FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-26-2009, 09:47 PM
Darren Salt
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

I demand that Brett Parker may or may not have written...

> On 26 Feb 15:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Brett Parker <iDunno@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
>>>> legally distributed.
>>> Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
>>> half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
>>> sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
>> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and
>> legal. Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the
>> fork that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>> See my bug report from December 2006.

> Is this the one that doesn't actually give any details but does just
> randomly say the above? i.e. insubstantiated claims, and further spreading
> of FUD?

Indeed it is he. He makes for an interesting diversion for a few days (if the
posting rate isn't too high) before it tails off into the same old "wodim is
full of bugs and is illegal! cdrecord is perfect! Use it and gain the
Blessing of St. Joerg!"[1] rant, at which point we all switch off and ignore
him.


[snip]
>> It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in
>> working CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100
>> Bug Reports against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian,
>> Ubuntu and Redhat, none of the reports applies to the original software.

(... idly wonders how many of those 100 are duplicates, but can't be bothered
to check...)

> Interesting - so, in your (somewhat naive) opinion - the *only* cd burning
> software worth mentioning is your very own pet project... weird that you
> would be so biased on that isn't it?

> Does this mean that you're also blissfully unaware of the cdskin and
> libburn projects?

... yes, this thread is following the usual track. I fully expect any
response from St. Joerg to say something like

"But they're not cdrecord; they are not The Original Software. All ye who use
them commit the gravest of sins; and all thy CDs and all thy DVDs shall all
be defective; and ye shall burn forever in the Light of the Perfect Laser
which the Eye of Schilling issueth and the Software of Schilling
controlleth."

[snip]
>> It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
>> even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known

>> bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
>> unmodified source.

> But it is your duty to claim that anything other than your software is a
> grave travesty and continue spreading unfounded claims? And I have to
> *believe* you that they're all fixed? Maybe it's just that no body files
> bug reports with you...

I wouldn't be surprised to find that he reads the bug trackers of Debian, Red
Hat, Ubuntu etc. then goes off and does some bug fixing.

[snip]
>> Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
>> bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?

> I'm interested in where you're finding the showstopping bugs - looking at
> the bug reports page for wodim, I can see 9 Important bugs - that's not a
> whole lot of bugs, really. And most of them can probably be closed now that
> lenny has been released and a newer version of cdrkit is in it.

That's easy. It's a bug in wodim, therefore it's a showstopper. :-)

>> If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
>> undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.

> Err, the fork is perfectly distributable.

He repeats it in the hope that somebody will believe him. It happens
occasionally (I've seen it), and my opinion is that the one so gulled by him
is, for want of a better word, uninformed. [2]

[snip]
>> What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there
>> is mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently
>> work for Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform
>> yourself based on neutral information

Did that.

>> instead of the attacks from this person.

The attacks continued.

"You are uninformed."

"Inform yourself."

"cdrecord is the master of all. All other software *must* *be*
*exterminated*. Go forth, my informed ones, seek it out and destroy it.
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! *EXTERMINATE!*" [3]

[snip]
>> The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:
>> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/

> No, that wouldn't be a third step - and as you appear to just be trying
> to get google juice for that URL by repeatedly pasting it in to a public
> archived mailing list, you may end up losing out.

Hmm, so I shouldn't quote ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/? Why not?
I like quoting ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/. (Muhahaha.)

[snip]
> "Thanks",

<AOL>.

(Now where did I put that popcorn...)


[1] I might be exaggerating. Slightly. Just a smidgeon. Hardly worth
mentioning at all, really.
[2] Actually, I'm not sure that I *want* a better word there.
[3] He wishes. (Allegedly.)

--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | user of wodim | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | and growisofs | Army
| + Output less CO2 => avoid boiling weather. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.

Never insult an alligator until you've crossed the river.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 10:18 PM
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:

> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> >
> > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> >
> > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > legally distributed.
>
> If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
> do what it does.

It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.

> If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
> first place.

> ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.

The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.

As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
things that are forbidden by law.

Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
initiave:

No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
with the Copyright holders.

Eduard Bloch made a big mistake, he started a deffamation campaign against
cdrtools and Debian made the mistake to support Eduard Bloch.

I don't know whether you are able to change the named mistake, but please note
that I am the copyright holder for the vast majority of the cdrtools code. I am
licensing the code and I am able to sue people for Copyright violations on the
code, Debian is not. If Debian claims they might be sued because of so called
license problems in the original software, this is just FUD. I am not
interested to sue people as long as there is a chance to have a solution that
does not need a court. If Debian however continues to attack me, Debian should
be aware that at some point I am forced to sue people for violating GPL and
Copyright law with the fork.

So let me ask: Is Debian willing to "play nicely" with me in the future or is
Debian interested in continuing the attacks?

In case you don't know: My main interest is to make sure that the software I
write remains free and I am doing whaterver I need to ensure this. The license
change in cdrtools is a _reaction_ on the attacks from Eduard Bloch. So whom
does Debian support? Is it Eduard Bloch who is the initiator of the attacks or
is Debian interested rather in Free Software?

I am writing Free Software since 1982, this is much longer than Debian exists.
I support Freedom and if Debian is against Freedom, I cannot support Debian.

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 10:40 PM
Darren Salt
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

I demand that John Goerzen may or may not have written...

[snip rebuttal of "fork is not legally distributable"]
> So please do not tell us to adopt your source tree for main because a
> fork is illegal. The cognitive dissonance in that statement is amazing.

I've just worked it out. He's an Electric Monk.

--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Travel less. Share transport more. PRODUCE LESS CARBON DIOXIDE.

I am Eliza of Borg. How does assimilation make you feel?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-26-2009, 10:43 PM
John Goerzen
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
>>>
>>> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
>>> legally distributed.
>> If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
>> do what it does.
>
> It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
> constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
> allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.
>
>> If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
>> first place.
>
>> ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.
>
> The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
> because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.

When will you enumerate these?

Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.

By enumerate, I mean at the line-by-line level in the source.

I found the rest of your message similarly vague; you said people made
mistakes, that Debian attacked you. URLs please?

-- John


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-27-2009, 12:02 AM
Josselin Mouette
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 16:34 -0600, John Goerzen a écrit :
> So please do not tell us to adopt your source tree for main because a
> fork is illegal. The cognitive dissonance in that statement is amazing.

For someone who can invent contents of PGP-signed emails, inventing
legal breaches is like breathing.

--
Joerg Schilling fact #17: cdrecord has no bugs. If you think you found a
bug in cdrecord, this is actually a bug in your eyes.
 
Old 02-27-2009, 12:21 AM
Darren Salt
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

I demand that John Goerzen may or may not have written...

> Joerg Schilling wrote:
[snip]
>> The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no
>> longer because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.

> When will you enumerate these?

What, and leave him without an argument? Can't have that.

[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | again representing | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | myself, not Debian | Army
| + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES.

Look under the sofa cushion; you will be surprised at what you find.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-27-2009, 08:54 AM
"Benjamin M. A'Lee"
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
> software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
> things that are forbidden by law.
>
> Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
> initiave:
>
> No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
> in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
> they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
> with the Copyright holders.

Uh, citation needed. "Giving you all grants you need to change anything
in the source" is practically the definition of an open-source licence,
with the exception of removing the original copyright and licence
notices.

What changes have been made that are supposedly illegal? (Note that
introducing new bugs is, sadly, not illegal anywhere that I know of. If
it were, Microsoft would've been out of business years ago, along with
probably everybody else. )

--
Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: bma@subvert.org.uk
web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-27-2009, 09:03 AM
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:

> > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
> > because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
>
> When will you enumerate these?
>
> Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.

As long as Debian hides related Bug reports and as long as Debian continues to
publish slander against me and my software, I cannot see any will to change the
current situation that is 100% a result of activities from some people that
called themself "Debian maintainers".

Explaining the situation in more details, than I did in the open during the past
years already, takes time. Please understand that I am not going to waste my
time with trolls. Debian as whole did lose any credibility because of the
cdrtools attacks that have been initated by Eduard Bloch and that have been
supported by other Debian people. If you are seriously interested to change
this situation, give me a strong sign that there is a will at Debian to get
rid of the situation that has been created by Eduard Bloch by attacking me and
my projects in 2004 .....

As I mentioned already: the license change in cdrtools was a _reaction_ on the
attacks run by Eduard Bloch and others. The attacks from this person started in
May 2004 as personal attacks and increased over time. I understand that in
bigger associations there is a higher probability to also have bad people but
any assicoation needs to find ways to deal with problems that result from
bad people's actions.

Are aou interested to change this situation?

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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 02-27-2009, 09:14 AM
William Pitcock
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

Hi,

On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 00:18 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
>
> > Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > >
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > legally distributed.
> >
> > If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
> > do what it does.
>
> It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
> constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
> allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.

While I personally do not use wodim, simply because wodim does not
inspire much confidence with me being based on cdrecord, I have a few
observations:

1. If your code was licensed correctly, and there wasn't concerns about
it's quality, then nobody inside Debian would have forked it.

2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
anything published describing problems with cdrecord would be the
opinions of wodim's authors, not the Debian project itself, or the wodim
project itself. As a result, no personal harm to your reputation has
been done in the context of the Urheberrechtsgesetz[1] by the fork of
cdrecord itself. As a result, it appears that your argument that the
fork of cdrecord being illegal is actually invalid.

3. You might be taken more seriously at this point if you didn't act
like a toddler. I'm just saying... every time this subject comes up, you
show up and whine and whine and whine. It's doing you no good. Try
something else, like improving cdrecord with your time instead of
wasting it whining here.

Please note that I haven't even tried wodim. I suspect it is not any
better than cdrecord, and further I don't care. All of the burning apps
I use are based around libburn, which seems to have a drama-free
maintainer. I consider that to be a good thing, the fact that it
supports more than just CD burning without any bogus license key-based
closed-source "cdrecord-pro" software is a plus.

[1] Everyone here should read the Urheberrechtsgesetz here
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm and stop listening to
Joerg's bollocks. He appears to be very misinformed.

>
> > If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
> > first place.
>
> > ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.
>
> The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
> because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.

