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 01-08-2009, 12:26 PM
John Hasler
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Joerg.Schilling writes:
> Debian acuses me for creating an alleged GPL problem.

Debian has accused you of nothing. Debian has determined that the license
conflict you have created could lead to legal problems for its distributors
and so has chosen not to distribute your software.

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

I ask again: where is the court decision? The lawyer's opinion? You've
been going on about this for years but you never take any action.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org
Elmwood, WI USA


--
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, 01:08 PM
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:

> 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." --

The people behind wodim did not start an independent development.

All they did was to take an old source, remove the pefectly working build
system, replace it by something that is broken and add some other bugs to the
source. After 8 months of speudo activity, wodim is dead since May 6th 2007.

> > 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.

See above, there is no support. Bugs reports are either marked as closed altough
the bug still exist or they are ignored. This is not what I would call
"mainteied". Wodim is dead since May 6th 2007.


> > 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.

Well, I did discuss the problems with a German specialized lawyer who is
also active on the OSS community and it turns out that I am of course able to
sue the people behind wodim for more than violation.

On the other side, there is no professional that supports the claims/FUD by the
"wodim people" against me. All those claims are done by laymen and these people
did not even give evidence for their claims.



> 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.

The GPL gives you the right to use the code if you follow the conditions.
The GPL does not give you the right to use the original name for a fork.
The people behind wodim do not follow the conditions of the GPL and they
do not follow the conditions in the higher worthy Urbebertrechts law.

Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The original
names are used without permission and in addition, there are other Copyright
violations.


> > 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.

All those releases are more stable than any of the wodim releases, so what?


> > >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.

Wrong: none of those reports applies to the original cdrtools source code
as Debian has a 4-5 year history of distributing broken modified versions.

Even if a single bug report _could_ have applied to cdrtools at the time
it was made, the bug has been fixed years ago in thge original but is still
present in wodim.

I asked you to name me a single bug in the original cdrtools and you seem
to be unable to point to such a problem - thank you!



> > 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.

I know that wodim is not legal and my laywer supports this. As mentioned above,
there is more than one way to sue the people behind wodim because there is more
than one violation in wodim.


> > 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.

???? You sound confused.

> 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.

You are again wrong here.....

The authors of the CDDL do definitely not claim that there is an
incompatibility. You are again listening to the wrong people.

In contrary to your claims, on my request the Sun lawyers did do a very
intensive legal review of the cdrtools project this Summer and did not find
any problem.

In fact, the current license situation is present since May 2006 and noone did
try to sue Sun, Gentoo or Slackware for distributing the original cdrtools.
Noone at Debian is able to sue people because they do not own the needed rights
on the software. Claiming that Debian could be sued for distributin the original
software is obviously pure FUD.

Cdrtools _is_ free software and it of course follows the rules in
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and
http://www.debian.org/social_contract

The problem is that some people inside Debian missinterpret
http://www.debian.org/social_contract and in special try to establish different
rules for cdrtools and the rest of the debian packages. If debian would use the
same "rules" for all software, either all packets including cdrtools are legal
or nealy none of the debian packages could be called legal.

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, 02:59 PM
John Hasler
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Joerg Schilling writes:
> Well, I did discuss the problems with a German specialized lawyer who is
> also active on the OSS community and it turns out that I am of course
> able to sue the people behind wodim for more than violation.

> ...

> The people behind wodim do not follow the conditions of the GPL and they
> do not follow the conditions in the higher worthy Urbebertrechts law.

> Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The
> original names are used without permission and in addition, there are
> other Copyright violations.

Are you threatening to file a lawsuit? If so, against who, for what, and
in what jurisdiction?

> Noone at Debian is able to sue people because they do not own the needed
> rights on the software.

Why do you imagine that anyone at Debian has any desire to file suit over
this? It is not Debian that is alleging 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 01-08-2009, 03:10 PM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

On Thursday 2009 January 08 08:08:58 Joerg Schilling wrote:
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <bss@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> 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." --
>
>The people behind wodim did not start an independent development.

Yes they did.

>All they did was to take an old source, remove the pefectly working build
>system, replace it by something that is broken and add some other bugs to
> the source. After 8 months of speudo activity, wodim is dead since May 6th
> 2007.

1) Writing the new build system is separate development.

2) wodim had a release 2008-10-26. It is still under active development.

>> > 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.
>
>See above, there is no support. Bugs reports are either marked as closed
> altough the bug still exist or they are ignored. This is not what I would
> call "mainteied". Wodim is dead since May 6th 2007.

Not true. Anyone interested in verifying my claim can use the Debian BTS. I
provided a link to the BTS in my last email.

>> > 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.
>
>Well, I did discuss the problems with a German specialized lawyer who is
>also active on the OSS community and it turns out that I am of course able
> to sue the people behind wodim for more than violation.

Please make the documents supporting this claim available so that we may all
be enlightened. Until then, it adds nothing to what has already been argued
on both sides.

>> 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.
>
>The GPL gives you the right to use the code if you follow the conditions.
>The GPL does not give you the right to use the original name for a fork.
>
>Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The
> original names are used without permission and in addition, there are other
> Copyright violations.

Whether the name is used as a simply technical measure to ensure
interoperability is important. Wodim does not use the cdrecord name for
other purposes. Copyright does not protect the necessary interfaces required
for interoperability.

Please be more specific in your claims on "other Copyright violations". It is
not a specific enough claim to deny or confirm.

>> > 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.
>
>All those releases are more stable than any of the wodim releases, so what?

I am counting releases considered and labeled stable by the team/project
releasing it. Wodim has more than cdrecord since the fork occurred.

>> > >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.
>
>Wrong: none of those reports applies to the original cdrtools source code
>as Debian has a 4-5 year history of distributing broken modified versions.

I disagree, having experienced some of these errors myself. Yes, I installed
using your files, not the Debian package, and yes, I made sure the binaries
were suid root. Please provide evidence of your claim.

>I asked you to name me a single bug in the original cdrtools and you seem
>to be unable to point to such a problem - thank you!

Denying that bugs reported exist or apply to your program does not make that
true. I produced evidence of dozens of bugs that have affected cdrecord in
the past, which was my claim. Please provide some evidence to your claim.

>> I disagree. I personally have no doubt that wodim is legal. I personally
>> do doubt that distributing binaries of cdrecord is legal.
>
>I know that wodim is not legal and my laywer supports this. As mentioned
> above, there is more than one way to sue the people behind wodim because
> there is more than one violation in wodim.

Please make your lawyers analysis available so that we may be enlightened.
Otherwise, you claim adds nothing to the arguments already presented on both
sides.

>> 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.
>
>???? You sound confused.

I am not. The person putting forth the argument doesn't matter to the
validity of the argument. Instead, the quality of their references, how
intuitive and self-consistent their logic, and how well their assumptions
match with my own determine how valid I consider their arguments.

Both your legal claims around the GPL seem counter-intuitive, and not entirely
self-consistent.

>The authors of the CDDL do definitely not claim that there is an
>incompatibility. You are again listening to the wrong people.

Yes, they do. You've already seen the video, as have many others, including
myself.

>In contrary to your claims, on my request the Sun lawyers did do a very
>intensive legal review of the cdrtools project this Summer and did not find
>any problem.

Please provide the review so that I can read it and be conviced. I need
documentation from you, not claims. I already know your claims.

>In fact, the current license situation is present since May 2006 and noone
> did try to sue Sun, Gentoo or Slackware for distributing the original
> cdrtools.

Gentoo doesn't distribute software in the same way. It's possible no one with
standing cares that Sun, Gentoo, or Slackware distribute there code in a way
contrary to the license. That doesn't mean there isn't that risk. It also
doesn't mean Debian should assume the same risk.

> Noone at Debian is able to sue people because they do not own the
> needed rights on the software.

True enough.

> Claiming that Debian could be sued for
> distributin the original software is obviously pure FUD.

I disagree, as does Debian. Debian has deemed it an unacceptable risk.

>Cdrtools _is_ free software and it of course follows the rules in
>http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and
>http://www.debian.org/social_contract

I disagree. The particulars of cdrecord's licensing effectively violates #1
and #3 in the opensource definition and DFSG. If that were the only problem,
it could possibly be in non-free, but instead it also exposes Debian to legal
risk, in Debian's opinion.

>The problem is that some people inside Debian missinterpret
>http://www.debian.org/social_contract and in special try to establish
> different rules for cdrtools and the rest of the debian packages.

No, the problem is cdrecords unique combination of licenses.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
 
Old 01-08-2009, 05:21 PM
"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr."
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

On Thursday 2009 January 08 04:14:02 Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>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.

That would be great. However, that requires convincing the ftp-masters that
Debian isn't taking legal risk by putting distributing the software. Even
then, Debian really can't be forced to distribute any particular piece of
software. See http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq points 12r, 16, and 26.

>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.

The DFSG doesn't mention the CDDL specifically, but I'm fairly sure CDDL is
generally considered a free license. I could be wrong, DFSG-free is
generally more strict that OSI-open.

Anyway, Debian is more concerned with the package, instead of the license.
E.g. pine used a license generally accepted as free, but interpreted it in an
odd way, resulting in the removal of pine from Debian. I think there has
been cases the other way around, too. By not exercising some options in a
generic license, a package using it might be free or not.

>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].)

Yeah, I suppose it's possible Joerg could be right, but he's going to have to
provide significant actual support to his claim and not just keep repeating
it, for Debian to accept it. Each time he repeats the claim with no support
he sounds more and more disconnected from reality.

>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].

Joerg doesn't really have a problem with the distribution of the code
(modified or unmodified), but he is worried about the "Integrity of The
Author's Source Code" something allowed by point 4 of the DSFG. I'm assuming
he wants to exercise the option: "The license may require derived works to
carry a different name or version number from the original software."
However, neither license he's used as those terms in it, AFAIK.

His claim of violating the GPL / German "Copyright Law" seems to focus on the
symlinks provided with names that match the cdrecord binaries, and maybe a
few other uses of the strings "cdrecord" et al. This is like claiming that
IE infringes on Netscape's copyright by using the string "Mozilla" in it's
browser identification. Technical measures required for interoperability are
generally held to be not restricted by trademark, patent, or copyright law.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
 
Old 01-08-2009, 05:56 PM
John Hasler
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. writes:
> The DFSG doesn't mention the CDDL specifically, but I'm fairly sure CDDL
> is generally considered a free license. I could be wrong, DFSG-free is
> generally more strict that OSI-open.

The CDDL is DFSG-compliant.
--
John Hasler


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-09-2009, 09:40 AM
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org> wrote:

> > The people behind wodim do not follow the conditions of the GPL and they
> > do not follow the conditions in the higher worthy Urbebertrechts law.
>
> > Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The
> > original names are used without permission and in addition, there are
> > other Copyright violations.
>
> Are you threatening to file a lawsuit? If so, against who, for what, and
> in what jurisdiction?

It does not make sense to inform you about these details.

The people who are responsible for the violations and the redistributors are
informed, they know that they are in conflit GPL and Urheberrecht and that
cdrkit cannot be legally distributed.

I try to avoid suing people but I am not willing to tolerate violations forever.
The related people need to understand that they need to follow the lawful rules.
If they don't, they will be sued at some time....

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 01-09-2009, 11:59 AM
Winfried Tilanus
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

On 01/09/2009 Joerg Schilling wrote:

Hi,

> It does not make sense to inform you about these details.

It is a pity you see it like that, see below.

> The people who are responsible for the violations and the redistributors are
> informed, they know that they are in conflit GPL and and that
> cdrkit cannot be legally distributed.

Well, if the software is distributed by Debian and if the developers of
that package are ignoring a violation of GPL and / or laws about
intellectual property, then it is a serious case that affects all Debian
users.

I am willing to use the (little) weight I have to stop such a violation.
But before I start a lobby to stop the involvement of Debian with such a
software, I would like to be able to judge myself the validity of your
claim. So I ask you to make the details of your claim public. I can read
/ speak German and don't mind to dive into German laws on intellectual
property.

> I try to avoid suing people but I am not willing to tolerate violations forever.
> The related people need to understand that they need to follow the lawful rules.
> If they don't, they will be sued at some time....

You are right that it is the best to avoid suing people. Fortunately
there is a whole world between tolerating violations and suing. Mobilize
people to support your case. And that can in this situation easyly be
achieved by giving all legal details, so people can see your claim is
justified. With enough people supporting you (inside and outside the
Debian project), you don't have to tolerate violations and you don't
have to sue anybody.

So please give us a chance to judge your claims ourselves, you can win a
lot by doing so.

Best wishes,

Winfried Tilanus


--
http://www.tilanus.com
xmpp:winfried@jabber.xs4all.nl
tel. 015-3613996 / 06-23303960
fax. 015-3614406


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-09-2009, 02:25 PM
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

There recently have been some mails from Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. and
Johannes Wiedersich that have not been send to me, so it seems that the
authors are not interested in a discussion. Their mail contained the usual
accusations: the claim that cdrtools is not free and that there is no new
releases in cdrtools. As these claims have lready been proven to be incorrect,
we will not go any further in trying to discuss at this level.....


Let me go back to the original topic.

Given the fact that the initator of wodim stopped working on wodim on May 6th
2007 and started to advertize for nerolinux instead, it is interesting to
read the term nerolinux in the subject of this thread. Is Debian moving to
closed software like nerolinux or what is the backgrund for not distrubuting
working CD/DVD/BD writing software with Debian? Did the initiator of wodim
intentionally introduce bugs that make "cdrkit" unusable in order to support
closed source software? Is Debian no longer interested in free and working
software?


The Original poster was Paul Cartwright and I had some conversations with him
during the past week.

First, Paul Cartwright had problems to download cdrtools and it turned out that
a bug in the firewall implementation of his linksys router was the reason.
After disabling the fireall for the time of the ftp transfer, he could
download cdrtools without problems.

Yesterday, Paul Cartwright was able to write a perfectly readable DVD using
mkisofs and cdrecord at 10x speed. He did this out of the box after he send me
the command line he was trying to use and I send him simething like please
use these commands instead:

mkisofs -o xxx.iso -dvd-video -V "video.2008" "/disk2/pauls/movies/some-name"
cdrecord -v xxx.iso


It turns out that it is not easy to make CD/DVD/BD recording working on Debian
as _all_ related software has been modified to call the defective
"genisoimage", "wodim" and similar even after the correctly working original
software was made available. People could file dozens of bugreports just for
these modifications.....

The software that he was originally using called growisofs and growisofs called
"genisoimage". It is unclear whether both fgrowisofs and growisofs are broken
on Debian or whether the problem is only related to the defective genisoimage
program.


My questions are:

- Are people interested in getting a working CD/DVD/BD writing toolchain
on Debian?

- Is there anybody inside Debian willing to support this by doing the
needed administrative work?

Please note that there is a Debian cdrtools package available from the "grml"
Author, so there is no need to find a Debian package maintainer for cdrtools.

Also note that last Summer, Sun lawyers did an in depth license analysis on the
original cdrtools source and the conclusion from Sun Legal was that there is
neither a legal problem with the original software nor with distributing
binaries made from the original software. Is someone likes to prove that, the
Solaris Express Community Edition build 105 will be available in a few days
and it will include cdrtools release 2.01.01a54 which is fairly recent. The a55
release could not be included as the build 105 snapshot date was in
mid-Decedmber.

Note also that before the initiator of wodim appeared at Debian, there was a
good coperation. I am in hope that it is possible to correct mistakes from the
past and that soon, Debian users are able again to do CD/DVD/BD writing.





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 01-09-2009, 03:05 PM
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
 
Default k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X

Joerg Schilling escreveu:
> There recently have been some mails from Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. and
> Johannes Wiedersich that have not been send to me, so it seems that the
> authors are not interested in a discussion.

This discussion is happening on the debian-user mailing lists, and in
most cases, people send the replies on to the list. Naturally this will
not work for your case because you are not subscribed. I'm saying that
because to me it seems like the replies were not sent by accident and
because of the habit of replying only to the list, not because 'they are
not interested in a discussion'.

> Their mail contained the usual
> accusations: the claim that cdrtools is not free

Could you point the message where that claim was made? I've been
following the discussion, and don't remember seeing that claim ever
being made.

It has been said that cdrtools has been considered non-compliant with
the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but that is a different thing. It's
just Debian's way of deciding which software can be part of Debian and
which can't, and even if a given software is considered
non-DFSG-compliant, that is just the way Debian sees things, and does
not say anything about the software itself or its author.

> Let me go back to the original topic.
>
> Given the fact that the initator of wodim stopped working on wodim on May 6th
> 2007 and started to advertize for nerolinux instead,

You've said that several times, but has never showed something to
confirm that. It's not that I doubt it could be true, I just want some
confirmation.

Anyway, even if the original author of wodim is not working on it
anymore, somebody else is. According to
http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cdrkit.html, exactly on May 6th 2007
version 1.1.6 was included in Debian. Since them, there have been three
more new versions (the current one is 1.1.9), so someone is working on
the package. This proves your claim that wodim has stopped being
developed is not valid.

> it is interesting to
> read the term nerolinux in the subject of this thread. Is Debian moving to
> closed software like nerolinux or what is the backgrund for not distrubuting
> working CD/DVD/BD writing software with Debian?

No, the reason is that your software does not meet Debian's
requirements. They perhaps may be too strict, but your software will not
be included in Debian unless either its license or Debian's requirements
change.

> Did the initiator of wodim
> intentionally introduce bugs that make "cdrkit" unusable in order to support
> closed source software? Is Debian no longer interested in free and working
> software?
>

I'd say this is quite unlikely.

> It turns out that it is not easy to make CD/DVD/BD recording working on Debian
> as _all_ related software has been modified to call the defective
> "genisoimage", "wodim" and similar even after the correctly working original
> software was made available. People could file dozens of bugreports just for
> these modifications.....
>

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First, you complain that
there is a symlink cdrecord -> wodim. But now you complain that software
calls 'wodim' directly, which would eliminated the need for the
compatibility symlink.

> Also note that last Summer, Sun lawyers did an in depth license analysis on the
> original cdrtools source and the conclusion from Sun Legal was that there is
> neither a legal problem with the original software nor with distributing
> binaries made from the original software. Is someone likes to prove that, the
> Solaris Express Community Edition build 105 will be available in a few days
> and it will include cdrtools release 2.01.01a54 which is fairly recent. The a55
> release could not be included as the build 105 snapshot date was in
> mid-Decedmber.
>

Debian is not Sun. Debian has its own requirements, which can be more
strict. And cdrecord does not meet Debian's requirements. Saying it
meets Sun's makes no difference here. Also, the fact that a given
software does not meet Debian's requirements does not imply that there
is a problem with the software - it's just an incompatibility.



PS: If anyone replies to debian-user, there is no need to CC me, I
receive mails from that list. Thanks.

--
Eduardo M Kalinowski
eduardo@kalinowski.com.br


--
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 10:13 PM.

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