Comment 70 for bug 213215

(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > The cdrkit "fork" is in conflict with the copyright law
> > and cannot be distributed legally. The initiators
> > of the fork have been informed in detail about the copyright
> > problems but they are not interested in making the fork legal.
>
> You don't seem to get the concept of free software. When you released cdrtools
> under the GPL, at that moment you gave permission to take the code and fork it
> as according to the license. Those versions are still under the GPL. You just
> not might not be able to call the fork "cdrecord"; that's why it's called
> cdrkit.

You don't get the concept of Open Source Software and you
don't get the concept of a legal system and the concept of
a legal pyramid. The Copyright law rules everything that is
not mentioned in a license and in addition it even forbids
some things to be ruled in a license in in a way that is in
conflict with the law.

> (In reply to comment #9)

[Some missunderstood comments removed]

I cannot comment things that you did completely missunderstand.

> > RedHat seems to be the only remaining white spot that misses
> > recent software.
>
> No, you've just shown yourself that other distributions such as SuSE and Ubuntu
> do not include the CDDA-licensed cdrtools, either.

Cdrtools is "collective work" that is _fully_ compliant with OSS.

The CDDL is a _fully_ accepted OSS license.

No license mix exist in the cdrtools: every single
project (work) is completely under a single license.

Even the GPL is an acepted OSS License and thus _needs_
to meet the rules in http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
so the GPL _cannot_ forbid to ship different projects under
different licenses in the same tar ball.

And last: Suse included cdrtools in the official list of packets.

I have no idea why RedHat is not following the rules of the
OpenSource Initiative that is the only neutral and unbiased
entity in OSS rules.