[Fedora-legal-list] Legal CD/DVD/BD writing software for RedHat and Fedora

[Joerg Schilling]

Frank Murphy <frankly3d at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 12/06/09 20:45, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > "Ciaran O'Riordan"<ciaran at member.fsf.org>  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I know nothing about this story :-) but I happen to remember a part of the
> >> original debate back in 2006, so for context here it is:
> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
> >
> > Could we please have a fact based discussion?
> >
> > The article you quote is not based on facts.

> I don't know the background to this.

If you don't know the background, I recommend you to read the
mail I send today:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-June/msg00012.html

and the other background information that is on the project's web pages
since years:

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


> But why not re-licence all your new code since 2006 as gpl.
> If the cddl, is what's blocking it's adoption, by various distros.

Sorry, the problem is unrelated to licenses. It is resulting from a social 
problem of the initiator of the fork.

The CDDL is a generally approved OSS license and even accepted by RedHat (see 
e.g. the star project). In addition, the GPL was made intentionally compatible 
to _any_ independend library of any license, so the license combinations used
in mkisofs do not create any legal problem.

I am not going to re-introduce a license that acording to the private 
interpretation from the initiator of the fork is not a valid OSS license,
so the GPL is no option.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily