| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
cdrecord - how the distributors are respondingcdrecord - how the distributors are respondingPosted Sep 21, 2006 12:02 UTC (Thu) by jfj (guest, #37917)Parent article: cdrecord - how the distributors are responding
So the problem is that "Shilling is hard to work with" or that the license is bad? Both do not apply.
Personaly, I can download/view/compile/hack the source code of cdrtools, so that's open source to me. I guess some distributions feel that way.
Maybe, instead of forking cdrtools, the distributions that make money should contribute some back to Schilling for his hard work. That'd persuade him to keep up the good work. But then, gcc and valgrind and qemu also deserve large amounts of cash. The cash flow is broken and it goes to the wrong ends, I say.
(Log in to post comments)
cdrecord - how the distributors are responding Posted Sep 21, 2006 21:16 UTC (Thu) by EmbeddedLinuxGuy (guest, #35019) [Link] So the problem is that "Shilling is hard to work with" or that the license is bad?The license is incompatible with the GPL. cdrecord can't legally be distributed in binary form. That's the problem. that's open source to me. Of course the CDDL is an open source license. Problem is, the CDDL code must be linked with GPL code, and the GPL prohibits that. This is not about picking on Schilly or niggling over what's free software / open source / etc; it's just distributions trying to meet their legal obligations.
cdrecord - how the distributors are responding Posted Sep 22, 2006 5:34 UTC (Fri) by xorbe (subscriber, #3165) [Link] So ship an RPM that contains the source and compiles on the user's machine. There's really not much difference...
|
|
||||||||||||