On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com>wrote:

> On 05/26/10 07:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code?
>>
>> Jörg
>>
>>
> Yes
>
> Here here !

After all, this is open source ! Tts the *community *that decides what they
want to do, not the other way around. If the community decides to use a
buggy piece of software, so be it. Besides, (even though what i'm about to
say is contradictory to 'the arch way' that uses a rolling release model and
delivers the latest stable software) new, up-to-date, latest generation
software doesn't necessarily mean its good software.

I myself must confess that I didn't even know which package I was using for
burning CDs from the command line. But after reading through this thread, I
will definetily go reserach the differences compare them (both technical and
legal sides) for myself.


P.S: I am sorry for adding yet another post to a thread that should just be
left alone

--
"All musicians are drug addicts, no question about it. The ecstasy we get
during a concert is proof enough.
yet there is a slight difference between us, the musicians, and the typical
'street-junkie'...
Instead of consuming powder, we consume vibrations"

Will
et/ou
Gregory Eric Sanderson Turcot Temlett MacDonnell Forbes
et/ou
Touffa!

At Mittwoch, 26. Mai 2010 19:18 Mauro Santos wrote:

> If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then
> prove them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the
> legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of
> wanting people to believe something because you say so.

This is not a one direction way because i must not believe the words of debian
too.-)

Sorry to say but until there is no decision from a law court i see this only as
a interpersonal problem and therefore i prefer to discuss about technical
things. Perhaps this is because i'm a former OS/2 user but what i really don't
understand is the support for software which is a fork of old software and which
don't support the same count of platforms as the original. Aside of this
juristic discussions from laypersons i can't recognize for what the world need
cdrkit.

See you, Attila

Mauro Santos <registo.mailling@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat.
> >
> > I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and
> > that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools.
>
> Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat.
>
> The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by
> publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it
> has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without
> fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication.

You hit the point: There is _zero_ prove from Debian for their claims.
Even Eben Moglen (in his mail that has been verified to be otherwise based on
lies as he e.g. claims that there was a phone call that did never happen) did
not give _any_ legal theory for his claims. Guess why...

... And there is a detailed explanation from me, Lawrence Rosen and other people
who confirm each statement with valid legal theories.


As long as there people that even believe things claimed by Debian to be in the
GPL that are not, we seem to have a serious social problem with FUD and
trolling.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

C Anthony Risinger <anthony@extof.me> wrote:

> in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include
> the best tool for the job = cdrtools.
>
> on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could
> cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you
> seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why
> not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've

As mentioned many times before and as you can read on the website....

The GPL is full of claims that cannot be enforced in court, see:
http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

This was written by Lawrence Rosen, the legal advisor of the OpenSource
initiative (Opensource.org) in 2004, but I did know this already in 2001 when
I tried to be the first person on earth to fight _for_ the GPL and against GPL
violations in court. It tourned out that this is impossible. Note that Harald
Welte definitely does not base his court cases on the GPL but on the German
legal vehicle "preliminary injunction" where he forbids to sell produced
hardware that needs to be payed to the producer (e.g. in China) but cannot
create revenues from selling, based on the preliminary injunction.

Any similar case that would solely be based on software would get lost
unless the objector has an incapable lawyer.

As mentioned before, in 2001 Moglen first spread wrong claims in the public
while I was underway suing two GPL violating companies. So Moglen is already
known as an unreliable legal sources since a long time before Debian started to
attack cdrtools.

>From the lesson I learned in 2001 from suing GPL violaters, I learned that
it is useless to use a license that tries to enforce many non-helpful
restrictions on the software. As a result, the main contributors of the cdrtools
project did discuss this and decided to switch to a more liberal license in
the near future. We just could not fully agree on the BSD license.

Then in December 2004, Sun and I created the CDDL which turned out to be
a license that just tries to enforce as many restrictions as can enforced in
court and thus seems to be the right compromise between BSD and GPL.

As Debian stedted to attack cdrtools in May 2004 and as Debian massively
boosted these attacks in late 2005 (including wrong claims about legal
problems), I decided to switch towads the CDDL on May 15th 2006.
As you see, the license change was a _result_ of the attacks from Debian but
definitely not the cause.

> been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit,
> the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like
> the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY...
> this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO)

I personally know some projects that did go back from GPLv3 because the GPLv3
claims more restrictions than the GPLv2 and you are correct, I personally don't
know about a project that moved from another license towards the GPL.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Attila <vodoo0904@sonnenkinder.org> wrote:

> Sorry to say but until there is no decision from a law court i see this only as
> a interpersonal problem and therefore i prefer to discuss about technical
> things. Perhaps this is because i'm a former OS/2 user but what i really don't
> understand is the support for software which is a fork of old software and which

In case there was no decision from a court, there is only one halfway reliable
method to deal with the problem:

Check the claims of both parties and try to understand whether they are able to
prove their claims with legal theories.

Debian spreads claims that are in obvious conflict with the GPL license text
and Debian uses a GPl interpretation that would make the GPL a definitely
non-free license acording to the OpenSource definition:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Moglen sent me trustworthy legal theories in private at the time when he
confirmed that there is no legal problem with the original software.
Moglen did never send a legal theory since he has a "change of views" with
Stallman and started to claim that there is a problem. Moglen has been asked
several time to send a legal theory for his reversed view but besides from
general unfriendlyness, he did never send _any_ legal explanation that could
confirm that there is a problem. We for this reason need to stay with his
first statements that have been proved with trustworthy legal theories and that
confirm that there is no problem.

Other lawyers are also confirming that there is no legal problem with the
original software and these lawyers also confirm their claims with useful legal
theories.

So this seems to be a simple decision between pointless attacks and useful
legal theories.

BTW: Debian started to claim that there is a problem, so it is the duty of
Debian to confirm that there is a problem. They did however never confirm
any of their claims.


> don't support the same count of platforms as the original. Aside of this
> juristic discussions from laypersons i can't recognize for what the world need
> cdrkit.

The world does not need any dead and buggy software regardless of it's name and
regardless of it's initiator.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

>> Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a
>> licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it
>> under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless
>> instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years?
>>
>> It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the
>> licensing.
>
> The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD
> spread by Debian.
>
> Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the broken
> and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse).
>
> I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a "solution" for a
> non-existent problem.

You didn't create CD Recording drives either but still you introduced
a solution to the problem of writing to them. So, why should that stop
you now?

People ask you to simply dual-license it because:
- it's almost NO effort to you
- it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and
uncertainties - now and in the future
- it will show your good will to engage in discussions
- people might prefer GPL in some jurisdictions even if you think it's bullshit


--
damjan

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:
> *- it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and
> uncertainties - now and in the future

he certainly is not interested in ending these pointless battles

Adam Lantos <hege@playma.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *- it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and
> > uncertainties - now and in the future
>
> he certainly is not interested in ending these pointless battles

Let me correct yoour typo:

It should read:

They certainly are not interested in ending these pointless battles


note that these pointless battles have been initated by Debian and as long as
people spread FUD about my software, I need to correct.

Jörg

--
EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily