k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does
Paul Cartwright
this, not too long ago, maybe 2-3 months..
Now I'm getting errors, and K3B says it burns the DVD, then ejects it, but it
is empty. Or it stops about 30% of the way and errors out. I've tried slowing
down the burn rate, no luck. I have no clue what to do. I even tried running
K3B from a root terminal. When I run k3b to create a video DVD here is the
console output:
Capacity: 510:38:38 (LBA 2297888) (4706074624 Bytes)
Remaining size: 510:38:38 (LBA 2297888) (4706074624 Bytes)
Used Size: 00:00:00 (LBA 0) (0 Bytes)
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE dataLen = 72
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE successful with reported
length: 68
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: Number of supported write speeds via GET
PERFORMANCE: 4
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 22160 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 16620 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 11080 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 5540 KB/s
adding udi /org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/volume_empty_dvd_r
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET CONFIGURATION length det failed.
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET CONFIGURATION length det failed.
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET CONFIGURATION length det failed.
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE dataLen = 72
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE successful with reported
length: 68
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: Number of supported write speeds via GET
PERFORMANCE: 4
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 22160 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 16620 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 11080 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 5540 KB/s
First sec data area: 43:41:33 (LBA 196608) (402653184
Last sec data area: 202:21:17 (LBA 910592) (1864892416 Bytes)
Last sec layer 1: 00:00:00 (LBA 0) (0 Bytes)
Layer 1 length: 00:00:01 (LBA 1) (2048 Bytes)
Layer 2 length: 202:21:17 (LBA 910592) (1864892416 Bytes)
DiskInfo:
Mediatype: DVD-R Sequential
Current Profile: DVD-R Sequential
Disk state: incomplete
Empty: 0
Rewritable: 0
Appendable: 1
Sessions: 0
Tracks: 1
Layers: 1
Capacity: 510:46:46 (LBA 2298496) (4707319808 Bytes)
Remaining size: 510:46:45 (LBA 2298495) (4707317760 Bytes)
Used Size: 00:00:01 (LBA 1) (2048 Bytes)
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE dataLen = 8
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE reports bogus dataLen: 8
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: Number of supported write speeds via 2A: 4
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 8468 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 7056 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 4234 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 2822 KB/s
(K3bDevice::ScsiCommand) failed:
command: READ (10) (28)
errorcode: 70
sense key: NOT READY (2)
asc: 3a
ascq: 0
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: READ 10 failed!
(K3bDevice::ScsiCommand) failed:
command: READ (10) (28)
errorcode: 70
sense key: NOT READY (2)
asc: 3a
ascq: 0
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: READ 10 failed!
( did that sequence quite a few more times..)
---------------------------------------
it ejected the DVD, said success, yet the DVD is blank
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Chris Bannister
> I've been having problems burning DVDs using K3B recently. I know I used to do
> this, not too long ago, maybe 2-3 months..
> Now I'm getting errors, and K3B says it burns the DVD, then ejects it, but it
> is empty. Or it stops about 30% of the way and errors out. I've tried slowing
> down the burn rate, no luck. I have no clue what to do. I even tried running
> K3B from a root terminal. When I run k3b to create a video DVD here is the
> console output:
[snip]
Have you changed/upgraded any hardware, in particular, added any HDs?
Does /var/log/syslog show anything interesting?
Does it work from the command-line, using videotrans or tovid or ...?
If it is a CD/DVD/RW drive, can you rip/burn a cd?
Does it play a known good DVD?
--
Chris.
======
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts
Paul Cartwright
> Have you changed/upgraded any hardware, in particular, added any HDs?
> Does /var/log/syslog show anything interesting?
It did show some errors but, no one at the time mentioned anything.
> Does it work from the command-line, using videotrans or tovid or ...?
>
no, I always used the command line & tovid, makedvd -burn...
> If it is a CD/DVD/RW drive, can you rip/burn a cd?
I haven't burned one in a while..
> Does it play a known good DVD?
yes. After Nero Linux burns a DVD, I always play it.
And I actually got errors with Nero the other day, and moved the burn speed
down to 4X to get it to work.
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Paul Cartwright
> Does /var/log/syslog show anything interesting?
> Does it work from the command-line, using videotrans or tovid or ...?
ok, I'm not sure if it was the addition of the new cdrecord that I installed,
but this just worked:
$ makedvd -burn -speed 2
so it will now burn again at 2X. I'm almost positive that i tried 2X before...
I'm tired of making coasters, so for now, I can live with that. It's not like
I burn DVDs every day...
I'm just glad to get it working. I'll try K3B at 2X maybe later..
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Chris Bannister
> On Sat January 3 2009, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > Have you changed/upgraded any hardware, in particular, added any HDs?
> > Does /var/log/syslog show anything interesting?
> > Does it work from the command-line, using videotrans or tovid or ...?
>
> ok, I'm not sure if it was the addition of the new cdrecord that I installed,
> but this just worked:
> $ makedvd -burn -speed 2
Are you sure it it using the "new cdrecord"?
> so it will now burn again at 2X. I'm almost positive that i tried 2X before...
> I'm tired of making coasters, so for now, I can live with that. It's not like
> I burn DVDs every day...
> I'm just glad to get it working. I'll try K3B at 2X maybe later..
I know what you mean about coasters! It is a pain to debug probs like
this.
Presumably you would have had the same problem trying to burn an audio
CD, although, DVD burning is disk-at-once whereas CD burning is
track-at-once and thence may help to determine the cause.
It would be a shame if wodim wasn't "doing its job for Debian Users."
--
Chris.
======
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts
Paul Cartwright
> > ok, I'm not sure if it was the addition of the new cdrecord that I
> > installed, but this just worked:
> > $ makedvd -burn -speed 2
>
> Are you sure it it using the "new cdrecord"?
wodim..
>
>
> > so it will now burn again at 2X. I'm almost positive that i tried 2X
> > before... I'm tired of making coasters, so for now, I can live with that.
> > It's not like I burn DVDs every day...
> > I'm just glad to get it working. I'll try K3B at 2X maybe later..
>
> I know what you mean about coasters! It is a pain to debug probs like
> this.
I wouldn't mind, if it actually fixed the problem..
I birned another coaster using makedvd this morning, even though I
specified -speed 2, it burned at 4x and made me a coaster. Nero Linux burned
at 4x and made me a video DVD..
24 days of Nero left to solve this, or I have to buy Nero..
>
> Presumably you would have had the same problem trying to burn an audio
> CD, although, DVD burning is disk-at-once whereas CD burning is
> track-at-once and thence may help to determine the cause.
>
THAT was a question I was going to ask! I knew there was an option for track
at once, but the DVD burning option is greyed out..
my only choice is DAO, so now it seems that is correct, and the only option.
> It would be a shame if wodim wasn't "doing its job for Debian Users."
>
yeah..
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Joerg Schilling
Chris Bannister wrote:
>Are you sure it it using the "new cdrecord"?
What do you understand by "new cdrecord"?
wodim has been created from a very old version of cdrecord
by adding new bugs and by changing things in a way that
makes wodim be in conflict with the GPL and the Copyright law.
The mature DVD support from cdrecord (introduced February 1998) has been
replaced by half baken code in wodim without reason. As a result DVD
support in wodim not really existent.
The clean and generic SCSI low level support (in libscg) has been
modified, resulting in a low tolerance on Linux kernel modifications
like e.g. introducing libsata.
Tests for missing root privileges, done early in the original cdrecord code
have been removed resulting in code that looks as if it could work without
root privileges, but this just lets wodim fail later with unclear reasons.
There are no real bug fixes and there is no development in wodim.
Wodim still has more bugs than the original cdrecord it was based on.
Since May 2007, the initiator of the fork did not work on a single
change but rather advertizes for the closed source software "nerolinux".
...
>It would be a shame if wodim wasn't "doing its job for Debian Users."
"would" seems to be an inapropriate word in this relation. It _is_ a shame that
Debian does not come with the bug-free original software but with a replacement
that causes many problems for the Debian Users.
Paul Cartwright wrote:
>no, how would I know? the man page doesn't show any options for cdrcord vs
>wodim..
The people behind wodim claim that there are no differences and for this reason,
they don't document.
If you compare the very old source, wodim was based on with a current cdrtools
source, you will find that nearly 50% of the code has been replaced or added
during the past three years. There are many new features in the original
software and there is a lot more tolerance against firmware bugs in drives.
I recommand to have a look at the latest release (2.01.01a55) in
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
make sure to be root when calling make install, to allow cdrecord to be
installed suid root as needed on Linux.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Paul Cartwright
> >Are you sure it it using the "new cdrecord"?
>
> What do you understand by "new cdrecord"?
>
always have to mess with something that is working!!
>
> I recommand to have a look at the latest release (2.01.01a55) in
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
>
> make sure to be root when calling make install, to allow cdrecord to be
> installed suid root as needed on Linux.
I have a48
ftp.berlios.de has been a peoblem for me to connect to, even in passive mode,
it is timing out..
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Joerg Schilling
Paul Cartwright wrote:
>> I recommand to have a look at the latest release (2.01.01a55) in
>> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
>> make sure to be root when calling make install, to allow cdrecord to be
>> installed suid root as needed on Linux.
>I have a48
>ftp.berlios.de has been a peoblem for me to connect to, even in passive mode,
>it is timing out..
We had a server outage last weekend. If you still have problems, ask your
ISP for help, thousands of people are using ftp.berlios.de without any problem.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
> On Tue January 6 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > >Are you sure it it using the "new cdrecord"?
> >
> > What do you understand by "new cdrecord"?
>
> I don't think I knew all of that, thanks for the background. Why do people
> always have to mess with something that is working!!
Joerg doesn't like wodim, because he doesn't really believe people should be
able to fork his code. (He is the primary developer of cdrecord.) His
assertion that wodim violates the GPL and Germany's "Author's Rights" (I
can't spell the original German word.) does not appear to be supported by
precident or even trained legal analysis of the specifics. I don't think
wodim can be reasonably held to hurt Joerg's reputation or integrity.
Providing symlinks from the old binary names to the new ones, and giving
similar output are, in fact, required for interoperability.
That said, wodim was forked from a "really old" version of cdrecord (the last
version that was clearly licensed under the GPL). Of course, browsing
Joerg's site shows you that cdrecord hasn't had a stable release in 4.5 years
and wodim had a stable release 2 months ago.
Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord. If
either (a) you don't intend to distribute cdrecord OR (b) you agree with
Joerg's interpretation of the GPL, I strongly encourage you to install
cdrecord from Joerg's site. If it works and wodim doesn't, there's clearly a
bug in wodim, and you should file one. IMO, Joerg interpretation is
incorrect as he assumes "source code" (which is a defined phrase in the GPL)
means something other than what it is defined to mean.
IANADD, but I read the archives:
debian-legal also doesn't agree with Joerg's interpretation of the GPL and
is "in the business" of distributing software. They feel that distributing
binaries of cdrecord produced from the source after the fork is not allowed
by copyright law, and would expose Debian to legal action. However, they
would like to continue providing cdburning software to Debian users. Since
Debian could not convince Joerg to change the licensing to something they
felt they could distribute, they had to begin a project to make cdburning
software, which brought us wodim.
Personally, I use wodim and will continue to use it, because I don't doubt
it's status as free software. I have some doubt that cdrecord is free
software; I don't doubt Joerg intends it to be free software, but I think his
particular love of the CDDL causes problems.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Paul Cartwright
> Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord. If
> either (a) you don't intend to distribute cdrecord OR (b) you agree with
> Joerg's interpretation of the GPL, I strongly encourage you to install
> cdrecord from Joerg's site. If it works and wodim doesn't, there's clearly
> a bug in wodim, and you should file one. IMO, Joerg interpretation is
> incorrect as he assumes "source code" (which is a defined phrase in the
> GPL) means something other than what it is defined to mean.
I seem to have issues getting files from his site.. even using --passive-ftp
fails.. I'll keep trying..
I guess my question is, what is NeroLinux using THAT WORKS, that K3B ISN'T..
I hate to use Nerolinux !
Joerg Schilling
> > We had a server outage last weekend. If you still have problems, ask your
> > ISP for help, thousands of people are using ftp.berlios.de without any
> > problem.
> >
> > Jörg
>
> I am having problems getting to this site and downloading updates:
>
> http://freshmeat.net/projects/cdrecord/?branch_id=1139&release_id=287422
>
> when I try to download the file:
> http://freshmeat.net/redir/cdrecord/1139/url_tgz/cdrtools-2.01.01a55.tar.gz
> I get timeouts.
> is it my setup, or are you guys blocking belios.de sites via ftp?
> I can get to the site, but can't download the files.
We are blocking only IP addresses for some time if an IP address was used to
run a denial of service attack against on of our servers.
If you can go to our sites, I am asuming that you get a directory listing.
So you seem to have a local problem at your side. Ftp uses _two_ port
numbers and the usual problem is that the firewall at your side blocks
the second port number. This usually can be circumvented by using passive
FTP mode.
As a general hint: do not run more than 3 downloads at the same time.
I recommend you to ask your local sysadmin or your ISP for help.
Joerg Schilling
>Joerg doesn't like wodim, because he doesn't really believe people should be
>able to fork his code. (He is the primary developer of cdrecord.) His
This is wrong. The problem with wodim is that it is not a real fork.
A fork is something that is supported, but wodim is unsupported.
This pseudo fork has been initiated by a person that soon stopped working on
the "fork" and then started to advertize for Nerolinux. Please explain
me the background for this kind of habbit!
>assertion that wodim violates the GPL and Germany's "Author's Rights" (I
>can't spell the original German word.) does not appear to be supported by
>precident or even trained legal analysis of the specifics. I don't think
>wodim can be reasonably held to hurt Joerg's reputation or integrity.
Wodim is in conflict with both GPL and Urheberrecht (*).
*) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
Wodim (cdrkit) cannot be legally distributed
>Providing symlinks from the old binary names to the new ones, and giving
>similar output are, in fact, required for interoperability.
The problem is that many people still believe that they have a real cdrecord
when they call "cdrecord" and this is not true.
These people then are confused when features that have been introduced three
years ago are missing in their (expected to be recent) "version" of cdrecord.
>That said, wodim was forked from a "really old" version of cdrecord (the last
>version that was clearly licensed under the GPL). Of course, browsing
>Joerg's site shows you that cdrecord hasn't had a stable release in 4.5 years
>and wodim had a stable release 2 months ago.
Cdrtools (the original) had 55 releases in the last 100 months. Wodim had
7 releases in the same period of time and there are still more bug inside
than the source they are based on.
>Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord. If
This is a funny claim. Please tell me about a single problem with cdrecord.
>either (a) you don't intend to distribute cdrecord OR (b) you agree with
>Joerg's interpretation of the GPL, I strongly encourage you to install
>cdrecord from Joerg's site. If it works and wodim doesn't, there's clearly a
>bug in wodim, and you should file one. IMO, Joerg interpretation is
>incorrect as he assumes "source code" (which is a defined phrase in the GPL)
>means something other than what it is defined to mean.
I am not sure about your intention here. If you care about legallity, you cannot
use wodim, so what is your point?
But if you are talking about bugs, guess from where I know about the long list
of bugs in wodim? I did just read the bugtracking systems of the Linux
distributors that publish wodim. There are dozens of bugs that are documented
since more than two years and there is little hope that they will ever be fixed.
On the other side, the typical time to fix a bug in the original software is
1-2 weeks. For the same reason, there are no known issued with the original
software.
>IANADD, but I read the archives:
>debian-legal also doesn't agree with Joerg's interpretation of the GPL and
>is "in the business" of distributing software. They feel that distributing
>binaries of cdrecord produced from the source after the fork is not allowed
>by copyright law, and would expose Debian to legal action. However, they
>would like to continue providing cdburning software to Debian users. Since
>Debian could not convince Joerg to change the licensing to something they
>felt they could distribute, they had to begin a project to make cdburning
>software, which brought us wodim.
Debian legal is a discussion board of laymen, I gave up having a useful
discussion with them. On the other side, Debian introduced problems with
GPL and Urheberrecht in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed
(see above).
>Personally, I use wodim and will continue to use it, because I don't doubt
>it's status as free software. I have some doubt that cdrecord is free
>software; I don't doubt Joerg intends it to be free software, but I think his
>particular love of the CDDL causes problems.
The original software is of course free software. It seems that you are in doubt
because you listen to the wrong people ;-)
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
following Joerg's lead. I understand that unrequested CCing is against the
Code of Conduct @ http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct and will
gladly drop your address from my mails if requested.
On Wednesday 2009 January 07 10:23:52 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> The problem with wodim is that it is not a real fork.
> A fork is something that is supported,
Not true. "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers
take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent
development on it, creating a distinct piece of software." --
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fork_(software_development)&oldid=260319294
Forks do not require support.
> but wodim is unsupported.
Also not true. Debian supports all the software shipped in main, and provides
best-effort support to software shipped in contrib and non-free. In
addition, wodim's upstream is still very much alive.
> >assertion that wodim violates the GPL and Germany's "Author's Rights" (I
> >can't spell the original German word.) does not appear to be supported by
> >precident or even trained legal analysis of the specifics. I don't think
> >wodim can be reasonably held to hurt Joerg's reputation or integrity.
>
> Wodim is in conflict with both GPL and Urheberrecht (*).
>
> *) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
>
> Wodim (cdrkit) cannot be legally distributed
I disagree and I don't think either of us can point to established precedent.
I also don't think there has been any legal analysis (meaning: done by a
lawyer as legal advice) done on the particulars.
> >Providing symlinks from the old binary names to the new ones, and giving
> >similar output are, in fact, required for interoperability.
>
> The problem is that many people still believe that they have a real
> cdrecord when they call "cdrecord" and this is not true.
>
> These people then are confused when features that have been introduced
> three years ago are missing in their (expected to be recent) "version" of
> cdrecord.
Wodim identifies itself in both documentation and at runtime as a separate
work form cdrecord. That's all that is required to satisfy the GPL. I can't
speak to satisfying the Urheberrecht, as I do not speak the original
language.
> >That said, wodim was forked from a "really old" version of cdrecord (the
> > last version that was clearly licensed under the GPL). Of course,
> > browsing Joerg's site shows you that cdrecord hasn't had a stable release
> > in 4.5 years and wodim had a stable release 2 months ago.
>
> Cdrtools (the original) had 55 releases in the last 100 months.
All labeled "alpha", not "stable". I was very clear that I was only counting
stable releases.
> >Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord. If
>
> This is a funny claim. Please tell me about a single problem with cdrecord.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;package=cdrecord
Anything with a bug number < 350738 is or was a problem with cdrecord.
> >either (a) you don't intend to distribute cdrecord OR (b) you agree with
> >Joerg's interpretation of the GPL, I strongly encourage you to install
> >cdrecord from Joerg's site. If it works and wodim doesn't, there's
> > clearly a bug in wodim, and you should file one. IMO, Joerg
> > interpretation is incorrect as he assumes "source code" (which is a
> > defined phrase in the GPL) means something other than what it is defined
> > to mean.
>
> I am not sure about your intention here. If you care about legallity, you
> cannot use wodim, so what is your point?
I disagree. I personally have no doubt that wodim is legal. I personally do
doubt that distributing binaries of cdrecord is legal.
> The original software is of course free software. It seems that you are in
> doubt because you listen to the wrong people ;-)
Other than you, I couldn't name anyone I listen to. Instead I listen to the
argument, independent of the person making it. Your arguments seem to be on
more tenuous foundation, and counter-intuitive. That said, some legal
decision on the matter could demonstrate effectively that I am quite wrong.
Both the authors of the CDDL and the GPL have said these licenses are
incompatible, making it impossible to satisfy both at once. According the
the most plain interpretation of both documents, that would be necessary for
someone other than the original author to distribute binaries of cdrecord.
Software that can't be distributed in binary form by someone other than the
author is not free software. Thus, I believe cdrecord to be not free
software.
John Hasler
> On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).
When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and qualifications?
--
John Hasler
Joerg Schilling
> Joerg.Schilling writes:
> > On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> > in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).
>
> When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
> decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
> obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and qualifications?
This seems to be an interesting claim.....
If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not believe the
claims from Debian. Nice to see!
When will Debian continue to ship the official non-crippled software?
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
On Wednesday 2009 January 07 13:26:33 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Hasler <jha...@debian.org> wrote:
> > Joerg.Schilling writes:
> > > On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> > > in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).
> >
> > When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
> > decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
> > obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and
> > qualifications?
>
> This seems to be an interesting claim.....
>
> If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not
> believe the claims from Debian. Nice to see!
From what I understand, Debian does not think what you are doing is illegal,
so there is no need to file a lawsuit. In any case, Debian-as-a-legal-entity
(SPI, IIRC) would not have standing as their copyright would not be
infringed.[1] You are claiming your copyright is infringed, but are not
following up with the claim. If you really think Debian is hindering the
advancement of Free and Open-Source Software, you should be able to get some
help from the Software Freedom Law Center so pursue your case.
I do not recommend you sue SPI or any DD or vice-versa. In fact, I recommend
against either, because Debian can provide more value to me when they aren't
spending resources on lawsuits, spurious or otherwise.
However, your existing arguments are not enough to convince me (or
debian-legal it seems) that you are correct on either of your legal claims.
[2] While precedent OR an attorney's opinion would probably convice us,
there may be less severe action that will do so as well (if that's important
to you). Perhaps you might restate your position more clearly or with better
references, or have the FSF or Sun (authors of the licenses in question) come
forward with a supporting statement?
> When will Debian continue to ship the official non-crippled software?
When they believe it is legal for them to do so. They would rather do less
than the law allows than risk a suit. They do not feel distributing wodim is
risking a suit.
Disclaimers: IANAL; IANADD; TINLA; TINASOTODP.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
[1] IIRC, Debian does not generally own copyrights. Instead, the DDs and
other contributors do.
[2] A) distribution of cdrecord binaries by Debian does not expose it to legal
risk OR B) distribution of cdrkit by Debian does expose it to legal risk.
John Hasler
> On the other side, Debian introduced problems with GPL and Urheberrecht
> in the fork so wodim/cdrkit cannot be legally distributed (see above).
I wrote:
> When and in what court was your lawsuit filed? Where can we read the
> decision? If no suit has been filed, where can we read the opinion you
> obtained from an attorney with appropriate credentials and qualifications?
Joerg.Schilling writes:
> This seems to be an interesting claim.....
> If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not believe the
> claims from Debian. Nice to see!
Debian is accusing no one of copyright infringement.
--
John Hasler
Johannes Wiedersich
Hash: SHA1
Hallo Jörg,
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> It _is_ a shame that
> Debian does not come with the bug-free original software but with a replacement
> that causes many problems for the Debian Users.
Let's summarize:
1. You'd like to have the 'bug-free original software' in debian.
2. You don't release your original software with a license compatible
with the DFSG [1], ie your licence is explicitly not one of those
endorsed by the debian project. In fact you deliberately changed your
license from one endorsed by the debian project to a different one.
This seems rather contradicting to me.
3. You claim that your mixing of licenses is legal, despite dozens of
people from different free and commercial distributions having a
different opinion on the matter, including both GNU and Sun, who seem to
agree that both licenses are incompatible. (GNU is the body that defined
what 'free software' is, so it seems obvious that any license that is
designed to be different by definition is 'not free' or at least 'less
free'. Sun designed the CDDL explicitly to hinder mixing of GPL and CDDL
codes [3].)
4. You claim that distribution of debian's (modified) version of wodim
is *illegal* despite the fact that you also claim that your software is
free software and hence legally distributable in modified form as well
as in unmodified form [2].
This all would be funny as a plot for a film, but unfortunately it seems
you take it to be serious.
It's a pity that once again the free software community suffers from
legal and personal quarrels instead of joining forces to create better
software.
Please note that i am neither a lawyer nor interested in reading more
than about 10 pages about the whole dispute. I might be wrong with my my
personal compilation and interpretation of what I found on the web. In
fact I hope that you will prove me wrong and that it thus will be
possible to distribute your code with debian in the future.
Cheers,
Johannes
[1] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[2] http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDL
google will help you to find many pages supporting the argument
that cddl and gpl can not be mixed.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkll0eoACgkQC1NzPRl9qEU3tACdFD/HUlnjNrgtfNA6hpionAg+
EKsAn295ZcKNwOuR1LJ2Qk3NPKIzRi+i
=SWhY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joerg Schilling
> Joerg.Schilling writes:
> > This seems to be an interesting claim.....
>
> > If you only believe a lawsuit in court, then you would obviously not believe the
> > claims from Debian. Nice to see!
>
> Debian is accusing no one of copyright infringement.
In case you did not get it: Debian acuses me for creating an alleged GPL
problem.
Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
> Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.
>
I've seen you say that several times on this thread (an in other times),
but I've missed the explanation of exactly why did this allegedly
happen. I also did not find it in the cdrecord site, but I confess I
only looked briefly there, as there is too much text there. :-)
So would you care to briefly explain why you say the GPL was violated?
Secondly, did you contact the FSF about that at
license-...@gnu.org ? Did they say anything?
--
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
edu...@kalinowski.com.br
http://move.to/hpkb
Johannes Wiedersich
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.
You should consider filing a bug report (or point us to the relevant one
in case I missed it). Violation of a license or a law is considered RC,
IIUC.
Do you have any evidence of which lines of code violate which part of
the GPL or the Urheberrecht?
Cheers,
Johannes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkll6hkACgkQC1NzPRl9qEXpBgCfSSNooWhHMTRTbjfmuwiAHler
zOkAn2wwO3PYnlGtNJpaDDHbGblr/t25
=gfD3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Joerg Schilling
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit fork.
> >
>
> I've seen you say that several times on this thread (an in other times),
> but I've missed the explanation of exactly why did this allegedly
> happen. I also did not find it in the cdrecord site, but I confess I
> only looked briefly there, as there is too much text there. :-)
See the cdrecord web page for the information you asked for...
> So would you care to briefly explain why you say the GPL was violated?
>
> Secondly, did you contact the FSF about that at
> license-...@gnu.org ? Did they say anything?
Eben Moglen knows about both, the Debian violations and the GPL/Copyright
violations done by the FSF when using code from the cdrtools project for
FSF projects.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
John Hasler
> Debian acuses me for creating an alleged GPL problem.
Debian has accused you of nothing. Debian has determined that the license
conflict you have created could lead to legal problems for its distributors
and so has chosen not to distribute your software.
> Debian on the other side violates GPL and Urheberrcht with the cdrkit
> fork.
I ask again: where is the court decision? The lawyer's opinion? You've
been going on about this for years but you never take any action.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Elmwood, WI USA
Joerg Schilling
> On Wednesday 2009 January 07 10:23:52 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > The problem with wodim is that it is not a real fork.
> > A fork is something that is supported,
>
> Not true. "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers
> take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent
> development on it, creating a distinct piece of software." --
The people behind wodim did not start an independent development.
All they did was to take an old source, remove the pefectly working build
system, replace it by something that is broken and add some other bugs to the
source. After 8 months of speudo activity, wodim is dead since May 6th 2007.
> > but wodim is unsupported.
>
> Also not true. Debian supports all the software shipped in main, and provides
> best-effort support to software shipped in contrib and non-free. In
> addition, wodim's upstream is still very much alive.
See above, there is no support. Bugs reports are either marked as closed altough
the bug still exist or they are ignored. This is not what I would call
"mainteied". Wodim is dead since May 6th 2007.
> > Wodim is in conflict with both GPL and Urheberrecht (*).
> >
> > *) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
> >
> > Wodim (cdrkit) cannot be legally distributed
>
> I disagree and I don't think either of us can point to established precedent.
> I also don't think there has been any legal analysis (meaning: done by a
> lawyer as legal advice) done on the particulars.
Well, I did discuss the problems with a German specialized lawyer who is
also active on the OSS community and it turns out that I am of course able to
sue the people behind wodim for more than violation.
On the other side, there is no professional that supports the claims/FUD by the
"wodim people" against me. All those claims are done by laymen and these people
did not even give evidence for their claims.
> Wodim identifies itself in both documentation and at runtime as a separate
> work form cdrecord. That's all that is required to satisfy the GPL. I can't
> speak to satisfying the Urheberrecht, as I do not speak the original
> language.
The GPL gives you the right to use the code if you follow the conditions.
The GPL does not give you the right to use the original name for a fork.
The people behind wodim do not follow the conditions of the GPL and they
do not follow the conditions in the higher worthy Urbebertrechts law.
Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The original
names are used without permission and in addition, there are other Copyright
violations.
> > Cdrtools (the original) had 55 releases in the last 100 months.
>
> All labeled "alpha", not "stable". I was very clear that I was only counting
> stable releases.
All those releases are more stable than any of the wodim releases, so what?
> > >Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord. If
> >
> > This is a funny claim. Please tell me about a single problem with cdrecord.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;package=cdrecord
>
> Anything with a bug number < 350738 is or was a problem with cdrecord.
Wrong: none of those reports applies to the original cdrtools source code
as Debian has a 4-5 year history of distributing broken modified versions.
Even if a single bug report _could_ have applied to cdrtools at the time
it was made, the bug has been fixed years ago in thge original but is still
present in wodim.
I asked you to name me a single bug in the original cdrtools and you seem
to be unable to point to such a problem - thank you!
> > I am not sure about your intention here. If you care about legallity, you
> > cannot use wodim, so what is your point?
>
> I disagree. I personally have no doubt that wodim is legal. I personally do
> doubt that distributing binaries of cdrecord is legal.
I know that wodim is not legal and my laywer supports this. As mentioned above,
there is more than one way to sue the people behind wodim because there is more
than one violation in wodim.
> > The original software is of course free software. It seems that you are in
> > doubt because you listen to the wrong people ;-)
>
> Other than you, I couldn't name anyone I listen to. Instead I listen to the
> argument, independent of the person making it. Your arguments seem to be on
> more tenuous foundation, and counter-intuitive. That said, some legal
> decision on the matter could demonstrate effectively that I am quite wrong.
???? You sound confused.
> Both the authors of the CDDL and the GPL have said these licenses are
> incompatible, making it impossible to satisfy both at once. According the
> the most plain interpretation of both documents, that would be necessary for
> someone other than the original author to distribute binaries of cdrecord.
> Software that can't be distributed in binary form by someone other than the
> author is not free software. Thus, I believe cdrecord to be not free
> software.
You are again wrong here.....
The authors of the CDDL do definitely not claim that there is an
incompatibility. You are again listening to the wrong people.
In contrary to your claims, on my request the Sun lawyers did do a very
intensive legal review of the cdrtools project this Summer and did not find
any problem.
In fact, the current license situation is present since May 2006 and noone did
try to sue Sun, Gentoo or Slackware for distributing the original cdrtools.
Noone at Debian is able to sue people because they do not own the needed rights
on the software. Claiming that Debian could be sued for distributin the original
software is obviously pure FUD.
Cdrtools _is_ free software and it of course follows the rules in
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
The problem is that some people inside Debian missinterpret
http://www.debian.org/social_contract and in special try to establish different
rules for cdrtools and the rest of the debian packages. If debian would use the
same "rules" for all software, either all packets including cdrtools are legal
or nealy none of the debian packages could be called legal.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 2009 January 07 10:23:52 Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> > The problem with wodim is that it is not a real fork.
>> > A fork is something that is supported,
>>
>> Not true. "In software engineering, a project fork happens when
>> developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start
>> independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software." --
>
>The people behind wodim did not start an independent development.
Yes they did.
>All they did was to take an old source, remove the pefectly working build
>system, replace it by something that is broken and add some other bugs to
> the source. After 8 months of speudo activity, wodim is dead since May 6th
> 2007.
1) Writing the new build system is separate development.
2) wodim had a release 2008-10-26. It is still under active development.
>> > but wodim is unsupported.
>>
>> Also not true. Debian supports all the software shipped in main, and
>> provides best-effort support to software shipped in contrib and non-free.
>> In addition, wodim's upstream is still very much alive.
>
>See above, there is no support. Bugs reports are either marked as closed
> altough the bug still exist or they are ignored. This is not what I would
> call "mainteied". Wodim is dead since May 6th 2007.
Not true. Anyone interested in verifying my claim can use the Debian BTS. I
provided a link to the BTS in my last email.
>> > Wodim is in conflict with both GPL and Urheberrecht (*).
