Why are mkisofs ISO's so large?

[Todd]

Hi All,

Why does

mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label

create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility
to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What
am I doing wrong?

Many thanks,
-T

[root]

Mount the images via loopback to ensure they have
the same content. Sounds like a mistake somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Todd <T...@invalid.invalid> [T]:
T> 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility to create the iso

Read the documentation for the GUI utility. Some of them allow
you to see the actual (non-GUI) commands they issue.

[Todd]

Thank you. I had forgotten about that. I had forgotten
about using the "ps" command while the gui utilities
were running as well. (I have used ps to figure out what
"virtlib" was doing a lot in the past.)

Hmm, k3b lets you see the command line. I wonder if
it can be used to create an iso, not just burn one.

-T

[Robert Heller]

Once you have the command line, you can then read the man page(s)
assocated with the command(s) on the command line and then alter the
command line to just create the ISO file.

>
> -T
>

--
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / hel...@deepsoft.com
Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

[Todd]

On 01/23/2012 09:04 PM, unruh wrote:
> There is a totally idiotic pissing contest between Debian and Schilling, the
> writter of cdrtools. Schilling released cdrtools recently under CDDL.
> Debian does not like this (although they are happy with the totally
> incompatibility between GPL3 and GPL2) and have decided that that
> completely stupid, ancient version of cdrtools (7 years old now). The only ones that suffer are
> the users. Schilling on the other hand is pathelogically stubborn (and
> a great software creator).

Hear! Hear!

[Richard Kettlewell]

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian
> people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any
> system that uses the Linux kernel.

The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[unruh]

On 2012-01-25, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian
>> people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any
>> system that uses the Linux kernel.
>
> The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true.

The kernel's license is GPL2.
The distributors may include what they think the license means, but they
are not the ones that determine the meaning. The courts do. Now, their
interpretation may well determine whether or not the kernel developers
will sue under various conditions. But then Schilling has explicitly
stated that he feels that the inclusion of cdrtools in Linux is
perfectly fine and he will not sue. Ie, I see nothing dissimilar between
the kernel/program license incompatibility and the CDDR/GPL claimed
incompatibility as far the licenses are concerned. Both may have
incompatibilities with each other (greater in the GPL3/GPL2 case than in
the CDDL/GPL case) but there are nothing that a bit of good will cannot
accomodate in both cases. That good will is totally lacking in the
cdrtools case, and I feel mainly on the distribution people's side.


>

[Richard Kettlewell]

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:

>>> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian
>>> people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any
>>> system that uses the Linux kernel.
>>
>> The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true.
>
> The kernel's license is GPL2.

Plus a specific statement about user programs.

The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is
bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea, since
the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Peter Köhlmann]

unruh wrote:

> I do not dispute his right to be stubborn-- his producing the software
> more than gives him the right to be so. I have a lot less sympathy for
> the stubborness of the Debian people and all of the other distributions.
> The key point is that the users suffer.

I don't suffer at all. I have *never* run his version. And I did not miss
anything

> While one can download the
> cdrtools and compile them, that in itself makes use by many users highly
> unlikely.

Right, but for totally different reasons. His tools will not provide any
functionality for my systems in addition to those I already have

> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the
> arguments of the Debian people should say that you simply cannot run
> GPL3 software on any system that uses the Linux kernel.

A real bullshit argument.
It is utter nonsense

> Anyway, it is an illustration of the fact that without good will, the
> most minor points can be blown up into major battles.

Well, Jörg certainly has no good will at all.
And constantly lying about the subject will not make him any friends, either

> If one cannot even
> get Debian and Schilling together by enough to solve the cdrtools
> problem for the users,

There isn't a "problem". The users don't miss them

> there is zero hope of solving problems like
> Palestine, Iran, Iraq, ..... At least people have not died yet because
> of this dispute.

Why not mention world peace?
Idiotic "argument".

[unruh]

On 2012-01-25, Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>
>> I do not dispute his right to be stubborn-- his producing the software
>> more than gives him the right to be so. I have a lot less sympathy for
>> the stubborness of the Debian people and all of the other distributions.
>> The key point is that the users suffer.
>
> I don't suffer at all. I have *never* run his version. And I did not miss
> anything

And you the self appointed representative of all users? Had you followed
this thread you would have discovered that the OP DID suffer.

>
>> While one can download the
>> cdrtools and compile them, that in itself makes use by many users highly
>> unlikely.
>
> Right, but for totally different reasons. His tools will not provide any
> functionality for my systems in addition to those I already have

And you think anyone cares?

>
>> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the
>> arguments of the Debian people should say that you simply cannot run
>> GPL3 software on any system that uses the Linux kernel.
>
> A real bullshit argument.
> It is utter nonsense

Cogent arguments you make. So deep insightful and logical.

>
>> Anyway, it is an illustration of the fact that without good will, the
>> most minor points can be blown up into major battles.
>

> Well, J??rg certainly has no good will at all.

> And constantly lying about the subject will not make him any friends, either

Jorg has a lot of good will. He has spent many many years writing his
program, and keeping it updated. That takes a huge amount of talent and
since it is free, service to the community as well.

>
>> If one cannot even
>> get Debian and Schilling together by enough to solve the cdrtools
>> problem for the users,
>
> There isn't a "problem". The users don't miss them

Again, who elected you as the representative of all users. Many users DO
miss it. Debian has not updated the original version they spun off-- a
version incidentally written by Schilling, not by anyone at Debian.

>
>> there is zero hope of solving problems like
>> Palestine, Iran, Iraq, ..... At least people have not died yet because
>> of this dispute.
>
> Why not mention world peace?
> Idiotic "argument".

I did mention world peace, but too elliptically for you.
And exactly what did you read this as an argument for?

[unruh]

On 2012-01-26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>
>>>> Since the kernel is GPL2 and ONLY GPL2, the arguments of the Debian
>>>> people should say that you simply cannot run GPL3 software on any
>>>> system that uses the Linux kernel.
>>>
>>> The kernel's licence explicitly makes it clear that this is not true.
>>
>> The kernel's license is GPL2.
>
> Plus a specific statement about user programs.

No. That preamble has no legal weight. It is Linus's opinion.
It is incidentally wrong. The copyright, a right granted by law, not by
Linus, DOES apply. What he is attempting to say is that the LICENCE does
not apply because it is not a derivative work. But "derivative work" is not
something he can decide on. His interpretation of the law might be
right, it might be wrong. Courts decide that, and courts in different
countries could decide differently. A
derivative work is defined ( poorly) in law, and is not something he can
define. Furthermore he cannot constrain other people.
Had he wanted to grant a license to works that might be regarded under
law as derivative works of the kind he describes, he could have done
that. He did not. He made statements about things which he does not have
the right to make statements about-- legal definitions.

Note also that he specifically states that GPL2 is the only valid
version. Thus any program which is in conflict with GPL2 ( which in
pricipal can include GPL3 programs) is in conflict with the only license
under which the kernel is licensed.

>
> The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is
> bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea, since
> the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of.
>

How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which
rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a
user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not,
but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that
cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the
distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of
"derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the
definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply
( and where Jorg thinks it applies).
Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools
and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg?

[Baho Utot]

unruh wrote:

[putolin]

>
> How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which
> rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a
> user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not,
> but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that
> cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the
> distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of
> "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the
> definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply
> ( and where Jorg thinks it applies).
> Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools
> and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg?

His opinion. There may be and most likely other issues as well. His point
is from a single software package, debian must consider all packages not
just his.

Any way why does'nt he license with GPL as well as CDDL?
Dual license is permissable. He could do so and solve all this problems
just by doing that, but he won't.

I still don't know why he had to pick an ugly fight with arch linux last
year.

[Richard Kettlewell]

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is
>> bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea,
>> since the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of.
>
> How is it bizarre?

For instance: if running a program under Linux makes it a derivative
work of the Linux kernel, then a Windows program run for the first time
using WINE, or a CIL program run using Mono, or a shell script written
in 1885 and run today under Bash, would suddenly become a derivative
work of Linux.

> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
> uses kernel calls as derivative works?

The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
(in general) based on the kernel.

> I hope not, but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian
> people claim that cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus
> cannot be included in the distribution? Under what legal theory? The
> only one is that of "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems
> to me is expanding the definition of derivative work way beyond where
> I would want it to apply ( and where Jorg thinks it applies).

I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both
the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[unruh]

On 2012-01-26, Baho Utot <baho...@invlaid.com> wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>
> [putolin]
>
>>
>> How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which
>> rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a
>> user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not,
>> but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that
>> cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the
>> distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of
>> "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the
>> definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply
>> ( and where Jorg thinks it applies).
>> Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools
>> and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg?
>
> His opinion. There may be and most likely other issues as well. His point
> is from a single software package, debian must consider all packages not
> just his.

Yes, it is his opinion. And his statement about what he will do. That
statement would make it extremely difficult for him to sue.

>
> Any way why does'nt he license with GPL as well as CDDL?

He feels that the GPL is too weak and cannot protect his software from
being used in someone else's proprietary software without his
permission. Ie, although the GPL claims to disallow it, he feels that it
is on too shakey a stance to be enforcable in court. He claims that this
has been backed up by someone who tried to enforce the GPL in German
courts and could not do so. The courts found that the language of the
GPL overstepped what it was legally allowed to restrict.

> Dual license is permissable. He could do so and solve all this problems
> just by doing that, but he won't.

It is. It means that the weakest featues of each licence applies. Ie,
he would not be able to prevent the use of the software in closed source
commercial ventures. Ie, the solution would come with unacceptable side
effects.

>
> I still don't know why he had to pick an ugly fight with arch linux last
> year.

I have no idea what the fight was. Can you point me to references?

[unruh]

On 2012-01-26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is
>>> bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea,
>>> since the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of.
>>
>> How is it bizarre?
>
> For instance: if running a program under Linux makes it a derivative
> work of the Linux kernel, then a Windows program run for the first time
> using WINE, or a CIL program run using Mono, or a shell script written
> in 1885 and run today under Bash, would suddenly become a derivative
> work of Linux.

That may be something you do not want, but it is hardly bizarre.
In your case, the derivative program would be the program which was
linked with Linux kernel-- it is the whole thing which would then be
derivative, not the original program itself. "derivative work" is a
statement about the work, not about anything the work depends on.

>
>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
>> uses kernel calls as derivative works?
>
> The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
> that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
> (in general) based on the kernel.

Well, that is the question. Is the work reliant on the other work? For
example it is almost certainly the case that a linux distribution is a
derivative work of the kernel, since clearly the distribution would not
work at all without the kernel.
"Based on" can be incredibly vague. Thus a movie "based on" a book, but
totally different from the book can still be a derivative work with
respect to the book. Totally different medium, different story...

Remember that the "work" in this case is the whole thing, the program as
linked with the kernel routines. The program itself may not be
derivative, but the thing actually run, the program linked with the
kernel, could be. (Part of the problem is exactly that "derivative work"
is so badly defined by the act that what is and is not a derivative work
is extremely unclear. This means that the courts would have to decide
it. And because it is so unclear the precidents are all over the
place,and may well contridict each other.

>
>> I hope not, but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian
>> people claim that cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus
>> cannot be included in the distribution? Under what legal theory? The
>> only one is that of "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems
>> to me is expanding the definition of derivative work way beyond where
>> I would want it to apply ( and where Jorg thinks it applies).
>
> I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
> it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both
> the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.
>

The same is true of GPL3 and GPL2, and most other licenses with respect
to each other, if the licenses are read strictly enough. Schilling would
claim that one can in fact comply with both because those features of
the GPL which would be problematic are in fact beyond the right of the
license to control. For example, if a software license said that the
licensee had to sacrifice his firstborn to use the program, and the CDDL
said that the firstborn had to be the one to run the program, this might
seem in conflict, but would not be, because those terms in the licenses
were illegal and thus of no force. The licenses would not in legal fact
be in conflict as licenses.

[Baho Utot]

unruh wrote:

> On 2012-01-26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is
>>>> bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea,
>>>> since the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of.
>>>
>>> How is it bizarre?
>>
>> For instance: if running a program under Linux makes it a derivative
>> work of the Linux kernel, then a Windows program run for the first time
>> using WINE, or a CIL program run using Mono, or a shell script written
>> in 1885 and run today under Bash, would suddenly become a derivative
>> work of Linux.
>
> That may be something you do not want, but it is hardly bizarre.
> In your case, the derivative program would be the program which was
> linked with Linux kernel-- it is the whole thing which would then be
> derivative, not the original program itself. "derivative work" is a
> statement about the work, not about anything the work depends on.
>

I don't know of too many apps that link with the kernel except glibc.
What apps are you talking about?

>>
>>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
>>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
>>> uses kernel calls as derivative works?
>>
>> The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
>> that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
>> (in general) based on the kernel.
>
> Well, that is the question. Is the work reliant on the other work? For
> example it is almost certainly the case that a linux distribution is a
> derivative work of the kernel, since clearly the distribution would not
> work at all without the kernel.
> "Based on" can be incredibly vague. Thus a movie "based on" a book, but
> totally different from the book can still be a derivative work with
> respect to the book. Totally different medium, different story...
>
> Remember that the "work" in this case is the whole thing, the program as
> linked with the kernel routines. The program itself may not be
> derivative, but the thing actually run, the program linked with the
> kernel, could be. (Part of the problem is exactly that "derivative work"
> is so badly defined by the act that what is and is not a derivative work
> is extremely unclear. This means that the courts would have to decide
> it. And because it is so unclear the precidents are all over the
> place,and may well contridict each other.
>
>

Isn't most libraries under LGPL?

>>
>>> I hope not, but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian
>>> people claim that cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus
>>> cannot be included in the distribution? Under what legal theory? The
>>> only one is that of "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems
>>> to me is expanding the definition of derivative work way beyond where
>>> I would want it to apply ( and where Jorg thinks it applies).
>>
>> I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
>> it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both
>> the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.
>>
>
> The same is true of GPL3 and GPL2, and most other licenses with respect
> to each other, if the licenses are read strictly enough. Schilling would
> claim that one can in fact comply with both because those features of
> the GPL which would be problematic are in fact beyond the right of the
> license to control. For example, if a software license said that the
> licensee had to sacrifice his firstborn to use the program, and the CDDL
> said that the firstborn had to be the one to run the program, this might
> seem in conflict, but would not be, because those terms in the licenses
> were illegal and thus of no force. The licenses would not in legal fact
> be in conflict as licenses.

I simply don't see the problem.

[Baho Utot]

unruh wrote:

> On 2012-01-26, Baho Utot <baho...@invlaid.com> wrote:
>> unruh wrote:
>>
>> [putolin]
>>
>>>

>>> How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which

>>> rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a

>>> user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not,

>>> but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that
>>> cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the
>>> distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of
>>> "derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the
>>> definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply
>>> ( and where Jorg thinks it applies).

>>> Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools
>>> and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg?
>>

>> His opinion. There may be and most likely other issues as well. His
>> point is from a single software package, debian must consider all
>> packages not just his.
>
> Yes, it is his opinion. And his statement about what he will do. That
> statement would make it extremely difficult for him to sue.
>>
>> Any way why does'nt he license with GPL as well as CDDL?
>
> He feels that the GPL is too weak and cannot protect his software from
> being used in someone else's proprietary software without his
> permission. Ie, although the GPL claims to disallow it, he feels that it
> is on too shakey a stance to be enforcable in court. He claims that this
> has been backed up by someone who tried to enforce the GPL in German
> courts and could not do so. The courts found that the language of the
> GPL overstepped what it was legally allowed to restrict.

Yes this was one of his claims but he did not provide any evidence to Arch
linux developers for his claims. Lip service was all he provided and that
is why his proposal to switch from cdrkit to cdrtools was rejected.

I was also hassled by him as well when I posted that I have not had any
issues using cdrkit. He claimed that I really didn't burn the dvds that I
did. He claimed it did not work when in fact it did. I have them in hand.

Any way cdrkit and cdrtools is not the only game in town

http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/multimedia/xorriso.html

>
>> Dual license is permissable. He could do so and solve all this problems
>> just by doing that, but he won't.
>
> It is. It means that the weakest featues of each licence applies. Ie,
> he would not be able to prevent the use of the software in closed source
> commercial ventures. Ie, the solution would come with unacceptable side
> effects.
>
>>
>> I still don't know why he had to pick an ugly fight with arch linux last
>> year.
>
> I have no idea what the fight was. Can you point me to references?

He showed up on the arch mail lists and somewhat demanded that they use
cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. An ensuing cat fight then commenced.

Google.com is your friend

This is from the thread you can get the whole thread from there if you like.

http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010466.html

From the thread...
Qoute
"However, I am still with Allan here. All this situation was initially
caused by Jörg himself and talking about a proof but not actually providing
it does not help.

PS: I wonder if this discussion will come to a conclusion before optical
discs are obsolete."

[J G Miller]

On Thursday, January 26th, 2012, at 22:43:18h +0000, UnrUh wrote:

> He claims that this has been backed up by someone who tried to
> enforce the GPL in German courts and could not do so.

Whereas most cases seem to suggest the opposite.


April 22nd, 2004
"GPL gains clout in German legal case"

<http://news.cnet.com/2100-7344-5198117.html>


June 3rd, 2005
"Second Injunction Enforcing GPL Issued in Germany"

<http://www.wilmerhale.COM/publications/whPubsDetail.aspx?publication=346>


July 25th, 2007
"GPL Upheld in Germany Again - Translation"

<http://www.groklaw.NET/articlebasic.php?story=2007072513105421>


November 16th, 2011
"AVM Case: German Courts Defends the GPL in Landmark Decision"

<http://lxnews.ORG/2011/11/16/avm-german-courts-defends-gpl/>


This last case is the most significant of all because if the court
had not ruled against AVM then the restrictions of the GPL would
have been null and void.

June 20th, 2011
"German company claims it can disregard GPL requirements in aggregated software"

<http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/german-company-claims-it-can-disregard-gpl-re>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Baho Utot wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>
>> On 2012-01-26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>>>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> The idea that the kernel's licence *would* cover user programs is
>>>>> bizarre, but in this case, there's no need to entertain that idea,
>>>>> since the owners have explicitly ruled it out. End of.
>>>> How is it bizarre?
>>> For instance: if running a program under Linux makes it a derivative
>>> work of the Linux kernel, then a Windows program run for the first time
>>> using WINE, or a CIL program run using Mono, or a shell script written
>>> in 1885 and run today under Bash, would suddenly become a derivative
>>> work of Linux.
>> That may be something you do not want, but it is hardly bizarre.
>> In your case, the derivative program would be the program which was
>> linked with Linux kernel-- it is the whole thing which would then be
>> derivative, not the original program itself. "derivative work" is a
>> statement about the work, not about anything the work depends on.
>>
>
> I don't know of too many apps that link with the kernel except glibc.
> What apps are you talking about?

I have never heard glibc called an app.

I think at this point I will discontinue reading this post.

[Richard Kettlewell]

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
>> it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both
>> the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.
>
> The same is true of GPL3 and GPL2, and most other licenses with respect
> to each other, if the licenses are read strictly enough.

