1 |
Willie Wong <wwong@×××××××××.EDU> posted |
2 |
20070606142034.GA30712@×××××××××.edu, excerpted below, on Wed, 06 Jun |
3 |
2007 10:20:34 -0400: |
4 |
|
5 |
> Wait... when did this happen? I thought cdrtools (which is still in |
6 |
> portage) *is* the original cdrecord? or am I completely confused? |
7 |
|
8 |
Maybe it's me that's screwed up then. I know the license changed some, |
9 |
and saw the discussion on the dev list, then later checking for cdrecord |
10 |
and not seeing it I assumed it was gone as a result. However, it appears |
11 |
I was checking the wrong name and they just added cdrkit, and didn't |
12 |
remove cdrtools as I thought because I was looking for the wrong thing. |
13 |
|
14 |
Thanks for pointing that out to me! |
15 |
|
16 |
FWIW, the issue is that parts of it are now CDDL licensed. The CDDL is |
17 |
GPL incompatible which puts folks shipping the binaries in an iffy |
18 |
situation since parts of it are still GPL licensed. Joerg S. has never |
19 |
been particularly easy to work with, so while it /might/ have been safe |
20 |
taking him at his word as the general author (but AFAIK not the /only/ |
21 |
author), as with xfree86/xorg, many are switching to cdrkit. However, |
22 |
due to the from-source nature of Gentoo, it's in a bit different position |
23 |
and should be able to legally continue the package, as a user can do |
24 |
whatever on their local machines and won't run afoul of the issue, as |
25 |
long as they don't distribute the resulting binary. I just thought |
26 |
Gentoo had gone the rest of the way and removed it anyway, but it appears |
27 |
I was incorrect, since I was looking for the wrong package name and |
28 |
attributed its missing to the licensing issue, not the wrong name. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-desktop@g.o mailing list |