What changes are those? Can you identify them? "All of them" is not a
valid response here, just FYI.

>
> As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
> software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
> things that are forbidden by law.

I am pretty sure Eduard knows what he is doing.

>
> Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
> initiave:
>
> No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
> in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
> they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
> with the Copyright holders.

Just because you can sue someone does not make their actions illegal. I
can sue somebody for skipping a rock across a puddle in their own
property, mind I would be laughed out of court for doing this, but I
hope you see my point here.

>
> Eduard Bloch made a big mistake, he started a deffamation campaign against
> cdrtools and Debian made the mistake to support Eduard Bloch.
>
> I don't know whether you are able to change the named mistake, but please note
> that I am the copyright holder for the vast majority of the cdrtools code. I am
> licensing the code and I am able to sue people for Copyright violations on the
> code, Debian is not. If Debian claims they might be sued because of so called
> license problems in the original software, this is just FUD. I am not
> interested to sue people as long as there is a chance to have a solution that
> does not need a court. If Debian however continues to attack me, Debian should
> be aware that at some point I am forced to sue people for violating GPL and
> Copyright law with the fork.
>

People who make threats should be fully prepared to deal with backlash
from those threats. How will Fraunhofer handle such a public relations
disaster? You may want to keep this in consideration before continuing
with legal threats, as I am pretty sure that it will be all over
slashdot, and Fraunhofer will likely be asked for a comment.

> So let me ask: Is Debian willing to "play nicely" with me in the future or is
> Debian interested in continuing the attacks?
>
> In case you don't know: My main interest is to make sure that the software I
> write remains free and I am doing whaterver I need to ensure this. The license
> change in cdrtools is a _reaction_ on the attacks from Eduard Bloch. So whom
> does Debian support? Is it Eduard Bloch who is the initiator of the attacks or
> is Debian interested rather in Free Software?
>

Please go away with your threats. We're tired of hearing about it.

If you want people to play nice; you should be prepared to do so
yourself. Instead all we see is temper-tantrums. If you want to work
with the wodim team to resolve any conflicts, than you should employ
some diplomacy to do so. Right now your behaviour does not seem very
diplomatic; and I have failed to find any diplomatic contact between you
and the wodim authors in the past. If I am wrong, please produce
e-mails.

As I see it, the problem here is *you*. So maybe *you* need to change
your strategy. Because I am pretty sure that you do not scare anybody
with these threats.

> I am writing Free Software since 1982, this is much longer than Debian exists.
> I support Freedom and if Debian is against Freedom, I cannot support Debian.
>

I find this statement patently absurd. You clearly do not support
Freedom, as you are inhibiting on Debian's rights to distribute wodim.

Hypocrite.

> 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
>
>
 
Old 02-27-2009, 09:35 AM
Jean Parpaillon
 
Default xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?

I am the psychotherapist. Please, describe your problems. Each time
you are finished talking, type RET twice.

Le vendredi 27 février 2009 11:03:55 Joerg Schilling, vous avez écrit :
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> wrote:
> > > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is
> > > no longer because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
> >
> > When will you enumerate these?
> >
> > Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.
>
> As long as Debian hides related Bug reports and as long as Debian continues
> to publish slander against me and my software, I cannot see any will to
> change the current situation that is 100% a result of activities from some
> people that called themself "Debian maintainers".

Is it because is 100% a result of activities from some people that
called themself debian maintainers that you came to me?

>
> Explaining the situation in more details, than I did in the open during the
> past years already, takes time. Please understand that I am not going to
> waste my time with trolls.

Does it bother you that you are not going to waste your time with
trolls?

> Debian as whole did lose any credibility because
> of the cdrtools attacks that have been initated by Eduard Bloch and that
> have been supported by other Debian people.

Are you sure that is the real reason?

> If you are seriously interested
> to change this situation, give me a strong sign that there is a will at
> Debian to get rid of the situation that has been created by Eduard Bloch by
> attacking me and my projects in 2004 .....

When did you first know that there is a will at debian to get rid of
the situation that has been created by eduard bloch by attacking you
and your projects in 2004?

>
> As I mentioned already: the license change in cdrtools was a _reaction_ on
> the attacks run by Eduard Bloch and others.

Why do you say that?

> The attacks from this person
> started in May 2004 as personal attacks and increased over time.

Earlier you said is 100% a result of activities from some people that
called themself debian maintainers?

> I
> understand that in bigger associations there is a higher probability to
> also have bad people but any assicoation needs to find ways to deal with
> problems that result from bad people's actions.

Is the fact that in bigger associations there is a higher probability
to also have bad people but any assicoation needs to find ways to deal
with problems that result from bad people's actions the real reason?
>
> Are aou interested to change this situation?
>

Maybe the cdrtools attacks that have been initated by eduard bloch and
that have been supported by other debian people have something to do
with this.

> Jörg
>
Can you elaborate on that?


> --
> 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

--
Jean Parpaillon - Kerlabs
Engineer
Bâtiment Germanium
80 avenue des buttes de Coësmes
35700 Rennes - France
Tel.: +33 6 80 332 73 85
http://www.kerlabs.com/
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org