Indeed, you may not combine GPL-2-only and GPL-3-only code.

> Schilling would claim that one can in fact comply with both because
> those features of the GPL which would be problematic are in fact
> beyond the right of the license to control.

He can claim anything he likes, but he and his sycophants are doing a
terrible job of convincing distributors (case in point: bizarre claims
about kernel copyright extending to user programs). In the end that's
all that matters.

> For example, if a software license said that the licensee had to
> sacrifice his firstborn to use the program, and the CDDL said that the
> firstborn had to be the one to run the program, this might seem in
> conflict, but would not be, because those terms in the licenses were
> illegal and thus of no force. The licenses would not in legal fact be
> in conflict as licenses.

I'd regard software covered by a hypothetical sacrifice-firstborn
licence as impossible to copy (etc) at all. The copyright holder has
the exclusive right to control copying, the terms they state are
impossible for me to meet, ergo it may not be copied.

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Baho Utot]

Well maybe an app plus libraries is more correct, but that is not what I
meant.

usr/bin/getent
usr/bin/rpcgen
usr/bin/localedef
usr/bin/sprof
usr/bin/mtrace
usr/bin/catchsegv
usr/bin/pcprofiledump
usr/bin/getconf
usr/bin/xtrace
usr/bin/sotruss
usr/bin/tzselect
usr/bin/ldd
usr/bin/gencat
usr/bin/locale
usr/bin/lddlibc4
usr/bin/iconv

sbin/sln
sbin/ldconfig
usr/
usr/sbin/
usr/sbin/zic
usr/sbin/iconvconfig
usr/sbin/nscd
usr/sbin/zdump

[John Hasler]

Baho Utot writes:
> He showed up on the arch mail lists and somewhat demanded that they
> use cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. An ensuing cat fight then commenced.

Sounds similar to what happened with Debian. He also has threatened to
sue Debian developers. Why would anyone want to get involved with
software the author of which has threatened to sue them over it?

> Any way cdrkit and cdrtools is not the only game in town

> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/multimedia/xorriso.html

And it is included in Debian, as is cdrskin. See
<http://libburnia-project.org> . Cdrkit might not be in the next Debian
release.
--
John Hasler
jha...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA

[lynx...@mouse-potato.com]

Baho Utot writes:

>> He showed up on the arch mail lists and somewhat demanded that they
>> use cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. An ensuing cat fight then commenced.

We have read the thread in the Arch mailing list and saw no such demand.
Please point to the post in the mailing-list where he demanded they use
cdrtools instead of something else.

John Hasler wrote:

> He also has threatened to sue Debian developers.

Threatening to sue because of introducing cdrkit to Debian, and removing
his cdrtools, or what ?
Any proof to this, or are you just Eduard Bloch's cousin or something ?

[Baho Utot]

lynx...@mouse-potato.com wrote:

> Baho Utot writes:
>
>>> He showed up on the arch mail lists and somewhat demanded that they
>>> use cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. An ensuing cat fight then commenced.
>
> We have read the thread in the Arch mailing list and saw no such demand.

What you have a mouse in your pocket?

> Please point to the post in the mailing-list where he demanded they use
> cdrtools instead of something else.

Then you didn't read the entire thread did you or you have a lack of
understanding. Allan McRae put it quite nicely.

>
> John Hasler wrote:
>
>> He also has threatened to sue Debian developers.
>
> Threatening to sue because of introducing cdrkit to Debian, and removing
> his cdrtools, or what ?
> Any proof to this, or are you just Eduard Bloch's cousin or something ?

What are you a troll or something

[Feranija]

On 27/01/12 06:44, Baho Utot wrote:
> lynx...@mouse-potato.com wrote:
>
>> Baho Utot writes:
>>
>>>> He showed up on the arch mail lists and somewhat demanded that they
>>>> use cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. An ensuing cat fight then commenced.
>>
>> We have read the thread in the Arch mailing list and saw no such demand.
>
> What you have a mouse in your pocket?
>
>> Please point to the post in the mailing-list where he demanded they use
>> cdrtools instead of something else.
>
> Then you didn't read the entire thread did you or you have a lack of
> understanding. Allan McRae put it quite nicely.

I've read the entire thread in the mailing list and noticed no such
_demand_ to use cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. Perhaps you know of an
another, hidden thread where he _demanded_ his cdrtools be included
in the Arch distribution ? Please respond.

>> John Hasler wrote:
>>
>>> He also has threatened to sue Debian developers.
>>
>> Threatening to sue because of introducing cdrkit to Debian, and removing
>> his cdrtools, or what ?
>> Any proof to this, or are you just Eduard Bloch's cousin or something ?
>
> What are you a troll or something

Please point to the post where he threatens to sue Debian because or
removing his cdrtools. Thank you.

[unruh]

On 2012-01-27, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
>>> it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both
>>> the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.
>>
>> The same is true of GPL3 and GPL2, and most other licenses with respect
>> to each other, if the licenses are read strictly enough.
>
> Indeed, you may not combine GPL-2-only and GPL-3-only code.
>
>> Schilling would claim that one can in fact comply with both because
>> those features of the GPL which would be problematic are in fact
>> beyond the right of the license to control.
>
> He can claim anything he likes, but he and his sycophants are doing a
> terrible job of convincing distributors (case in point: bizarre claims
> about kernel copyright extending to user programs). In the end that's
> all that matters.

Sorry, it is Debian that makes such claims. Schilling claims that there
is no problem with his licensing parts of cdrtools as CDDL. There is no
incompatibility in distributing CDDL.

You mean just like it is hard for the US to convince Iran to stop its
nuclear program. Ie, the reason for one person having difficulty
convincing someone else can be many and manifold, and need have nothing
to do with the logic of the arguments.

>
>> For example, if a software license said that the licensee had to
>> sacrifice his firstborn to use the program, and the CDDL said that the
>> firstborn had to be the one to run the program, this might seem in
>> conflict, but would not be, because those terms in the licenses were
>> illegal and thus of no force. The licenses would not in legal fact be
>> in conflict as licenses.
>
> I'd regard software covered by a hypothetical sacrifice-firstborn
> licence as impossible to copy (etc) at all. The copyright holder has
> the exclusive right to control copying, the terms they state are
> impossible for me to meet, ergo it may not be copied.

But the law would simply regard the license as it exists with that
clause removed, since that clause is illegal. Now you might decide not
to copy it anyway, since that would be your right, but if you met the
other conditions of the license ( assuming they were legally fine) the
writer would not be able to enforce this section of the copyright on you.

As I understand it, that is Schilling's attitude towards the parts of the GPL that are
claimed to be in conflict with the CDDA. And he has at least some legal
opinion on his side.
This does not mean that GPL is invalid in its entirety. Just that some
of its claims are invalid.

[unruh]

He has provided evidence in the past-- in the form of legal opinions on
the validity of some of the GPL claims.

>
> I was also hassled by him as well when I posted that I have not had any
> issues using cdrkit. He claimed that I really didn't burn the dvds that I
> did. He claimed it did not work when in fact it did. I have them in hand.

This whole discussion was started by someone who DID have trouble with
cdrkit, which was solved by going to cdrtools. I can well believe that
you had no trouble. Some (man?) people find cdrkit fine. It is afterall
cdrtools of 7 years ago, and Schilling writes good software. It just has
not kept up with changes in writing since then-- whether
hardware/software/bug fixes.

>
> Any way cdrkit and cdrtools is not the only game in town
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/multimedia/xorriso.html

Good. Competition is always good. Mind you, competition to cdrtools have
come up in the past, and the developers have lost interest and the
software has died. Schilling has been producing his software for about
20 years and has demonstrated that he is in it for the long run. That is
worth something. Maybe xorriso will be the same, and the developers will
have the same dedication without the aggrevation.

>
>>
>>> Dual license is permissable. He could do so and solve all this problems
>>> just by doing that, but he won't.
>>
>> It is. It means that the weakest featues of each licence applies. Ie,
>> he would not be able to prevent the use of the software in closed source
>> commercial ventures. Ie, the solution would come with unacceptable side
>> effects.
>>
>>>
>>> I still don't know why he had to pick an ugly fight with arch linux last
>>> year.
>>
>> I have no idea what the fight was. Can you point me to references?
>
> He showed up on the arch mail lists and somewhat demanded that they use
> cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. An ensuing cat fight then commenced.
>
> Google.com is your friend
>
> This is from the thread you can get the whole thread from there if you like.
>
> http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010466.html

Thanks. As I have said often, Schilling can be hard to get along with.
He is stubborn and he is opinionated. He also writes really good
software. cdrkit is HIS software. It is not someone elses. He is annoyed
that he has spent the last 6 years improving it and other then keep
using his ancient version, which is not surprizing.

>
> From the thread...
> Qoute
> "However, I am still with Allan here. All this situation was initially

> caused by J??rg himself and talking about a proof but not actually providing
> it does not help.

But from what I have seen, the situation was NOT caused by Jorg himself.
It was an unfortunate collision between him and others, in which all of
them acted very much like little children fighting in a sandbox-- yes,
including Jorg.

[unruh]

As far as I recall, the suit threat came from Debian altering cdrtools,
originally to include dvd writing ( which Jorg charged for) and then for
a few other reasons, and continuing to call it cdrecord. Jorg felt that
the result was not up to his standards and wanted them to rename it so
the changed version would not be mistaken for his software. He was
also getting people complaining to him about errors in the code that had
not bee written by him. Debian at
first refused, and then later complied ( which is why it is called
cdrkit, wodim,....)

[Peter Köhlmann]

unruh wrote:

> On 2012-01-26, Baho Utot <baho...@invlaid.com> wrote:
>> unruh wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes this was one of his claims but he did not provide any evidence to
>> Arch
>> linux developers for his claims. Lip service was all he provided and
>> that is why his proposal to switch from cdrkit to cdrtools was rejected.
>
> He has provided evidence in the past-- in the form of legal opinions on
> the validity of some of the GPL claims.

Which was simply a bullshit opinion.
And then his "lawyers", who he claimed to have asked.
They exist every bit as miuch as that infamous SCO koffer

I have never seen someone making as ass out of himself and lying constantly
like Jörg

If I would maintain a distro, I would steadfastly refuse to even talk to
someone like him, let alone use his version of the software

[unruh]

On 2012-01-27, Peter K??hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>
>> On 2012-01-26, Baho Utot <baho...@invlaid.com> wrote:
>>> unruh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes this was one of his claims but he did not provide any evidence to
>>> Arch
>>> linux developers for his claims. Lip service was all he provided and
>>> that is why his proposal to switch from cdrkit to cdrtools was rejected.
>>
>> He has provided evidence in the past-- in the form of legal opinions on
>> the validity of some of the GPL claims.
>
> Which was simply a bullshit opinion.
> And then his "lawyers", who he claimed to have asked.
> They exist every bit as miuch as that infamous SCO koffer

It is clear that you have no interest in the issues, just in your
position. I have read some of the opinions he has referenced and they
make sense to me, as someone who is not a lawyer, but had spent some
time trying to understand how lawyers think.

>
> I have never seen someone making as ass out of himself and lying constantly

> like J??rg

Again an opinion with zero backing.

>
> If I would maintain a distro, I would steadfastly refuse to even talk to
> someone like him, let alone use his version of the software

Yes, and you would deprive your users. It is precisely this kind of mind
game where the feelings of the distributors take precidence over the users
that I object to. My attitude would be that if there is really good
piece of software which my users would find useful ( and for most of the
past 15 years, cdrecord was the only game in town for doing something
that users find EXTREMELY useful) I would bend over backwards to provide
it to them, and damn my own hurt feelings. But that is clearly not the
attitude of many of the distributions. They are as obnoxious and
stubborn as Jorg can be.

>

[Dan Espen]

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:

> Thanks. As I have said often, Schilling can be hard to get along with.
> He is stubborn and he is opinionated.

...

> But from what I have seen, the situation was NOT caused by Jorg himself.
> It was an unfortunate collision between him and others, in which all of
> them acted very much like little children fighting in a sandbox-- yes,
> including Jorg.

He's hard to get along with but it's not his fault?

He's got the CD stuff, smake (make), star (tar), and I don't know what else.
In every case, he's not able to get along with any of the
developers of the related products.

I believe he's got talent but his inability to get along with
others and maybe compromise leaves all his stuff by the wayside.

It's a shame. I wish him well.

--
Dan Espen

[Baho Utot]

unruh wrote:

[putolin]

http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010466.html
>
> Thanks. As I have said often, Schilling can be hard to get along with.
> He is stubborn and he is opinionated. He also writes really good
> software. cdrkit is HIS software. It is not someone elses.

Not exactly, I understand and he himself has admitted that some parts of it
he did not write and are copyright by others.
I think you can find that in the cdrkit and cdrtools both.

[Peter Köhlmann]

unruh wrote:

> On 2012-01-27, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> writes:
>>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
>>>> it is that distributing the executable would require complying with
>>>> both
>>>> the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.
>>>
>>> The same is true of GPL3 and GPL2, and most other licenses with respect
>>> to each other, if the licenses are read strictly enough.
>>
>> Indeed, you may not combine GPL-2-only and GPL-3-only code.
>>
>>> Schilling would claim that one can in fact comply with both because
>>> those features of the GPL which would be problematic are in fact
>>> beyond the right of the license to control.
>>
>> He can claim anything he likes, but he and his sycophants are doing a
>> terrible job of convincing distributors (case in point: bizarre claims
>> about kernel copyright extending to user programs). In the end that's
>> all that matters.
>
> Sorry, it is Debian that makes such claims. Schilling claims that there
> is no problem with his licensing parts of cdrtools as CDDL. There is no
> incompatibility in distributing CDDL.

That is Jörgs claim.
He could just as well claim that the sun is made from swiss cheese.

Why should anyone with half a brain believe the claims of a whacko?

[The Natural Philosopher]

I thionk you will find that its a bit more complex than that..Debian
IIRC at least has a statement of its own about what it is and how it
operates: That was and possibly still is in conflict with Jorg.. now
under those circumstances each side has a good point.



But in the end downloading and compiling is just the linux alternative
to going shopping and buying and then trying to make XYZ app work.

at LEAST with linux, if it all just 'doesn't work' you haven't wasted
any money.

[unruh]

I am not saying that the two sides do not have points. I am saying that
the pig headedness on both sides (sticking to a point way beyond what is
reasonable) is what I see here.
I am not sure what the phrase "about what it is" refers to.

Debian has made statements about the licensing. If one takes it
literally it would outlaw a huge number of programs which are not
outlawed from the distro. (I would point to for example any GPL3
program. Since the kenrel is GPL2 and GPL2 ONLY, the distro must be
released as GPL2, since GPL3 is incompatible. Since the distro is
clearly a derived work of the kernel, it must comply with the kernel
license (it is not a "mere aggregation" since the distro without the
kernel would be useless, and the provision of the kernel is one of the
key purposes of the distro), and that requires that it be released under
GPL2. Thus, any GPL3 only program is in conflict and cannot be
distributed.
Now, this may or may not be a legally valid argument, but it is at least
as cogent as Debian's argument re cdrtools. But they refuse to accept
this, but they push the cdrtools one. Why? Because of animosity and pig
headedness as far as I can see.

>
>
>
> But in the end downloading and compiling is just the linux alternative
> to going shopping and buying and then trying to make XYZ app work.

AGreed. People can just download cdrecord and compile it. On some
distros people have even generated scripts to do that for the user.
It would sure be nicer if the distro did it.

>
> at LEAST with linux, if it all just 'doesn't work' you haven't wasted
> any money.

Well, if time is money, then yes, you have probably wasted a huge amount
of money. (trying to figure out why something does not work can take
hours and days).

[The Natural Philosopher]

If I cant get 'it' to work in less than a day, then as far as I am
concerned its not worth pursuing.

I've had a few things like that - some came as part of the distro and
simply did not work. Some I tried to compile, hit dependency hell and
simply abandoned.

That's the problem with Debian stable - its usually up to 18 months
behind the latest libraries and if your app of choice wont compile on it
because its libraries don't match what's on your system..well life is
too short.

But at least when the new releases get to the debian stable repo it all
does generally work. Whereas I have windows programs costing hundreds
that always have and irrevocably always will seg fault and crash under
certain circumstances and only spending more money on a yet more bloated
windows and a yet more bloated upgrades will fix the problem, Or maybe
it won't. I dunno.


Life is not perfect.

[unruh]

Well, we are talking about dvd burning here, and many people consider it
pretty important, and worth getting to work. Since most seem to get
theirs to work, it is really frustrating if yours does not-- only to
discover that you have say a burner which cdrecord has worked with it
for years, and cdrkit has not yet managed to get to work. Or as with teh
OP, cdrkit produces huge files which will not fit onto a dvd, while
cdrecord produces files which fit fine.

>
> I've had a few things like that - some came as part of the distro and
> simply did not work. Some I tried to compile, hit dependency hell and
> simply abandoned.

It depends on how much you need it. If you are a financial planner and
for you the spreadsheet simply does not work, you might be willing to
spend more time on it, than say, some game.

[Baho Utot]

unruh wrote:

> Debian has made statements about the licensing. If one takes it
> literally it would outlaw a huge number of programs which are not
> outlawed from the distro. (I would point to for example any GPL3
> program. Since the kenrel is GPL2 and GPL2 ONLY, the distro must be
> released as GPL2, since GPL3 is incompatible. Since the distro is
> clearly a derived work of the kernel, it must comply with the kernel
> license (it is not a "mere aggregation" since the distro without the
> kernel would be useless, and the provision of the kernel is one of the
> key purposes of the distro), and that requires that it be released under
> GPL2. Thus, any GPL3 only program is in conflict and cannot be

Isn't a distro a collection of software packages?

If so then a distro is not a dirivative but a collection.

Or from FSF point of view GNU+linux so linux is then an addition?

[unruh]

And a collection is copyright as a derivative of the items in that
collection plus the the extras that have been added to the collection.
Note that a distribution is far more than just a collection, as anyone
who has ever used a distribution knows. It has a character all its own,
it alters the kernel, it alters many of the items in the collection.

Note that a novel is just a collection of words, none of which can
themselves attract copyright, and yet the book as a whole, consisting of
simply that collection of words, does attract copyright.

>
> Or from FSF point of view GNU+linux so linux is then an addition?

What is "an addition" in light of this conversation?

>

[unruh]

On 2012-01-31, Darren Salt <ne...@youmustbejoking.demon.cu.invalid> wrote:
> I demand that unruh may or may not have written...
>
> [snip]

>> Debian has made statements about the licensing. If one takes it literally
>> it would outlaw a huge number of programs which are not outlawed from the
>> distro. (I would point to for example any GPL3 program. Since the kenrel is
>> GPL2 and GPL2 ONLY,
>

> ???The kernel???... which kernel?
>
> Linux or FreeBSD?

Linux. FreeBSD as far as I know uses the BSD license?

>
> Debian has both. :-??
>
> [snip]

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <jeb58h$9ne$1...@dont-email.me>, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>Why does
>
> mkisofs --dvd-video -o $Path/clean_dvd.iso $StruPath/$Label
>
>create such large ISOs? 6.2 GB vs 4.4 gb when I use a GUI utility
>to create the iso. Did I miss some compression setting? What
>am I doing wrong?

Are you using the original mkisofs or the buggy variant from Debian?

"genisoimage" is made from an original from September 2004 with many Debian
specific bugs added.

--
EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) J�rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni)
joerg.s...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <jebgsd$jh2$1...@dont-email.me>, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 01/07/2012 10:03 PM, unruh wrote:

>> First make sure you are using the real mkisofs.
>> cdrecord.belios.de
>> and not the ancient version in cdrkit.
>
>$ mkisofs -version
>mkisofs 2.01 is not what you see here. This line is only
>a fake for too clever GUIs and other frontend applications.
>In fact, this program is: genisoimage 1.1.9 (Linux)

This is the buggy Debian variant, you don't like to use it...

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <lZqTq.4339$5r2...@newsfe11.iad>, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-01-23, Todd <To...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 10 times faster! And, I guy over on RPM Forge gave me a link to
>> Red Hat RPMS, including RHEL RPMs:
>>
>> http://www.city-fan.org/ftp/contrib/sysutils/cdrtools/
>>
>> Thank you!
>
>There is a totally idiotic pissing contest between Debian and Schilling, the
>writter of cdrtools. Schilling released cdrtools recently under CDDL.
>Debian does not like this (although they are happy with the totally
>incompatibility between GPL3 and GPL2) and have decided that that
>completely stupid, ancient version of cdrtools (7 years old now). The only ones that suffer are
>the users. Schilling on the other hand is pathelogically stubborn (and
>a great software creator).

Let me give some minor corrections:

In May 2004, the Debian packetizer changed and the new one was not
collaborative. After he tried to force me in vain to include a buggy so called
"UTF-8 support patch" into mkisofs, I received a lot of personal attacks from
him.

Later (in 2005), he claimed that there was a GPL license problem in "cdrecord"
even though all programs in cdrtools have been completely under GPL.

After it turned out, that even the Debian leaders have not been willing to
correct this person, I started to relicense the sources under CDDL - but this
was done as a result of the attacks from Debian.

Now "mkisofs" is still under GPL, but the rest of the programs are 100% CDDL.
Debian still claims that "cdrecord" has a GPL problem - even though cdrecord
is 100% CDDL. I am not sure whether there are people who understand this....

OpenSource still winns, as nobody is forced to use the binaries from Debian.

Users should however ask Debian why they are not able to solve an internal
social problem within 9 years.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <pan.2012.01...@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID>,
Loki Harfagr <l0...@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> wrote:

>to be stubborn on an important point in free software distribution is a
>quality that should be supported, taught and shared, and that other point
>you said about another quality of Jörg Schilling is certainly true too :D)


Are people who insist in software quality and who insist in licence legality
called stubborn?

Debian on the other side has a problem with software quality and the legality
of their "wodim"....

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <zrZTq.5432$_g3....@newsfe09.iad>, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2012-01-25, Loki Harfagr <l0...@thedarkdesign.free.fr.INVALID> wrote:

>
>The key issue is an issue of licenses and the GPL. The debian people
>interpret the GPL in one way, a way that I believe holds much in
>sympathy with the way in which SCO interpreted the GPL in their famous
>attempt to extort money from Linux users. Schilling does not like the

Debian (when talking about cdrtools) interprets the GPL in a way that makes
their entire distribution illegal.

You should ask them, why they are unwilling to use the same rules for all
software.


>Anyway, it is an illustration of the fact that without good will, the
>most minor points can be blown up into major battles. If one cannot even
>get Debian and Schilling together by enough to solve the cdrtools
>problem for the users, there is zero hope of solving problems like
>Palestine, Iran, Iraq, ..... At least people have not died yet because
>of this dispute.

I am not sure whether you are aware of this, but there was a meeting between
Debian and me (accompanied by the OpenSource.org Director Simon Phipps).

This happened on March 6th 2009. Debian (J�rg Jaspert - the ftp masther in
person) at that time promised to include the original cdrtools into the Debian
distributuion within a few week. Nothing happened so far.

Ask Debian, why you cannot trust a promise made by Debian.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <jfr0up$cbr$1...@dont-email.me>, unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>On 2012-01-26, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>How is it bizarre? Derivative works are precisely that, works which
>rely in some ill defined way on other works. Would a court regard a
>user program which uses kernel calls as derivative works? I hope not,
>but it could well do so. At the same time the Debian people claim that
>cdrtools is incompatible with the GPL and thus cannot be included in the
>distribution? Under what legal theory? The only one is that of
>"derivtive work". Ie, it is Debian which it seems to me is expanding the
>definition of derivative work way beyond where I would want it to apply
>( and where Jorg thinks it applies).
>Note that Jorg has explicitly ruled out any conflict between cdrtools
>and the GPL. End of? Why for the kernel but not for Jorg?

Probably because there is no legal problem but a social problem _inside_ Debian
that has to be solved.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <87y5sup...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>,

Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
>> uses kernel calls as derivative works?
>

>The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
>that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
>(in general) based on the kernel.

And in special, a library called by a problem being under GPL does not make
that (preexisting) library a derivative work of the program that calls it.

Conclusion: a GPLd program can use any library under any lisnce as long as that
license does not disallow such a case.

As an important hint:

In the US, the GPL is a not a contract but a "license". This is made to protect
customers against claims from the Copyright holders. US Copyright law title 17
paragraph 106 lists all claims a licens is permitted to make. The redifinition
of the term "derivative work" is not in that list and for this reason, the
related text in the GPL is illegal and void.

>I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
>it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both
>the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.

If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they do for
cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that any Linux distro
includes software under various licenses.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <871uqln...@thumper.dhh.gt.org>,

John Hasler <jha...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>Baho Utot writes:
>> He showed up on the arch mail lists and somewhat demanded that they
>> use cdrtools insteed of cdrkit. An ensuing cat fight then commenced.
>

>Sounds similar to what happened with Debian. He also has threatened to
>sue Debian developers. Why would anyone want to get involved with
>software the author of which has threatened to sue them over it?
>
>> Any way cdrkit and cdrtools is not the only game in town
>
>> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/multimedia/xorriso.html
>
>And it is included in Debian, as is cdrskin. See
><http://libburnia-project.org> . Cdrkit might not be in the next Debian
>release.

This software is not able to replace mkisofs at all.

There are too many missing features.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <j9EUq.10466$Sh7....@newsfe15.iad>,

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>As far as I recall, the suit threat came from Debian altering cdrtools,
>originally to include dvd writing ( which Jorg charged for) and then for

Even though there are some people who spread this false claim, using cdrecord
to write DVDs was always free. There was just a NDA with Pioneer that
prevented me from giving away certain information unless everyone (including
companies like Nero) did manage to understand how to write DVDs.

[unruh]

On 2013-03-21, Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> In article <87y5sup...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>,
> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
>>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
>>> uses kernel calls as derivative works?
>>
>>The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
>>that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
>>(in general) based on the kernel.

Being "based on" is not sufficient. Moby Dick is based on the Bible, but
is not a derivative work of the Bible. On the other hand Gone with the
Wind is based on the novel of that name ( with substantial differences)
but a court has ruled that the copyright on the book applies to the
movie.
The big problem is that "derivtive work" is an extremely ill defined
term in copyright law, which of course means that barrack room lawyers
can have a field day, unconstrained by anything.

>
> And in special, a library called by a problem being under GPL does not make
> that (preexisting) library a derivative work of the program that calls it.

That would be a very strange definition of derivative work.

>
> Conclusion: a GPLd program can use any library under any lisnce as long as that
> license does not disallow such a case.
>
> As an important hint:
>
> In the US, the GPL is a not a contract but a "license". This is made to protect
> customers against claims from the Copyright holders. US Copyright law title 17
> paragraph 106 lists all claims a licens is permitted to make. The redifinition
> of the term "derivative work" is not in that list and for this reason, the
> related text in the GPL is illegal and void.

Derivative work is defined in law, and no contract or license cah
redefine it if the force of the contract or license comes from the
copyright act. Of course, in a contract you can make any claims you
want, and if the other party agrees, then, assuming it is not explicitly
illegal, it can be enforced under copyright law. But certainly neither
the GPL or CDDL are contracts.

Thus those sections under the GPL which may appear to define derivative
work ( they do not use that term) are their interpretation of how the
law would apply to them and their license. Unfortuantely or otherwise,
it is the courts that determine such things, not the license writer. And
since the license is one sided (ie is not agreed to by the two parties,
but is imposed by one) it will tend to interpreted as liberally for the
licensee as possible. Since the licensor had the opportunity to make the
license clear, any ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the person
who did not have that opportunity.

Ie, the related text in the GPL is NOT illegal. It is simply irrelevant,
and at best expresses their understanding of the meaning of the legal
terms, a understanding a court is free to disagree with.

But even without that, I have never understood the argument as to why the
GPL and CDDL are incompatible.

>
>>I don't in any way speak for Debian but their position as I understand
>>it is that distributing the executable would require complying with both
>>the GPL and CDDL simultaneously. That's not possible.
>
> If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they do for
> cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that any Linux distro
> includes software under various licenses.

GPL3 and GPL2 for example contain far more incompatibility than does GPL
and CDDL.

On the other hand, Jorg could release cdrtools under the GPL2 (as well
as CDDL) if he wanted to. It is not clear to me why he doesn't do that,
but it is his right to release it however he wants. It is just too bad
that the rest of us are saddled with inferior software due to this
battle royal (Yes, cdrtools can be installed separately, but it is a bit
of a pain.)

>
>
>

[Octothorpe]

www.fsf.org is over there -->

[Octothorpe]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:02:15 +0000, unruh wrote:

[putolin]

> GPL3 and GPL2 for example contain far more incompatibility than does GPL
> and CDDL.
>
> On the other hand, Jorg could release cdrtools under the GPL2 (as well
> as CDDL) if he wanted to. It is not clear to me why he doesn't do that,
> but it is his right to release it however he wants. It is just too bad
> that the rest of us are saddled with inferior software due to this
> battle royal (Yes, cdrtools can be installed separately, but it is a bit
> of a pain.)
>
>
>>
>>

Just use wodim (when you need to burn a cd/DVD) and go about ones
business and forget about Jorg. DVD and such are going away replaced by
USB derives. Movies that was once only on DVDs you can now get over the
web, so Jorg and his crusade is becoming a mute point.

[unruh]

The problem with your comment is that the software that Jorg writes is
very good, and has been kept up to date with new writers, etc. Wodim has
not. And dvds are still being used and have not been replaced by usb
drives A USB drive is still far more expensive than a blank DVD.
And while you may have unlimited data download from the web, most people
do not. While you may well be right about what the situation in 10 years
time will be, most people want to live life now, not sometime in the
future.

[Robert Riches]

The problem with the brilliant software Mr. Schilling has written
is its author is so often contradicted by reality that it
undermines trust in the software. For example, in another
thread, he (very) recently stated wodim does not burn DVDs. The
reality is wodim has worked very well for burning a mountain of
DVDs for me.

--
Robert Riches
spamt...@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[Octothorpe]

Yes he rant and rave all he wants, but I am not going to use cdrtools. I
don't care how good they may be.

[Octothorpe]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:01:57 +0000, unruh wrote:

> On 2013-03-21, Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:02:15 +0000, unruh wrote:
>>
>> [putolin]
>>
>>> GPL3 and GPL2 for example contain far more incompatibility than does
>>> GPL and CDDL.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, Jorg could release cdrtools under the GPL2 (as well
>>> as CDDL) if he wanted to. It is not clear to me why he doesn't do
>>> that, but it is his right to release it however he wants. It is just
>>> too bad that the rest of us are saddled with inferior software due to
>>> this battle royal (Yes, cdrtools can be installed separately, but it
>>> is a bit of a pain.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>> Just use wodim (when you need to burn a cd/DVD) and go about ones
>> business and forget about Jorg. DVD and such are going away replaced
>> by USB derives. Movies that was once only on DVDs you can now get over
>> the web, so Jorg and his crusade is becoming a mute point.
>
> The problem with your comment is that the software that Jorg writes is
> very good, and has been kept up to date with new writers, etc.

So what it is not necessary for the common user

> Wodim has
> not. And dvds are still being used and have not been replaced by usb
> drives A USB drive is still far more expensive than a blank DVD.

Well lets see the last time I burned a CD/DVD was 3 years ago.

> And while you may have unlimited data download from the web, most people
> do not.

Well don't most people have internet connected phones now a days?

Don't most people now get their content over the internet?

> While you may well be right about what the situation in 10 years
> time will be, most people want to live life now, not sometime in the
> future.

The future is now.
If you want to stay with 4G DVD so be it but I am going to use 32G USB
drives. They work too well over DVDs that to go back to DVDs is like
going back to USPS (U.S. Postal Service).

[unruh]

And my trust in your comment is low since that is certianly not what he
said.
And if you distrust his software, you had better not use wodim, since it
is his software -- old and modified with possibly more bugs installed,
but his software.

"It works for me" is hardly a great endorsement. Many a car driver who
refuses to wear seatbelts has made that comment.


>

[unruh]

So? Your own personal peculiarities are supposed to be of interest to
others why?
My attitude, since we seem to be discussing attitudes here, is that I do
not care about the rants and raves of the author are irrelevant. I use
my computer and I want good software, and the personality of the writer
is of importance only if it comprimises the software.
You apparently have other priorities.

>
>

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <HWH2t.165667$O52....@newsfe10.iad>,

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>On 2013-03-21, Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>> In article <87y5sup...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>,
>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
>>>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
>>>> uses kernel calls as derivative works?
>>>
>>>The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
>>>that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
>>>(in general) based on the kernel.
>
>Being "based on" is not sufficient. Moby Dick is based on the Bible, but
>is not a derivative work of the Bible. On the other hand Gone with the
>Wind is based on the novel of that name ( with substantial differences)
>but a court has ruled that the copyright on the book applies to the
>movie.
>The big problem is that "derivtive work" is an extremely ill defined
>term in copyright law, which of course means that barrack room lawyers
>can have a field day, unconstrained by anything.

You are rplying here to text that was probably written by "Richard Kettlewell",
but you are right that with respect to certain interpretations, "derivative
work" may be defined too weak. On the other side, this usually does not hit
problems in the software area.

>> And in special, a library called by a problem being under GPL does not make
>> that (preexisting) library a derivative work of the program that calls it.
>
>That would be a very strange definition of derivative work.

But this is exactly what Debian is using when attacking OSS projects.

Background:

- When Debian started their attacks, they claimed that cdrecord had a
GPL license problem even though cdrecord was entirely compiled from
code under GPL.

- Later after cdrecord was made 100% CDDL, Debian continued to claim
that there is a GPL problem in cdrecord.

- Some years later, Debian realized that they were telling nonsense
and complained about the fact that mkisofs (a progam under GPL) is
using libraries under CDDL.

As it should be obvious that libraries that exist for a longer time than
cdrtools (or mkisofs) cannot be a derivative work from a program that is just
using them, you know what we can ignore the rants from Debian. They are just
attempts to attack OpenSource.

>> In the US, the GPL is a not a contract but a "license". This is made to protect
>> customers against claims from the Copyright holders. US Copyright law title 17
>> paragraph 106 lists all claims a licens is permitted to make. The redifinition
>> of the term "derivative work" is not in that list and for this reason, the
>> related text in the GPL is illegal and void.
>
>Derivative work is defined in law, and no contract or license cah
>redefine it if the force of the contract or license comes from the
>copyright act. Of course, in a contract you can make any claims you
>want, and if the other party agrees, then, assuming it is not explicitly
>illegal, it can be enforced under copyright law. But certainly neither
>the GPL or CDDL are contracts.

In Germany and Europe, they are contracts (but the rules for "business
conditions" apply to protect customers).

>Thus those sections under the GPL which may appear to define derivative
>work ( they do not use that term) are their interpretation of how the
>law would apply to them and their license. Unfortuantely or otherwise,
>it is the courts that determine such things, not the license writer. And
>since the license is one sided (ie is not agreed to by the two parties,
>but is imposed by one) it will tend to interpreted as liberally for the
>licensee as possible. Since the licensor had the opportunity to make the
>license clear, any ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the person
>who did not have that opportunity.

This are the rules in Europe for contracts were "business conditions" apply.

>Ie, the related text in the GPL is NOT illegal. It is simply irrelevant,
>and at best expresses their understanding of the meaning of the legal
>terms, a understanding a court is free to disagree with.

This makes the GPL similar - if not identical - to the LGPL ;-)

>But even without that, I have never understood the argument as to why the
>GPL and CDDL are incompatible.

The GPL applies to a whole work and the CDDL applies to single files.

You can mix code from different files under different licenses as long as
one of the license is not the GPL. If you are however talking about a program
ans a library, this are two different works that can be under different
licenses even if one of them is the GPL. The latter is done in cdrtools for
"mkisofs".

>GPL3 and GPL2 for example contain far more incompatibility than does GPL
>and CDDL.

Very true!

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <abas1a-...@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,

Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:

>> If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they do
>> for cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that any
>> Linux distro includes software under various licenses.
>
>
>www.fsf.org is over there -->

Well, a year ago, Richard Stallman told me to write to the current Debian
leader and expect help. It turned out that the current Debian leader is still
as stubborn as Debian acted 8 years ago.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <qoas1a-...@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,

Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:

>Just use wodim (when you need to burn a cd/DVD) and go about ones
>business and forget about Jorg. DVD and such are going away replaced by
>USB derives. Movies that was once only on DVDs you can now get over the
>web, so Jorg and his crusade is becoming a mute point.

If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...

People who care about results use cdrecord.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <slrnkknmef.r...@one.localnet>,

Robert Riches <spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>The problem with the brilliant software Mr. Schilling has written
>is its author is so often contradicted by reality that it
>undermines trust in the software. For example, in another
>thread, he (very) recently stated wodim does not burn DVDs. The
>reality is wodim has worked very well for burning a mountain of
>DVDs for me.

The problem with Mr. "Octothorpe" is that he tries to bend the truth and ignored
the context of a statement. So the Mr. "Octothorpe" is the person without
crediblity.

[Dan Espen]

Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:

> In article <qoas1a-...@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
> Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>Just use wodim (when you need to burn a cd/DVD) and go about ones
>>business and forget about Jorg. DVD and such are going away replaced by
>>USB derives. Movies that was once only on DVDs you can now get over the
>>web, so Jorg and his crusade is becoming a mute point.
>
> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...

50% failure rate?

Why don't I believe you?
Could be the few dozen DVDs I've burned I guess.

--
Dan Espen

[Richard Kettlewell]

Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
> You are rplying here to text that was probably written by "Richard
> Kettlewell",

...over a year ago. Don’t you have anything better to do than resurrect
long-dead threads?

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[Octothorpe]

Your right...I am tired of all his horse shit.

[Octothorpe]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:05:25 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote:

> In article <slrnkknmef.r...@one.localnet>,
> Robert Riches <spamt...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The problem with the brilliant software Mr. Schilling has written is its
>>author is so often contradicted by reality that it undermines trust in
>>the software. For example, in another thread, he (very) recently stated
>>wodim does not burn DVDs. The reality is wodim has worked very well for
>>burning a mountain of DVDs for me.
>
> The problem with Mr. "Octothorpe" is that he tries to bend the truth and
> ignored the context of a statement. So the Mr. "Octothorpe" is the
> person without crediblity.

Bullshit

Now I see you can not read.

You stated that wodim doesn't work for DVDs
I called you on it. Wodim does work with DVDS, if it did not and it is
indeed broken as badly as you lie about....then why does fedora ship it
instead of cdrtools?

[Octothorpe]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:58:10 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote:

> In article <abas1a-...@crazy-horse.bildanet.com>,
> Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> If they would believe that the GPL has to be interpreted the way they
>>> do for cdrtools, the whole Debian distro would be illegal. Note that
>>> any Linux distro includes software under various licenses.
>>
>>
>>www.fsf.org is over there -->
>
> Well, a year ago, Richard Stallman told me to write to the current
> Debian leader and expect help. It turned out that the current Debian
> leader is still as stubborn as Debian acted 8 years ago.

Maybe you should change your attitude, any way I don't believe anything
you say as I have found you to post FUD and other nonsense.

[unruh]

On 2013-03-22, Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> In article <HWH2t.165667$O52....@newsfe10.iad>,
> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>On 2013-03-21, Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
>>> In article <87y5sup...@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk>,
>>> Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Derivative works are precisely that, works which rely in some ill
>>>>> defined way on other works. Would a court regard a user program which
>>>>> uses kernel calls as derivative works?
>>>>
>>>>The usual interpretation (for instance, the one adopted in US law) is
>>>>that a derivative work is one based on another. User programs are not
>>>>(in general) based on the kernel.
>>
>>Being "based on" is not sufficient. Moby Dick is based on the Bible, but
>>is not a derivative work of the Bible. On the other hand Gone with the
>>Wind is based on the novel of that name ( with substantial differences)
>>but a court has ruled that the copyright on the book applies to the
>>movie.
>>The big problem is that "derivtive work" is an extremely ill defined
>>term in copyright law, which of course means that barrack room lawyers
>>can have a field day, unconstrained by anything.
>
> You are rplying here to text that was probably written by "Richard Kettlewell",
> but you are right that with respect to certain interpretations, "derivative
> work" may be defined too weak. On the other side, this usually does not hit
> problems in the software area.

The problem is not whether it is too weak or too strong. the problem is
that it is almost completely undefined, which leaves the issue up to the
wide lattitude of the courts. There is no test you can apply to
determine whether or not a work is derivative or not. Thus SCO claimed
that all Linux was a derivative work of their work.

>
>
>>> And in special, a library called by a problem being under GPL does not make
>>> that (preexisting) library a derivative work of the program that calls it.
>>
>>That would be a very strange definition of derivative work.
>
> But this is exactly what Debian is using when attacking OSS projects.
>
> Background:
>
> - When Debian started their attacks, they claimed that cdrecord had a
> GPL license problem even though cdrecord was entirely compiled from
> code under GPL.
>
> - Later after cdrecord was made 100% CDDL, Debian continued to claim
> that there is a GPL problem in cdrecord.
>
> - Some years later, Debian realized that they were telling nonsense
> and complained about the fact that mkisofs (a progam under GPL) is
> using libraries under CDDL.
>
> As it should be obvious that libraries that exist for a longer time than
> cdrtools (or mkisofs) cannot be a derivative work from a program that is just
> using them, you know what we can ignore the rants from Debian. They are just
> attempts to attack OpenSource.

The question could be "Is a work which incorporates/links with a library
a derivative work of that library. (Thus any work which runs on a linux
computer would be a derivative work of the kernel which is GPL2). Such a
broad interpretation would make software impossible, but it cannot be
ruled out that that is how a court could decide.

>
>
>>> In the US, the GPL is a not a contract but a "license". This is made to protect
>>> customers against claims from the Copyright holders. US Copyright law title 17
>>> paragraph 106 lists all claims a licens is permitted to make. The redifinition
>>> of the term "derivative work" is not in that list and for this reason, the
>>> related text in the GPL is illegal and void.
>>
>>Derivative work is defined in law, and no contract or license cah
>>redefine it if the force of the contract or license comes from the
>>copyright act. Of course, in a contract you can make any claims you
>>want, and if the other party agrees, then, assuming it is not explicitly
>>illegal, it can be enforced under copyright law. But certainly neither
>>the GPL or CDDL are contracts.
>
> In Germany and Europe, they are contracts (but the rules for "business
> conditions" apply to protect customers).

I am dubious, since there is no agreement, and agreement is crucial for
contracts. Licenses can be imposed unilaterally.

>
>>Thus those sections under the GPL which may appear to define derivative
>>work ( they do not use that term) are their interpretation of how the
>>law would apply to them and their license. Unfortuantely or otherwise,
>>it is the courts that determine such things, not the license writer. And
>>since the license is one sided (ie is not agreed to by the two parties,
>>but is imposed by one) it will tend to interpreted as liberally for the
>>licensee as possible. Since the licensor had the opportunity to make the
>>license clear, any ambiguity will be resolved in favour of the person
>>who did not have that opportunity.
>
> This are the rules in Europe for contracts were "business conditions" apply.
>
>>Ie, the related text in the GPL is NOT illegal. It is simply irrelevant,
>>and at best expresses their understanding of the meaning of the legal
>>terms, a understanding a court is free to disagree with.
>
> This makes the GPL similar - if not identical - to the LGPL ;-)

It IS similar. It is not identical, since under the LGPL you explicitly
have more rights to copy. Whether those rights would be found by a court
to be also there for GPL is of course part of the ambiguity of
derivative work.

>
>>But even without that, I have never understood the argument as to why the
>>GPL and CDDL are incompatible.
>
> The GPL applies to a whole work and the CDDL applies to single files.

No idea what this means. You can apply the GPL to whatever you want to
apply it to (assuming you own the copyright). This certainly does not
make them incompatible.

>
> You can mix code from different files under different licenses as long as
> one of the license is not the GPL. If you are however talking about a program

??? No idea again what this means. It does seem to be based on a certain
reading of "derivative work". If work C is made up of A and B and B is a
GPL work, is C a derivative work of B? I suspect it depends on how tight
the dependence of C is on B. But again, since there exists no real
definiton of what derivative work means, this question is unanswerable.

> ans a library, this are two different works that can be under different
> licenses even if one of them is the GPL. The latter is done in cdrtools for
> "mkisofs".

It depends on whether or not the result is a derivative work. If not,
then I agree. If so, then I guess the whole would be. But that would
make the whole a derivative work of the kernel as well. And since all
computers have bioses which are not GPL, it would mean that linux could
not be run on any computer.

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-03-22, Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Don't most people now get their content over the internet?

I have no idea. I know that I do not, and for that matter do not have
an internet-connected phone. (The whole idea of connecting a telephone
to the internet seems pretty silly on its face, but each to their own.)

I burn a lot of optical media and use cdrtools for that as I've found
it to overall be more reliable than wodim. It's easy enough to download
and compile the source. (The politics and personalities involved are
not my concern.)

> The future is now.

Not for me.

> If you want to stay with 4G DVD so be it but I am going to use 32G USB
> drives. They work too well over DVDs that to go back to DVDs is like
> going back to USPS (U.S. Postal Service).

Although overall I prefer analog media, CDs and DVDs are cheap and work
just fine. (Oh, I also use the USPS on a regular basis and have no problem
with it.)

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bit Twister]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 01:30:06 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-03-22, Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Don't most people now get their content over the internet?
>
> I have no idea. I know that I do not, and for that matter do not have
> an internet-connected phone. (The whole idea of connecting a telephone
> to the internet seems pretty silly on its face, but each to their own.)

Yes, $25 a year for the phone number, $0.007 cents a minute for in/out
calls from http://www.diamondcard.us/ is pretty silly.

I just hate not having to pay that monthly phone bill. :-D

[Robert Riches]

That's not what he said? Here's what he said:

Message-ID: <5c3iamF...@mid.dfncis.de>
"But wodim does not support DVD writing ..."

Okay, "writing" vs. "burn" aren't the same word. In this
context, any practical difference between the words rounds is
indistinguishable from zero.

Where there is a big difference is in comparing a safety device
like seatbelts that are needed very rarely but are very important
when they are needed vs. something like wodim that can be
demonstrated time and time again to have successfully done the
job it was given. I verify every DVD wodim burns for me, and
failures are quite rare.

[Robert Riches]

Apologies, proofreading didn't catch the above error. It should
have been

Okay, "writing" vs. "burn" aren't the same word. In this

context, any practical difference between the words is

[The Natural Philosopher]

To be fair, I have found Debian maintainers to have a lot of 'attitude'

which is why I now run MINT. its far more up to date, it doesn't rebrand
a two year old browser instead of giving me firefox..or take the
attitude that if I am not prepared to compile entire distros from
source, I shouldn't complain about other's efforts.

and frankly it has less bugs due to being 'newer' than debian did due to
using old 'upstream' sources.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <icli9fc...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:

>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...
>
>50% failure rate?

This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.

There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they
don't use it.

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-03-23, Bit Twister <BitTw...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Yes, $25 a year for the phone number, $0.007 cents a minute for in/out
> calls from http://www.diamondcard.us/ is pretty silly.
>
> I just hate not having to pay that monthly phone bill. :-D

I prefer and am quite willing to pay for reliable phone service from
the people who know telephones the best, the phone company. I have no
interest in fly-by-night outfits providing substandard service using
dubious technology.

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-03-23, Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
> after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.

I don't think my failure rate was 50%, but it was pretty high. After
switching to cdrtools 3.0 the failure rate became negligible.

