Comment 39 for bug 213215

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

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.