One of your contributions () is definitely extremely unbalanced und not tolerable, so there is a COI. Without this note, I would believe that this was intentional, but with your note, it seems that you are just missinformed by anti-OSS people like Eduard Bloch... Let me explain in detail:
 The text in the mentioned diff does not belong into the licensing section at all. It may be a candidate for the critisizm section on the Debian article (to explain problematic behavior of Debian against cdrtools, firefox, ...) after it has been corrected to reflect the truth.
 The named text tries to belittle cdrtools with false claims, so let me give the correct background information:
 All CD/DVD/BD drives ever made are SCSI devices.
 ATAPI is just one of many SCSI transport mechanisms and while ATAPI is fully integrated into the SCSI stack on Solaris x86 since 1993, this was not the case on Linux in 2004. This is a design problem on Linux.
 Cdrtools is highly portable to ~ 30 different platforms (not counting different CPUs separately) and the man page mentions that it grants equivalent behavior on all supported platforms
 The vast majority of all platforms do either not have device nodes at all or do not have a 1:1 relation between a specific device node and a specific SCSI device. Win-DOS and Mac OS X both do not have device nodes for SCSI devices, so 99% of all computers in the world cannot use device node based SCSI addressing.
 3) and 4) make it obvious that you cannot use device nodes in a portable implementation and that only the official SCSI addressing scheme is portable across platforms.
 In September 2004 Linus Torvalds introduced a fatal Linux kernel SCSI interface incompatibility while claiming to fix a security bug. This incompatibility was introduced exactly when a new stable cdrtools relase was puiblished after a long time of bug fixing and code freeze in cdrtools.
 The patches from Debian (Eduard Bloch) that you seem to reference and that have been published in 2004 are full of bugs. In Spring 2005, there have been aprox. 150 unique bug reports against cdrtools  in the bug tracking systems of various Linux distros. Nearly 100 of these bugs have been a result of the patches from Eduard Bloch. The other 50 bugs have been fixed in the original code between September 2004 and August 2006 after Debian stopped updating their source. BTW: As there is no development activities on cdrkit since May 2007, the vast majority of these 150 bugs is still present in the defective and dead fork from Debian. In special, there is no code in the Debian fork that works around the SCSI interface incompatibility mentioned in 6).
 cdrtools is a really openminded project. Any patch that was send and that follows the quality requirements in the CONTRIBUTING rules has been accepted. The patches from Eduard Bloch did not follow the quality rules. The cdrtools project does not accept patches that harm the code - sorry, but this is needed if you like to give long term support for a program. Note that the first libscg code was written in August 1986 (28 years ago) and that I have other OSS (e.g. star) that is maintained since 32 years.
This list of explanations can be found in the internet if you use a search engine...I did write it many times in similar wording in the past after people came up with similar false claims.
Please also note that the fork from Debian was started in May 2004 - 10 years ago. When Debian claimed to start their cdrkit fork in late 2006, they did just change the name on my request. So this cdrkit includes all bugs that have been introduced by Debian since early 2004. Cdrkit did never publish a release that has no known bugs at the time of being published, so cdrkit did never raise above alpha-release quality.
As your request looks collaborative, I am sure that you understand that you have been fooled by unfriendly people and fully remove the paragraph in question.