Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:05 UTC, submitted by SEJeff
Permalink for comment 185379
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
"http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109"
Thank you for the link. However, the discussion seems to center around the fact that the GPL software and the CDDL build system where distributed together (i.e., more than "mere aggregation"). It was not an argument about linking GPL software to non-GPL software or GPL software with non-GPL dependecies. For more information, see the Java Trap link posted by progster and the following items from the GPL FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
By my understanding, copyright holders can license their source under any license they see fit. Whether that work is valuable or reasonably redistributable by a third party is a different matter. In fact, it may be strictly undistributable in binary form (putting it off-limits to a distro like Debian). But since the source is GPL, a third party can take the valuable parts and toss the rest, which seems to be exactly the outcome of the cdrtools/cdrkit case.