You again make the wrong conclusions and I get the impression that you need to read the GPL more thoroughly in order to understand the way I interpret it.
The main missunderstanding seems to be caused by reading GOL §2 b) too quickly..... this is why I try to explain it to you in detail below. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ The main weapon of a lawyer or person who works on contracts is the word. If you like to play in that league, you need to be able to deal with that weapon! In other words, you need to read the GPL carefully and thoroughly many times until you understand every corner of the text. Sometimes I get the impressuion that native English speakers don't do that because they believe that they understand what they read in the first attempt. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The CDDL definitely does not have any requirements on "other" code > > as it is a clearly file based license. For this rerason, your > > statements (below) on the CDDL are wrong. > > Neither license has anything to do with files. The licenses work the > same regardless of whether you have a single file with sections under > multiple licenses or multiple files each under a single license. You need to read the licenses..... The CDDL _explicitly_ mentiones the fact that it is file based. Regarding the GPL: If you don't think about the possibility of using separate files, you obviously missunderstand the possibilities that GPL §2 b) gives you. > > Other claims often made about the GPL when talking about the GPL > > cannot be found in the original GPL text, viloate the law and thus > > are void. > > Violate which law(s)? Realize of course, that we're talking about > distribution in multiple countries here, of which Germany is just one. Cdrtools is a work that is covered by German "Urheberrecht" http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html If you don't read and understand it, you are probably the wrong person to discuss this issue..... You need e.g. definitely read this: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/BJNR012730965.html#BJNR012730965BJNG003601377 Since 1993, even US judges need to follow these rules or they are acting illegally. > > The GPL includes no text that is related to GPL projects that > > include/use non-GPLd code. As the GPL in general permits to use the > > code, this is a permitted use. > > The direction is irrelevant. It's just as valid to say that you've > taken the "Schilly makefile" project (CDDLed) and added to it GPLed > code. If what you're saying where actually the case, it would make the > GPL meaningless. Of yourse, the direction is relevent! Your statement about the Schily makefilesystem does not apply at all because the GPL requires to include build scripts but does not mention a specific license. The fact that you believe this may be relevent, verifies that you need to re-read the GPL until you understand that you cannot mix claims from unrelated sentences in the license with claims from other sentences. GPL §2b) b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. Some hints for understanding this text: - The Schily makefilesystem is a separate work and not part of the work cdrecord. The Schily makefilesystem does not appear in the resulting binaries and it is possible to compile everything manually without using the Schily makefilesystem. - The term "contains" _definitely_ describes a _direction_ - If you like to understand the text above, you need to understand the term "derived". The fact that mkisofs _uses_ libscg, definitely does not make libscg software that is "derived" from mkisofs. If at all, is just the other way round: mkisofs is a program "derived" from libscg. If you still believe that _the_ _way_ _I_ _combine_ CDDL and GPL is not allowed, you would need to write a very detailled description with quotes in order to proof your claims. In case you did not get it correctly. I am not saying that _every_ combination of CDDL and GPL code is legal, but it is obvious that the combination I am using is legal. > > Note that you simply cannot create a license that tries to enforce > > conditions on other people's code because this would be illegal. > > You missunderstand what the GPL (and to a lesser extent the CDDL) > does. It doesn't *force* you to satisfy the conditions; it *prohibits* > you from distributing the GPLed code when you cannot. You are missunderstanding the GPL and the CDDL in many ways. Cdrtools word by word follow the rules in both licenses! You of course need to read both licenses word by word in order to understand why cdrtools does nothing illegal. > > Many people forget about the law and about the original intention of > > the FSF when talking about the GPL. Unless you asume that the FSF is > > acting like Microsoft, it is obvious that the intention of the FSF > > it "only" to prevent the GPLd code from disappearing in CSS projects > > and to keep it free. Both do not apply to code under the CDDL > > because the CDDL is a free license that itself tries to prevent the > > code from being made non-free. > > The intention of the GPL is to keep code that is GPLed Free Software > that preserves the Four Freedoms; in order to do this, restrictions So at least at this extent, you seem to agree! > which are not present in the GPL are not allowed to be placed on GPLed > works. This, as a side effect, makes it incompatible with the CDDL. > That the licenses have similar philosophical backgrounds is great, but > doesn't affect whether they are compatible or not. You are missinterpreting the GPL again: The CDDL definitely does not enforce restrictions on code inside other files as the CDDL is a file based license. The GPL does not try to enforce restrictions in other files too. The _excact_ _way_, sources under the CDDL and sources under the GPL are combined in cdrtools is allowed by the GPL. > > See above: The GPL (see GPL § 2b) only requires the whole work to be > > distributed under the GPL in case that a non-GPL project tries to > > use GPL code. The GPL does not contain any text that could cause the > > assumption the GPL tries to enforce restrictions on non-GPL code. > > 2b does not distinguish between these cases at all. You need to read GPL § 2b) before to avoid this kind of missunderstandings. See detailed axplanation above..... > > > direction. Indeed, I've been told by those involved in the > > > drafting of the CDDL that this was done by design. [See the video > > > of the Solaris discussion at Debconf 6 if you want to see someone > > > talk about it; you can also see me discussing this issue and > > > others as well in the same video.] > > > > This is of course wrong - sorry. Please stop distributing wrong > > claims. > > Nothing that I've said above is incorrect. You may disagree with what > the people who told me have said, but that has nothing to do with me > reporting what I've heard. Contact Danese Cooper if you want to debate > this more completely, as she is the one who said this. You are quoting the wrong person.... AFAIK, Danese Cooper was not involved with the creation of the CDDL at all. It is posible that she did missunderstand it. The CDDL is a joined work of Claire Giordano (the Lawyer) and Andy Tucker (the Solaris chief engineer at that time). I did have a long discussion with Andy Tucker in September 2004 about legal aspects of OpenSolaris during a joint dinner. I know about the background.... At this early stage it was clear that it makes no sense to even try to prevent other people from using code from OpenSolaris. The only way to let OpenSolaris stay superior is by staying a leader in technology. > > The reason for not using the GPL for OpenSolaris is simple: The GPL > > (if used for OpenSolaris) would not allow Sun to create the "Sun > > Solaris Distribution" from the OpenSolaris sources. > > Sun owns the copyright. Nothing keeps them from doual licensing that > code under multitple licenses. Indeed, nothing keeps you from dual > licensing the "Schilly makefiles" either, assuming you actually own > the copyright on them. It seems that you are missinterpreting the background ideas from Sun on OpenSolaris. The OpenSolaris development is completely open. Anybody who follows the rules is able to submit code to the project. Dual licensing OpenSolaris would Sun prevent from being able to use all the extensions from the community. The GPL is not free enough to allow to use a single license for all, the CDDL is. > > I should mention that not all CDDL/GPL combinations are possible and > > that a European Author has the right to create more legal > > combinations than a US Author has. This is a result of the archaic > > US Copyright law. This does however not limit the > > re-distributability of the code as the USA accept the European > > "Urheberrecht" (which is much more than just the US Copyright law) > > if the Author is European and European countries accept the US > > Copyright law if the Author is a US Citizen. > > That's the first I've ever heard of that argument; can you provide a > case law citation? In any event, it's quite likely that some of the > authors of code upon which cdrtools is based are (or were) US > Citizens, so this argument (even if it is backed by US case law) isn't > particularly convincing. This is interesting. Given the recent GPL violation in the Linux kernel, I thought that this is wel known.... Background: Since 1993, Software is treated identical to literature. In the US, if you write a book, you are not allowed to cite parts from other books unless you have the explicit permission from the author. In Europe, we have the "Recht auf das wissenschaftliche Kleinzitat" that allows us to cite other works without asking in case that the quoted text (or images) is not too big compared to the own "intellectual creation level". As USA/Europe have a mutual acceptance of the US-Copyright vs. Urheberrecht, this is even legal if the cited author is US citizen. So the "Recht auf das wissenschaftliche Kleinzitat" allows a European author to "quote" small portions of e.g. GPL code without asking the author for permissions. The European "Urheberrecht" on the other side forbids a minor contributor to govern the license for the project that makes use of the "Recht auf das wissenschaftliche Kleinzitat". ... > I've gone ahead and spent time here to completely delinate as > precisely as I am capable of why Debian is not able to distribute > cdrtools as it stands. Whether you agree with my assesment is entirely You masy believe that you did, but in fact you did not understand my claims and you did obviouly not read the CDDL and GPL thoroughly enough and did not understand what exactly I am doing when combining CDDL and GPL code in cdrtools. Again: not all combinations of CDDL and GPL code are allowed. The combination I am using is allowed.... > up to you, but hopefully you see that many different people from > Debian who would prefer to see cdrtools in Debian have analyzed this > situtation and come to a similar conclusion. > > Dual licensing the code in question would both enable us all to > continue on with more important things. > > Finally, allow me to note that it's not Debian who needs to convince > you; this discussion is entirely about whether Debian can distribute > cdrtools or not. That decision is up to Debian and specifically the > maintainers of cdrtools in Debian, the tech-ctte, and/or the > Developers as a whole. You failed to verify your claims about the incompatibility of the CDDL and the GPL in the special case used with "cdrtools". If you like me to follow you, you need to convince me and you did not do that. Note: I did talk with many people about the the current license scheme and nobody was able to convince me that I am doing something that is disallowed or that would disallow other people to redistribute binaries created from cdrtools. I will not dual license my software as this is not needed. If you like to stop using cdrtools on Debian, it is your decision, but note that you will cause Debian from being cut off from future development in this area. You will not be able to use the planned extensions for mkisofs (better Rock Ridge support, support for ISO-9660 files >= 4 GB, better UDF support). You will not be able to profit from planned extensions for cdrecord (DVD multi-border support, HD-DVD support, Blu-Ray support). Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
