.
On the other hand, people who think that the situation is currently into a "grey zone" will be relieved by the explicit permission, and we'll put to an end to the whole cdrkit nonsense. Everybody wins.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Well, I'll tell you what's wrong:

The claim "...If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL."

does never apply for typical OSS projects (unless someone makes _all_ parts
available under the GPL in their repspective source), so Mantas asked me to
grant something I do not need to grant, that I will not grant and that has not
been granted to the vast majority of OSS.

If you e.g. publish a gtar binary for HP-UX (which is a closed source platform),
only the parts from gtar that have been compiled from the gtar sources are
under GPL and nobody sees a problem with that fact.

This is because the GPL only requires the following:

- the parts that are from GPLd source need to be published under the terms
  and conditions of the GPL.

- the parts that are not compiled from GPLd source need to be made available
  to allow recompilation and re-linking.

If you don't believe me, you should read the GPL book from Harald Welte's lawyer.

Cdrtools are fully compatible with the requirements of the GPL and I see no
reason to grant more than the GPL request to be granted.

Sorry for this OT but am I the only one who has the feeling that this all is redicoulus? It really seems that this is something personal. What is the problem in adding a bit of text? I really have the strong feeling that you, schily, are not really interested in solving the problem. If I'm wrong, I make a formal apology. But I really havn't read any suggestion from you about how this could be solved.

And the users are the ones that suffer from this feud. Really sad.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Well, it seems that recently some people came up with proposals that are not
realizable. Let me give some explanations on the background:

The whole problem has been initiated by an unfriendly Debian packetizer in
May 2004. At that time this person was a newcomer and the previous
Debian packetizer was a very friendly and honorable person. The "reason"
for initiatig this dispute was that the unfriendly newcomer wanted to
force me to include a defective patch in mkisofs.

After aprox. 15 months, this Debian packetizer came up with the new
and unsourced claim that there is a so called "license problem" in
cdrecord. If you closely look at his claims published that since then,
you will see that the interpretation of the GPL for his claim differs from
the interpretation for all other OSS projects.

Other prople who recently tried to really change things came up with the
proposal not to talk about licensing in this context.

Now Mantas came up with a proposal that is based on trying to force
me to accept worse conditions for cdrtools than other OSS projects
are given. Please understand that this is not acceptable.

The current cdrtools source already contains some explanations on
the GPL. If you believe that this is not sufficient, I may add more text
as long as this text is based on equal treatment on all OSS projects.
Did you read the file COPYING?

Thorsten: I encourage you to read http://www.osscc.net/de/gplger.html

If you believe I should add some statements that better explain
that/why the GPL definitely does not require other "works" to be under
GPL, try to make a proposal for a wording.

If you however belive that the GPL requires "other works" to be under
GPL just because we are talking about cdrtools even though the rest
of the OSS ecosystem works under different aasumption, you need to
rethink your position.

If you like to help, manage to include cdrtools packages in ubuntu.

Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Just a note.... in case this helps:

Yesterday, I reworded the file "COPYING" a bit in order to avoid confusion
and to make things more obvious.

Check: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/COPYING

in special the new top parts that explain work-limits and the enhanced
GPL notes at the end that now explain that the GPL under no
circumstances requires other works to be put under GPL.

Changed in cdrtools (Ubuntu):
assignee: cesare (wtoro00) → nobody
Changed in cdrtools (Fedora):
importance: Unknown → Medium
status: Unknown → Invalid
86 comments hidden view all 127 comments
Schily (schilling-fokus) wrote :

Hi, is this an intentional status change _here_ or just an imported status change from fedora?

Given that Ubuntu "recently" started to ship ZFS, it seems that Mark Shuttleworth finally follows the license strategy I offered him in 2008.

This should make it obvious to include the original cdrtools instead of the broken fork from Debian that is even dead since May 2007.

BTW: Fedora did never ask any lawyer and did never present a verifiable theory for their anti-social claims on the cdrtools project, so any claim from Fedora is no more than libel. Fedora with it's current behavior is in conflict with the law.

SuSe sent their lawyer to Berlin years ago and after half an hour of discussion, SuSe decided to include the original cdrtools and to fade out the broken cdrkit.

So when will Ubuntu stop to blindly follow the anti social behavior from Debian?

Displaying first 40 and last 40 comments. View all 127 comments or add a comment.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Duplicates of this bug

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.