Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

cdrtools - a tale of two licenses

Posted Aug 14, 2006 6:41 UTC (Mon) by dmantione (guest, #4640)
In reply to: cdrtools - a tale of two licenses by MortenSickel
Parent article: cdrtools - a tale of two licenses

No, for copyright issues the jurisdiction of the author counts. So, if it
would be legal in Germany it would be legal world wide.

However, the fact that there is doubt about these viral clauses, does of
course not mean you can safely assume it is legal in Europe to link
GPL'ed and not GPL'ed code.

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Aug 14, 2006 14:44 UTC (Mon) by climent (subscriber, #7232) [Link]

No, for copyright issues the jurisdiction of the author counts. So, if it would be legal in Germany it would be legal world wide.

That would mean Opera code can be reverse-engineered in US, even if protected with an encryption device (read DMCA), because in Norway reverse engineering is fine?

cdrtools - a tale of two licenses

Posted Aug 18, 2006 16:02 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

A good point, but note that the cdrecord controversy has nothing to do with linking GPL'ed and not GPL'ed code. It has to do with another clause of GPL that says in order to have permission to distribute a binary (derived from the copyright owner's source), you must make available the scripts used to make that binary.

And from what I hear, Schilling doesn't even dispute that. He just says that his make files aren't scripts.

Linking

Posted Aug 18, 2006 16:25 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Actually, with the current version, linking GPL and non-GPL-compatible code is part of the controversy. mkisofs is GPL-licensed, but libscg, which it uses, is now under the CDDL.