[Octothorpe]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:33:19 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2013-03-23, Bit Twister <BitTw...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Yes, $25 a year for the phone number, $0.007 cents a minute for in/out
>> calls from http://www.diamondcard.us/ is pretty silly.
>>
>> I just hate not having to pay that monthly phone bill. :-D
>
> I prefer and am quite willing to pay for reliable phone service from the
> people who know telephones the best, the phone company. I have no
> interest in fly-by-night outfits providing substandard service using
> dubious technology.

Ever heard of Vonage or Magicjack?

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:
> Ever heard of Vonage or Magicjack?

What about them? They are recent and highly dubious outfits, though of
course anyone willing to sacrifice quality for price is welcome to use
them. They are most likely here today, gone tomorrow. Then you can move
on to the next slipshod outfit.

In comparision, the Bell system and its direct successors have been in the
business of providing reliable telephone service for well over 100 years.
I have no problem paying for that.

[Dan Espen]

Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:

> In article <icli9fc...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
>
>>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...
>>
>>50% failure rate?
>
> This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
> after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.
>
> There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they
> don't use it.

I'm still not buying it.

I don't know who this "typical user" was but I suspect he had a bad
drive or bad media.

--
Dan Espen

[Octothorpe]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 15:29:38 +0000, Roger Blake wrote:

> On 2013-03-23, Octothorpe <Octot...@invalid.com> wrote:
>> Ever heard of Vonage or Magicjack?
>
> What about them? They are recent and highly dubious outfits, though of
> course anyone willing to sacrifice quality for price is welcome to use
> them. They are most likely here today, gone tomorrow. Then you can move
> on to the next slipshod outfit.
>

You are making silly comments.

> In comparision, the Bell system and its direct successors have been in
> the business of providing reliable telephone service for well over 100
> years. I have no problem paying for that.

If you are commenting on ATT well they have VOIP systems as well. Does
that making them unreliable/dubious as well. I would even say that you
POTS system also goes VOIP as well.
The old Bell system is gone.

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

I still hate wodim or whatever the debian people stole from Mr Jorg's
original work :P

What's the hell that GPL is? I don't care; I like or indeed respect the
CDDL as well.

--
Balwinder S 'bdheeman' Dheeman
(http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)

"GNU/Linux, developed by volunteers, is much better, but it's not
the best as yet. Do you too work on making a difference?"

[Peter Köhlmann]

Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:

> In article <icli9fc...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>>Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
>
>>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend
>>> wodim...
>>
>>50% failure rate?
>
> This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
> after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.
>
> There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim
> because they don't use it.
>

You should better stop those idiotic lies, Jörg.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <LI43t.14389$N52....@newsfe01.iad>,

unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:

>wide lattitude of the courts. There is no test you can apply to
>determine whether or not a work is derivative or not. Thus SCO claimed
>that all Linux was a derivative work of their work.

Well, this was a claim of a company named "Cladery Linux" after they changed
their name to SCO ;-)

>> As it should be obvious that libraries that exist for a longer time than
>> cdrtools (or mkisofs) cannot be a derivative work from a program that is just
>> using them, you know what we can ignore the rants from Debian. They are just
>> attempts to attack OpenSource.
>
>The question could be "Is a work which incorporates/links with a library
>a derivative work of that library. (Thus any work which runs on a linux
>computer would be a derivative work of the kernel which is GPL2). Such a
>broad interpretation would make software impossible, but it cannot be
>ruled out that that is how a court could decide.

As Linux just implements interfaces that have been designed by others (UNIX),
Linux cannot claim rights on the interfaces. Programs communicate with the
kernel using this interface, I see no way to define programs as derivative work
of the Linux kernel as they do not contain code from the kernel.

But while people may under some circumstances believe that a program has become
a derivative work of a library used by that program....

...only Debian has the impertinence to claim that a library becomes a derivative
work of a program just because the program calls functions from that library.
This is like the tail wags the dog...

I like to understand, how those people from Debian managed to convince even a
single person to believe this kind of rubbish they invented as the "base" for
attacking cdrtools.

>> In Germany and Europe, they are contracts (but the rules for "business
>> conditions" apply to protect customers).
>
>I am dubious, since there is no agreement, and agreement is crucial for
>contracts. Licenses can be imposed unilaterally.

There is not such specific legal constructtion. A contract is a contract but
if not both sides are able to influence the content of a contrect, the
specific law for business conditions apply and limits the influence on the
customer.

>> This makes the GPL similar - if not identical - to the LGPL ;-)
>
>It IS similar. It is not identical, since under the LGPL you explicitly
>have more rights to copy. Whether those rights would be found by a court
>to be also there for GPL is of course part of the ambiguity of
>derivative work.

Correct, but I prefer a license that does not contain claims that cannot
stand in court.

>>>But even without that, I have never understood the argument as to why the
>>>GPL and CDDL are incompatible.
>>
>> The GPL applies to a whole work and the CDDL applies to single files.
>
>No idea what this means. You can apply the GPL to whatever you want to
>apply it to (assuming you own the copyright). This certainly does not
>make them incompatible.

The GPL defines the limit of a "work" (which is the scope for a specific
entity) to be the "work", the CDDL defines it to be a file, the BSD license
allows even code under a different license on a line by line base.

[Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de]

In article <iczjxur...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
>>>50% failure rate?
>>
>> This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
>> after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.
>>
>> There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they
>> don't use it.
>
>I'm still not buying it.
>
>I don't know who this "typical user" was but I suspect he had a bad
>drive or bad media.

So you like to tell us that when using the same drive and the same pile of
blank media.... when you just change the program to burn and there is a change,
the cause is still not the program but the driv/media?

[Dan Espen]

Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:

> In article <iczjxur...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
>>>>50% failure rate?
>>>
>>> This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
>>> after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.
>>>
>>> There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they
>>> don't use it.
>>
>>I'm still not buying it.
>>
>>I don't know who this "typical user" was but I suspect he had a bad
>>drive or bad media.
>
> So you like to tell us that when using the same drive and the same pile of
> blank media.... when you just change the program to burn and there is a change,
> the cause is still not the program but the driv/media?

Yes, I'd like to tell us that.

As I said, wodim burns DVDs just fine.

So, if you know a user with a 50% failure rate,
I'm not going to believe Wodim was the cause.

Here is you blaming Wodim:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461094

even when the bug report says the user had problems with Wodim
and cdrecord.

All these years and you are still fighting these pointless battles...

--
Dan Espen

[unruh]

On 2013-03-23, Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> In article <icli9fc...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
>
>>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...
>>
>>50% failure rate?
>
> This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
> after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.

Well, that could be a selection effect. It is users that have trouble that
will tend to search out an alternative and go to the effort of
switching. Thus some could be perfectly happy with wodim, chalking up
the occasional failure to bad harware (blank disks), and others who own
different hardware (dvd writers) get much higher failure rates. Thus
Octathorpe's "I don;t have any problems". (on that basis of course we
would never have insurance, or a medical plan, or seatbelts, or safer
cars-- "I own an Edsel and I have never had any problems" ). As Shiling
points out, the number of changes to wodim since he wrote it 8 years ago
have been very small. Does anyone believe that there has been no changes
in
dvd writing hardware in that time? Or that Shilling wrote such wonderful
software that no changes have been needed in that time ( even though
cdrtools has changed significantly-- written by that same great software
writer).

>
> There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they
> don't use it.
>

And also people who do not have problems because it works on their
system most of the time.

It would be interesting if the user who started this thread were to use
mkisofs, rather that genisofs to see if his problem of the latter
generating huge files is fixed in mkisofs. I do not think any of us know
that the latter is what caused his problem.

[unruh]

On 2013-03-23, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
>
>> In article <icli9fc...@home.home>, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes:
>>
>>>> If you like people to get > 50% spoiled media, continue to recommend wodim...
>>>
>>>50% failure rate?
>>
>> This what typical users report as the reason for switching to cdrtools
>> after discovering that their distributor did not ship the real software.
>>
>> There are of cause other people who do not have problems with wodim because they
>> don't use it.
>
> I'm still not buying it.
>
> I don't know who this "typical user" was but I suspect he had a bad
> drive or bad media.
>

You heard from Blake. His failure rate dropped from high (tens of
percent) to almost zero on the switch. That is evidence that your
suspected reason is wrong.

[Octothorpe]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:25:49 +0000, Joerg.Schilling wrote:

> In article <LI43t.14389$N52....@newsfe01.iad>,
> unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>>wide lattitude of the courts. There is no test you can apply to
>>determine whether or not a work is derivative or not. Thus SCO claimed
>>that all Linux was a derivative work of their work.
>
> Well, this was a claim of a company named "Cladery Linux" after they
> changed their name to SCO ;-)

Are you referring to Caldera ?

[putolin]

>
> Correct, but I prefer a license that does not contain claims that cannot
> stand in court.
>

You keep getting more and more absurd... GPL has been tested in court.


You are become non relevant

http://libburnia-project.org/
http://libburnia-project.org/wiki/Cdrskin

cdrskin is the cdrecord compatibility middleware of libburn.

Its paragon, cdrecord, is a powerful GPL'ed burn program included in Joerg
Schilling's cdrtools. cdrskin strives to be a second source for the
services traditionally provided by cdrecord. Currently it does CD-R and
CD-RW this way. Overwriteable media DVD-RAM, DVD+RW, DVD-RW, and BD-RE
are handled differently than with cdrecord-ProDVD in order to offer TAO-
like single track recording. Sequential DVD-R[W], DVD+R, DVD+R DL, BD-R
are handled like CD-R[W] with TAO and multi-session. Additionally cdrskin
offers cdrecord-ProDVD-like mode DAO with DVD-R[W].