| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ?Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ?Posted Nov 28, 2006 18:29 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252)Parent article: Who is being divisive?
My grief with Shuttleworth is that he offers users who fear GPL-compliance of SUSE to switch to another doistro with equally questionable GPL-compliance track record (read this, think about Shuttleworth's plans and recall that binary wireless drivers are already included)... Why will I do this ? Fedora is safer choice...
(Log in to post comments)
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 28, 2006 23:10 UTC (Tue) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] As, but isn't Fedora still shipping cdrtools? (Not to mention non-free artwork, documentation and other non-software works, but they are another topic for endless debate)...
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 28, 2006 23:22 UTC (Tue) by mdomsch (subscriber, #5920) [Link] Fedora re-released an earlier version of cdrtools that doesn't suffer the same license issues as later versions, exactly to clear up any potential problems.
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 29, 2006 10:23 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Exactly. When licensing questions are raised about Fedora - RedHat answers them and/or fixes them. When the same happens with SUSE or Ubuntu... leaders talk about commitment to open source path - but don't address the issue directly...
Instead Shuttleworth points out that nobody sued them for GPL violation (so far) so it's Ok to continue with it and even expand it... How it's differend from Novell's stance ?
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 29, 2006 19:54 UTC (Wed) by aj (subscriber, #39001) [Link] Look at openSUSE 10.2. Similar to Fedora we have decided to not ship cdrecord with the broken license. We use wodim instead which does not have the license problem. We do care about licenses. Please show me examples in 10.2 where we're not.
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 29, 2006 16:18 UTC (Wed) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] I just pulled the source RPM from Fedora Core 6 and there are still many many "you are not allowed to change this" dotted about the code, so it seems that the dubious version is still shipped.
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 29, 2006 19:14 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Adding restrictions on top of GPL'ed code is completely invalid and can be discarded as per the license. For FC6, the solution to the CDDL/GPL licensing conflict was to revert back to a older version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202526
Longer term, there are other potential alternatives.
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 30, 2006 0:49 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link] Fair enough, I see that Fedora's attitude is that the further restrictions can simply be removed by the end users?
If so, it is good to find out that my suspicion that the entire affair was simply being swept under the carpet was unfounded. I wish distributions would state their position about this issue more clearly.
I don't want to install Fedora to check, but does cdrecord spit out the FUD messages on every run, or were they removed, as has been done in cdrkit? We're getting off-topic here anyway...
In the medium term I hope everyone adopts cdrkit, and in the long term, (one of the) libburn(s).
Replace one GPL-questionable distro with another GPL-questionable distro ? Posted Nov 30, 2006 1:13 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
IANAL, but we are working on the basis that end users can indeed ignore any restrictions on top of any GPL licensed code. If you are a sole copyright holder of a project, you can introduce a new license that is GPL+restrictions but you cant do that unilaterally to a existing GPL'ed codebase with multiple contributors.
There is a number of patches added to Fedora's cdrecord which fixes the warnings, adds support for DVD etc and informs the user to file reports against the project bugzilla rather than to the original author. The cdrecord issue was discussed in detail in the public Fedora development lists and as part of the recent Free software licensing audit in Fedora as you can see in the bug report.
The Debian guy who initiated the cdrkit fork mailed me about their effort and we had discussed the libbburn based effort which he claimed wasnt very mature and didnt support all the hardware that cdrkit did. See the cdrecord alternatives page for more details.
If there is any Free software license issues in Fedora, feel free to mail the fedora-devel list about that and it would get fixed quickly.
|
|
||||||||||||