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 x since this was not the case on linux in this is a design problem on linux cdrtools is highly portable to 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 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 of all computers in the world cannot use device node based scsi addressing and 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 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 are full of bugs in spring there have been aprox unique bug reports against cdrtools in the bug tracking systems of various linux distros nearly of these bugs have been a result of the patches from eduard bloch the other bugs have been fixed in the original code between september and august after debian stopped updating their source btw as there is no development activities on cdrkit since may the vast majority of these 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 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 years ago and that i have other oss e g star that is maintained since 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 years ago when debian claimed to start their cdrkit fork in late they did just change the name on my request so this cdrkit includes all bugs that have been introduced by debian since early 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