On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Juli�n Mu�oz wrote: >Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:07:06 +0000 (GMT) >From: Juli�n Mu�oz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: Andreas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: cdwrite list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Subject: Re: License of cdrdao will be changed > > >On 23 Sep 2002, Andreas Mueller wrote: > > >> At the end, my conclusion is to not change the license of cdrdao which >> gives me following two options: >> >> 1. Freeze the project until the affected sources are replaced by a GPL >> compliant version. >> >> 2. Release a cdrdao version which temporarily omits the affected >> sources until a GPL compliant version is available. > >This morning I (re)read this interesting article: >http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html > >In fact, you can release all the code under GPL, but don't include in the >package the "problematic" library. (GPL only affects distribution rights I >think, so that's the spirit). > >The library should then be distributed through another way, it's a patch >that the user is free to use and install. If you have the authorization of >the author, you can put an hyperlink to the library file in your site, or >in the original url, or even do it automatically with a script (I think >it's what is done in the djbdns debian package).
Even if such a hack/workaround is even legal, redistribution of the combined 2 pieces of code by other parties in source or binary form would bring up the license problem. Linux distributions would have to completely drop cdrdao, and any software which requires cdrdao to function properly (front ends). I personally consider cdrdao a must have application in any modern Linux distribution, and it would be a complete and total loss to have to drop software like cdrdao from any distribution. It would also likely spawn 10 different forked projects to replace the code with pure GPL code, which then presents the problem of having 10 different half-assed versions floating around, none of which is the real thing. So, while there are indeed various different options available, I'm glad that Andreas has decided to write a GPL replacement for the offending code, and use that in cdrdao instead. That is probably the most amiable solution, as it keeps cdrdao a single project, self sufficient, and keeps it GPL, and without any licensing problems or even alleged licensing problems. I think Andreas decision to replace the GPL incompatible code with new code, is the right thing to do. I wonder if there are any other existing implementations of code with such functionality? Has anyone scoured the net? If not, I'll have a look around myself and if I find anything I'll post it here. -- Mike A. Harris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
