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 User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-07-2009, 04:14 PM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

I'm sorry if anyone is on the CC list that doesn't want to be. I was simply
following Joerg's lead. I understand that unrequested CCing is against the
Code of Conduct @ http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct and will
gladly drop your address from my mails if requested.

On Wednesday 2009 January 07 10:23:52 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> The problem with wodim is that it is not a real fork.
> A fork is something that is supported,

Not true. "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers
take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent
development on it, creating a distinct piece of software." --
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fork_(software_development)&oldid= 260319294

Forks do not require support.

> but wodim is unsupported.

Also not true. Debian supports all the software shipped in main, and provides
best-effort support to software shipped in contrib and non-free. In
addition, wodim's upstream is still very much alive.

> >assertion that wodim violates the GPL and Germany's "Author's Rights" (I
> >can't spell the original German word.) does not appear to be supported by
> >precident or even trained legal analysis of the specifics. I don't think
> >wodim can be reasonably held to hurt Joerg's reputation or integrity.
>
> Wodim is in conflict with both GPL and Urheberrecht (*).
>
> *) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
>
> Wodim (cdrkit) cannot be legally distributed

I disagree and I don't think either of us can point to established precedent.
I also don't think there has been any legal analysis (meaning: done by a
lawyer as legal advice) done on the particulars.

> >Providing symlinks from the old binary names to the new ones, and giving
> >similar output are, in fact, required for interoperability.
>
> The problem is that many people still believe that they have a real
> cdrecord when they call "cdrecord" and this is not true.
>
> These people then are confused when features that have been introduced
> three years ago are missing in their (expected to be recent) "version" of
> cdrecord.

Wodim identifies itself in both documentation and at runtime as a separate
work form cdrecord. That's all that is required to satisfy the GPL. I can't
speak to satisfying the Urheberrecht, as I do not speak the original
language.

> >That said, wodim was forked from a "really old" version of cdrecord (the
> > last version that was clearly licensed under the GPL). Of course,
> > browsing Joerg's site shows you that cdrecord hasn't had a stable release
> > in 4.5 years and wodim had a stable release 2 months ago.
>
> Cdrtools (the original) had 55 releases in the last 100 months.

All labeled "alpha", not "stable". I was very clear that I was only counting
stable releases.

> >Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord. If
>
> This is a funny claim. Please tell me about a single problem with cdrecord.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;package=cdrecord

Anything with a bug number < 350738 is or was a problem with cdrecord.

> >either (a) you don't intend to distribute cdrecord OR (b) you agree with
> >Joerg's interpretation of the GPL, I strongly encourage you to install
> >cdrecord from Joerg's site. If it works and wodim doesn't, there's
> > clearly a bug in wodim, and you should file one. IMO, Joerg
> > interpretation is incorrect as he assumes "source code" (which is a
> > defined phrase in the GPL) means something other than what it is defined
> > to mean.
>
> I am not sure about your intention here. If you care about legallity, you
> cannot use wodim, so what is your point?

I disagree. I personally have no doubt that wodim is legal. I personally do
doubt that distributing binaries of cdrecord is legal.

> The original software is of course free software. It seems that you are in
> doubt because you listen to the wrong people ;-)

Other than you, I couldn't name anyone I listen to. Instead I listen to the
argument, independent of the person making it. Your arguments seem to be on
more tenuous foundation, and counter-intuitive. That said, some legal
decision on the matter could demonstrate effectively that I am quite wrong.

Both the authors of the CDDL and the GPL have said these licenses are
incompatible, making it impossible to satisfy both at once. According the
the most plain interpretation of both documents, that would be necessary for
someone other than the original author to distribute binaries of cdrecord.
Software that can't be distributed in binary form by someone other than the
author is not free software. Thus, I believe cdrecord to be not free
software.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
 
Old 01-07-2009, 06:20 PM
John Hasler
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Joerg.Schilling writes:
> On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).

When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and qualifications?
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-07-2009, 06:26 PM
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org> wrote:

> Joerg.Schilling writes:
> > On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> > in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).
>
> When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
> decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
> obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and qualifications?

This seems to be an interesting claim.....

If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not believe the
claims from Debian. Nice to see!

When will Debian continue to ship the official non-crippled software?



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-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-07-2009, 07:28 PM
John Hasler
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Joerg.Schilling writes:
> On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).

I wrote:
> When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
> decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
> obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and qualifications?

Joerg.Schilling writes:
> This seems to be an interesting claim.....

> If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not believe the
> claims from Debian. Nice to see!

Debian is accusing no one of copyright infringement.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-07-2009, 07:29 PM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Disclaimers: IANAL; IANADD; TINLA; TINASOTODP.

On Wednesday 2009 January 07 13:26:33 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org> wrote:
> > Joerg.Schilling writes:
> > > On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> > > in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).
> >
> > When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
> > decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
> > obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and
> > qualifications?
>
> This seems to be an interesting claim.....
>
> If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not
> believe the claims from Debian. Nice to see!

