|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

cdrecord - how the distributors are responding

One month ago, LWN ran an article about the cdrtools license change and resulting controversy. The biggest issue remains the distribution of binary versions of the mkisofs utility. This tool is licensed under the GPL, and has copyrights held by a number of authors. The current version, however, requires the libscg library - which is now distributed under Sun's CDDL license. Since the GPL and the CDDL are mutually incompatible, it is hard to see how mkisofs can be distributed legally.

That situation has not changed in the last month; cdrtools author Jörg Schilling appears to be determined to go forward with the license change. What has happened, however, is that a number of distributors have responded to the change - though not all have responded in the same way. Here is a summary of what the distributors are doing:

  • Debian was the first distributor to notice the license problem, and the Debian developers have reacted quickly. It now appears that etch will ship with cdrkit, a new project based on a version of cdrtools from before the license change. The Debian maintainers are actively pushing forward with this project, and they have approached other distributors to see if they want to help.

  • Fedora has dropped back to the 2.01 release, which predates the most controversial license changes. That change allows them to get the Fedora Core 6 release out without excess worry or delay while the longer-term plan is worked out. That process appears to be going slowly, with the Fedora cdrtools maintainer not yet participating in the discussion.

    Meanwhile, Fedora has also slipped a version of libburn into the Extras repository.

  • Gentoo has taken an interesting approach. Since Gentoo distributes in source form, the developers have concluded that they need not worry about this issue. There is no combination of mkisofs and libscg until the end user builds a binary - and the user has the right to do that. As long as those binaries are not distributed, licensing does not come into play. Thus, Gentoo ships the (relicensed) 2.01.01-a11 release.

    That said, the Gentoo developers have also put cdrkit into their distribution, and it looks like that is what they plan to support going into the future.

  • Mandriva has made no public statements about the license change at all. The recently announced Mandriva 2007 release candidate contains version 2.01.01-a11, which includes the relicensed code.

  • Slackware has no recent cdrtools-related entries in the current changelog. The upcoming Slackware 11 release appears to be poised to ship version 2.01.

  • SUSE's response, so far, is "We'll look into cdrkit". The current "factory" OpenSUSE tree contains version 2.01.

  • Ubuntu currently has 2.01.01-a3 (which predates the license change) in the repository for the upcoming "edgy" release; cdrkit has not yet made an appearance there. It would be surprising if Ubuntu failed to follow Debian's lead on this, however.

The overall picture that results is that, while a number of distributors are taking overt action in response to the cdrtools licensing issues, others appear to be waiting until things settle - and a final 2.01.01 release is made. Only one of the distributors listed above (Mandriva) looks set, at the moment, to distribute a version of cdrtools released under the new license.

For years, there has been occasional talk of forking the cdrtools package. It has remained talk, however; CD burning can be a tricky task, and, as a result, cdrtools is not a trivial package to take on. It now appears likely that this fork will happen at last; the licensing changes have given the distributors (at least those most concerned with these issues) little choice. The real remaining question, then, would be: just how many forks will result? No distributor has an interest in taking on the full maintenance of a package like this, so the incentives should be in place to bring everybody together on a single CD burning utility.


to post comments

cdrecord - how the distributors are responding

Posted Sep 17, 2006 4:14 UTC (Sun) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link]

This is a serious blow to the OSS DVD extensions objective :

"The objective is to give cdrtools dvd extensions without imposed limits,
and also to have a Open Source solution to burn dvd's. "

"The OSS DVD Extensions for cdrtools are licensed under the GNU Public
License (GPL)."

As cdrtools itself was GPL Licensed, the combination with OSS DVD
extensions supplied a popular solution for GPL-ed DVD burning on Linux
machines. I guess not so anymore. I wonder what Schilling's motives and
objectives are for this move. I invite him to make a proper and honest
motivation for selecting the CDDL license for cdrtools, as on his webpage
seems to lack essential details on this.

Robert M. Stockmann
OSS DVD : http://crashrecovery.org/oss-dvd.html

cdrecord - how the distributors are responding

Posted Sep 21, 2006 12:02 UTC (Thu) by jfj (guest, #37917) [Link] (2 responses)

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.

cdrecord - how the distributors are responding

Posted Sep 21, 2006 21:16 UTC (Thu) by EmbeddedLinuxGuy (guest, #35019) [Link] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #3165) [Link]

So ship an RPM that contains the source and compiles on the user's machine. There's really not much difference...


Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds