On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 09:46:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

> > I've just read your outdated page
> It is not outdated. Since more than a year, there is no visible development
> in cdrkit.

Not visible to you. cdrkit-1.1.8 at http://cdrkit.org/releases/ is
dated 25.05.2008. It would be prudent for them to bring their website
up-to-date, though.

> So I asume that they did not add new bugs.

Maybe you should assume less and research more.

> > <http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html>. Where you
> > listed specific bugs, I see they don't affect me (and can't imagine
> > they'd affect most users). Most of what you cite as bugs are just
> > features they haven't implemented yet (and for all I know, they
> > have since you wrote that page).
> This is obviously FUD: Just because you don't already know that you
> are affected does not mean that you are not affected.

Of course not. Even the linux-kernel mailing-list hasn't seen your
light, yet.

> It would be fun to see you in 5 years after your then current OS
> won't read your DVDs anymore because of the bugs in the filesystem
> structure.

It would be fun if you would finally stop trolling forums, newsgroups
and mailing-lists and keep your FUD and ego problems to yourself. You
obviously take it as a personal insult that cdrtools was snubbed by
some distributions and that somebody else is working on a replacement.
Your constant ridicule and insults of a project you shouldn't care
about at all is very telling, considering the alleged superiority of
your own project.

Thankfully, the GPL allows forks to eventually get rid of project
leaders like you.

--
>P.S. der neue Automat da oben ist echt ein Scherzkeks. Will Noten
>annehmen hat aber keinen Schlitz dafür.
probier doch mal, was zu singen, vielleicht hat er ja ein Mikrofon
-- Matthias Dingeldein in de.etc.bahn.misc
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Heiko Nock wrote:

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 09:46:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:


I've just read your outdated page

It is not outdated. Since more than a year, there is no visible development
in cdrkit.


Not visible to you. cdrkit-1.1.8 at http://cdrkit.org/releases/ is
dated 25.05.2008. It would be prudent for them to bring their website
up-to-date, though.


So I asume that they did not add new bugs.


Maybe you should assume less and research more.


<http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html>. Where you
listed specific bugs, I see they don't affect me (and can't imagine
they'd affect most users). Most of what you cite as bugs are just
features they haven't implemented yet (and for all I know, they
have since you wrote that page).

This is obviously FUD: Just because you don't already know that you
are affected does not mean that you are not affected.


Of course not. Even the linux-kernel mailing-list hasn't seen your
light, yet.


It would be fun to see you in 5 years after your then current OS
won't read your DVDs anymore because of the bugs in the filesystem
structure.


It would be fun if you would finally stop trolling forums, newsgroups
and mailing-lists and keep your FUD and ego problems to yourself. You
obviously take it as a personal insult that cdrtools was snubbed by
some distributions and that somebody else is working on a replacement.
Your constant ridicule and insults of a project you shouldn't care
about at all is very telling, considering the alleged superiority of
your own project.

Thankfully, the GPL allows forks to eventually get rid of project
leaders like you.



I think it would be in everyone's best interests if we let this thread
die now, I've been reading this thread for the past 2 or 3 days and
frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing anything of use to the ML.

I don't want to get involved or takes anyone's side, but maybe the more
mature readers can just let it go I doubt anyone will miss any
benefit of this thread continuing.

Just want to help keep this list with its feet on the ground

--
Matt
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Matt Harrison wrote:

Heiko Nock wrote:

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 09:46:41PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:


I've just read your outdated page
It is not outdated. Since more than a year, there is no visible
development
in cdrkit.


Not visible to you. cdrkit-1.1.8 at http://cdrkit.org/releases/ is
dated 25.05.2008. It would be prudent for them to bring their website
up-to-date, though.


So I asume that they did not add new bugs.


Maybe you should assume less and research more.


<http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html>. Where you
listed specific bugs, I see they don't affect me (and can't imagine
they'd affect most users). Most of what you cite as bugs are just
features they haven't implemented yet (and for all I know, they
have since you wrote that page).

This is obviously FUD: Just because you don't already know that you
are affected does not mean that you are not affected.


Of course not. Even the linux-kernel mailing-list hasn't seen your
light, yet.


It would be fun to see you in 5 years after your then current OS
won't read your DVDs anymore because of the bugs in the filesystem
structure.


It would be fun if you would finally stop trolling forums, newsgroups
and mailing-lists and keep your FUD and ego problems to yourself. You
obviously take it as a personal insult that cdrtools was snubbed by
some distributions and that somebody else is working on a replacement.
Your constant ridicule and insults of a project you shouldn't care
about at all is very telling, considering the alleged superiority of
your own project.

Thankfully, the GPL allows forks to eventually get rid of project
leaders like you.



I think it would be in everyone's best interests if we let this thread
die now, I've been reading this thread for the past 2 or 3 days and
frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing anything of use to the ML.

I don't want to get involved or takes anyone's side, but maybe the more
mature readers can just let it go I doubt anyone will miss any
benefit of this thread continuing.

Just want to help keep this list with its feet on the ground

--
Matt


Sorry, maybe my reply was actually destined for the "CD ROM does not
play audio CD's" thread, but I think it goes for both.

*hides under a stone*

--
Matt
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:01:59 +0200
> Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
>
>
> > What people with english mothertonge believe is a courtesy, is
> > usually seen as a underlying attack by Germans. Try to just be
> > direct and there will be less missunderstanding.
>


I'll be as direct as possible. Please, do the same.


I've read your site but I could not find the info I'm looking for.
Please, quote the following two lines and provide the relevant text
under each of them.

====================

Line 1: Why do you think there is no problem to mix GPL with CDDL?

====================

Line 2: Full quotation of the lawyers' conclusion

====================




--
Best regards,
Daniel
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Daniel Iliev <daniel.iliev@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll be as direct as possible. Please, do the same.
>
>
> I've read your site but I could not find the info I'm looking for.
> Please, quote the following two lines and provide the relevant text
> under each of them.
>
> ====================
>
> Line 1: Why do you think there is no problem to mix GPL with CDDL?
>
> ====================
>
> Line 2: Full quotation of the lawyers' conclusion
>
> ====================

Why do you start a new round and why are you now asking for completely
different things?

Did you read the GPL to understand what the GPL allows?

No non-GPL source is based on or derived from GPL code.

If you claim that there is a problem, it would be _you_ who needs to prove this
claim.

Jörg

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

Joerg Schilling ha scritto:

Daniel Iliev <daniel.iliev@gmail.com> wrote:


I'll be as direct as possible. Please, do the same.


I've read your site but I could not find the info I'm looking for.
Please, quote the following two lines and provide the relevant text
under each of them.

====================

Line 1: Why do you think there is no problem to mix GPL with CDDL?

====================

Line 2: Full quotation of the lawyers' conclusion

====================


Why do you start a new round and why are you now asking for completely
different things?


He's not asking different things.
Quotes from his mail:
" - When you changed the license. For what reason. Explain, please, why
there is no problem to mix GPL with CDDL (for me personally it is the
most interesting part)"

" - The exact statement of the lawyers you consulted"

Now, if you want to be taken seriously, please answer to these
questions. We have asked them several times. Why do you dance around
them and never answer them? They should be very easy to answer, if your
position is so solid.



Did you read the GPL to understand what the GPL allows?

No non-GPL source is based on or derived from GPL code.

If you claim that there is a problem, it would be _you_ who needs to prove this
claim.


What do you not understand of the word "explain", Joerg?

m.

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Matt Harrison ha scritto:

I think it would be in everyone's best interests if we let this thread
die now, I've been reading this thread for the past 2 or 3 days and
frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing anything of use to the ML.

I don't want to get involved or takes anyone's side, but maybe the more
mature readers can just let it go I doubt anyone will miss any
benefit of this thread continuing.


I disagree. CD/DVD burning is an important piece of software for a free
system. It has no little importance to understand what software of this
kind can be distributed, and how, and if there are problems.


Maybe the Gentoo mailing list is not the best place to discuss that, but
since mr.Schilling is here, and the discussion started, better go on
with it until a solution comes out. At least, next time this discussion
comes up, we hope to provide a quick link and settle the question. So
let's chase this thread to the end, once for all, if possible.


m.

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:25:16 +0200
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:

>
> Why do you start a new round and why are you now asking for completely
> different things?


I'm not asking different things. The question about the licenses is
the most important for me and I've asked that same question all the
time. It's just that now for the first time you partially gave an
answer.


> No non-GPL source is based on or derived from GPL code.


OK. This is close to what I'm asking, but not exactly. Anyways, I'm glad
to see you finally participating in this discussion.

Let me make my question even more clear with an oversimplified example:



You have written the program prog-a.c and published it on your site
under the GNU GPL.

I have _independently_ written the prog-b.c.

Nex, I've found your program and liked it. I decide that your prog-a.c
and my prog-b.c serve a common purpose and they complement one another.

The question is if I can take your source (prog-a.c) from your site, put
it into the same directory with my source (prog-b.c), make an archive
of that directory and distribute the archive under CDDL?

I think it is forbidden, because "prog-a.c" is published under
the GNU GPL, which means you give me the right to distribute your work
only under terms of the GNU GPL.


Am I wrong?


--
Best regards,
Daniel
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:13:51 +0200
"b.n." <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:

> Matt Harrison ha scritto:
> > I think it would be in everyone's best interests if we let this
> > thread die now, I've been reading this thread for the past 2 or 3
> > days and frankly, it doesn't seem to be bringing anything of use to
> > the ML.
> >
> > I don't want to get involved or takes anyone's side, but maybe the
> > more mature readers can just let it go I doubt anyone will miss
> > any benefit of this thread continuing.
>
> I disagree. CD/DVD burning is an important piece of software for a
> free system. It has no little importance to understand what software
> of this kind can be distributed, and how, and if there are problems.
>
> Maybe the Gentoo mailing list is not the best place to discuss that,
> but since mr.Schilling is here, and the discussion started, better go
> on with it until a solution comes out. At least, next time this
> discussion comes up, we hope to provide a quick link and settle the
> question. So let's chase this thread to the end, once for all, if
> possible.
>
> m.
>

Absolutely. Otherwise we would have wasted out time for nothing and
after a while it will start again. I believe it is best to go to the
bottom of this discussion now, so this whole nightmare won't repeat
itself again.


--
Best regards,
Daniel
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

"brullo nulla" <brullonulla@gmail.com> wrote:

> The FAQ (I assume you're talking about
> http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html ) only contain
> basic information on your side, almost without a single reference that
> shows me the actual full text of the email exchanges etc. supporting
> what you say. The FAQ is not in chronological order and it is even
> self-contradicting in chronological details (e.g. it starts with "In

While the attacks from Debian have all been self contradicting, my text is not.
It seems that you did not read it correctly. Please read it again....

> autumn 2005 and early spring 2006, a group of Debian maintainers
> started to attack the cdrtools project. The attacks have been based on
> the fact that cdrtools was licensed under the GPL. " then, in the

The private attacks from Bloch in 2004 have been trolling because of the
broken UTF-8 support now also fopund in cdrkit. The attacks
from Debian in Autumn 2005 have been GPL based. Is it so hard to read my
text?

> final part of the document, you talk about the UTF story: " In fact,
> this happened around y2004 [...] Now these people have been in trouble
> and needed an excuse for their behavior." -from this it seems implicit
> the problems started in 2004). Only explanation you give for all what
> was happening is a commercial-distributions-are-evil conspiracy theory
> (which maybe is true, but I am again waiting for evidence -the theory
> is quite weak, since forking an essential desktop software seems *much
> worse* than rewriting UTF8 support, and they could have inserted their
> unofficial patch into their packages even if you refused it upstream,
> if they felt their UTF8 patch was important).

There _is_ an evil conspiracy at least on Suse. Suse told me that they cannot
use unmodified original software and they need to modify my software.

If you compare my original software and the modified version from Suse, you will
find that the unmodified original works out of the box on suse while the suse
variant does not work at all.

Jörg

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