From what I understand, Debian does not think what you are doing is illegal,
so there is no need to file a lawsuit. In any case, Debian-as-a-legal-entity
(SPI, IIRC) would not have standing as their copyright would not be
infringed.[1] You are claiming your copyright is infringed, but are not
following up with the claim. If you really think Debian is hindering the
advancement of Free and Open-Source Software, you should be able to get some
help from the Software Freedom Law Center so pursue your case.

I do not recommend you sue SPI or any DD or vice-versa. In fact, I recommend
against either, because Debian can provide more value to me when they aren't
spending resources on lawsuits, spurious or otherwise.

However, your existing arguments are not enough to convince me (or
debian-legal it seems) that you are correct on either of your legal claims.
[2] While precedent OR an attorney's opinion would probably convice us,
there may be less severe action that will do so as well (if that's important
to you). Perhaps you might restate your position more clearly or with better
references, or have the FSF or Sun (authors of the licenses in question) come
forward with a supporting statement?

> When will Debian continue to ship the official non-crippled software?

When they believe it is legal for them to do so. They would rather do less
than the law allows than risk a suit. They do not feel distributing wodim is
risking a suit.

Disclaimers: IANAL; IANADD; TINLA; TINASOTODP.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/

[1] IIRC, Debian does not generally own copyrights. Instead, the DDs and
other contributors do.

[2] A) distribution of cdrecord binaries by Debian does not expose it to legal
risk OR B) distribution of cdrkit by Debian does expose it to legal risk.
 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:01 AM
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org> wrote:

> Joerg.Schilling writes:
> > This seems to be an interesting claim.....
>
> > If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not believe the
> > claims from Debian. Nice to see!
>
> Debian is accusing no one of copyright infringement.

In case you did not get it: Debian acuses me for creating an alleged GPL
problem.

Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.

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-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:14 AM
Johannes Wiedersich
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hallo Jörg,

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> It _is_ a shame that
> Debian does not come with the bug-free original software but with a replacement
> that causes many problems for the Debian Users.

Let's summarize:

1. You'd like to have the 'bug-free original software' in debian.

2. You don't release your original software with a license compatible
with the DFSG [1], ie your licence is explicitly not one of those
endorsed by the debian project. In fact you deliberately changed your
license from one endorsed by the debian project to a different one.

This seems rather contradicting to me.

3. You claim that your mixing of licenses is legal, despite dozens of
people from different free and commercial distributions having a
different opinion on the matter, including both GNU and Sun, who seem to
agree that both licenses are incompatible. (GNU is the body that defined
what 'free software' is, so it seems obvious that any license that is
designed to be different by definition is 'not free' or at least 'less
free'. Sun designed the CDDL explicitly to hinder mixing of GPL and CDDL
codes [3].)

4. You claim that distribution of debian's (modified) version of wodim
is *illegal* despite the fact that you also claim that your software is
free software and hence legally distributable in modified form as well
as in unmodified form [2].

This all would be funny as a plot for a film, but unfortunately it seems
you take it to be serious.

It's a pity that once again the free software community suffers from
legal and personal quarrels instead of joining forces to create better
software.

Please note that i am neither a lawyer nor interested in reading more
than about 10 pages about the whole dispute. I might be wrong with my my
personal compilation and interpretation of what I found on the web. In
fact I hope that you will prove me wrong and that it thus will be
possible to distribute your code with debian in the future.

Cheers,

Johannes


[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[2] http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDL
google will help you to find many pages supporting the argument
that cddl and gpl can not be mixed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkll0eoACgkQC1NzPRl9qEU3tACdFD/HUlnjNrgtfNA6hpionAg+
EKsAn295ZcKNwOuR1LJ2Qk3NPKIzRi+i
=SWhY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-08-2009, 09:39 AM
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.
>

I've seen you say that several times on this thread (an in other times),
but I've missed the explanation of exactly why did this allegedly
happen. I also did not find it in the cdrecord site, but I confess I
only looked briefly there, as there is too much text there. :-)

So would you care to briefly explain why you say the GPL was violated?

Secondly, did you contact the FSF about that at
license-violation@gnu.org ? Did they say anything?


--
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
eduardo@kalinowski.com.br
http://move.to/hpkb


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-08-2009, 10:42 AM
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> wrote:

> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.
> >
>
> I've seen you say that several times on this thread (an in other times),
> but I've missed the explanation of exactly why did this allegedly
> happen. I also did not find it in the cdrecord site, but I confess I
> only looked briefly there, as there is too much text there. :-)

See the cdrecord web page for the information you asked for...

> So would you care to briefly explain why you say the GPL was violated?
>
> Secondly, did you contact the FSF about that at
> license-violation@gnu.org ? Did they say anything?

Eben Moglen knows about both, the Debian violations and the GPL/Copyright
violations done by the FSF when using code from the cdrtools project for
FSF projects.

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-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-08-2009, 10:57 AM
Johannes Wiedersich
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.

You should consider filing a bug report (or point us to the relevant one
in case I missed it). Violation of a license or a law is considered RC,
IIUC.

Do you have any evidence of which lines of code violate which part of
the GPL or the Urheberrecht?

Cheers,

Johannes

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkll6hkACgkQC1NzPRl9qEXpBgCfSSNooWhHMT RTbjfmuwiAHler
zOkAn2wwO3PYnlGtNJpaDDHbGblr/t25
=gfD3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:04 AM.

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