>> >
>> > *) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
>> >
>> > Wodim (cdrkit) cannot be legally distributed
>>
>> I disagree and I don't think either of us can point to established
>> precedent. I also don't think there has been any legal analysis (meaning:
>> done by a lawyer as legal advice) done on the particulars.
>
>Well, I did discuss the problems with a German specialized lawyer who is
>also active on the OSS community and it turns out that I am of course able
> to sue the people behind wodim for more than violation.
Please make the documents supporting this claim available so that we may all
be enlightened. Until then, it adds nothing to what has already been argued
on both sides.
>> Wodim identifies itself in both documentation and at runtime as a separate
>> work form cdrecord. That's all that is required to satisfy the GPL.
>
>The GPL gives you the right to use the code if you follow the conditions.
>The GPL does not give you the right to use the original name for a fork.
>
>Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The
> original names are used without permission and in addition, there are other
> Copyright violations.
Whether the name is used as a simply technical measure to ensure
interoperability is important. Wodim does not use the cdrecord name for
other purposes. Copyright does not protect the necessary interfaces required
for interoperability.
Please be more specific in your claims on "other Copyright violations". It is
not a specific enough claim to deny or confirm.
>> > Cdrtools (the original) had 55 releases in the last 100 months.
>>
>> All labeled "alpha", not "stable". I was very clear that I was only
>> counting stable releases.
>
>All those releases are more stable than any of the wodim releases, so what?
I am counting releases considered and labeled stable by the team/project
releasing it. Wodim has more than cdrecord since the fork occurred.
>> > >Wodim certainly had and has it's share of issues, but so has cdrecord.
>> > > If
>> >
>> > This is a funny claim. Please tell me about a single problem with
>> > cdrecord.
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;package=cdrecord
>>
>> Anything with a bug number < 350738 is or was a problem with cdrecord.
>
>Wrong: none of those reports applies to the original cdrtools source code
>as Debian has a 4-5 year history of distributing broken modified versions.
I disagree, having experienced some of these errors myself. Yes, I installed
using your files, not the Debian package, and yes, I made sure the binaries
were suid root. Please provide evidence of your claim.
>I asked you to name me a single bug in the original cdrtools and you seem
>to be unable to point to such a problem - thank you!
Denying that bugs reported exist or apply to your program does not make that
true. I produced evidence of dozens of bugs that have affected cdrecord in
the past, which was my claim. Please provide some evidence to your claim.
>> I disagree. I personally have no doubt that wodim is legal. I personally
>> do doubt that distributing binaries of cdrecord is legal.
>
>I know that wodim is not legal and my laywer supports this. As mentioned
> above, there is more than one way to sue the people behind wodim because
> there is more than one violation in wodim.
Please make your lawyers analysis available so that we may be enlightened.
Otherwise, you claim adds nothing to the arguments already presented on both
sides.
>> Other than you, I couldn't name anyone I listen to. Instead I listen to
>> the argument, independent of the person making it. Your arguments seem to
>> be on more tenuous foundation, and counter-intuitive. That said, some
>> legal decision on the matter could demonstrate effectively that I am quite
>> wrong.
>
>???? You sound confused.
I am not. The person putting forth the argument doesn't matter to the
validity of the argument. Instead, the quality of their references, how
intuitive and self-consistent their logic, and how well their assumptions
match with my own determine how valid I consider their arguments.
Both your legal claims around the GPL seem counter-intuitive, and not entirely
self-consistent.
>The authors of the CDDL do definitely not claim that there is an
>incompatibility. You are again listening to the wrong people.
Yes, they do. You've already seen the video, as have many others, including
myself.
>In contrary to your claims, on my request the Sun lawyers did do a very
>intensive legal review of the cdrtools project this Summer and did not find
>any problem.
Please provide the review so that I can read it and be conviced. I need
documentation from you, not claims. I already know your claims.
>In fact, the current license situation is present since May 2006 and noone
> did try to sue Sun, Gentoo or Slackware for distributing the original
> cdrtools.
Gentoo doesn't distribute software in the same way. It's possible no one with
standing cares that Sun, Gentoo, or Slackware distribute there code in a way
contrary to the license. That doesn't mean there isn't that risk. It also
doesn't mean Debian should assume the same risk.
> Noone at Debian is able to sue people because they do not own the
> needed rights on the software.
True enough.
> Claiming that Debian could be sued for
> distributin the original software is obviously pure FUD.
I disagree, as does Debian. Debian has deemed it an unacceptable risk.
>Cdrtools _is_ free software and it of course follows the rules in
>http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php and
>http://www.debian.org/social_contract
I disagree. The particulars of cdrecord's licensing effectively violates #1
and #3 in the opensource definition and DFSG. If that were the only problem,
it could possibly be in non-free, but instead it also exposes Debian to legal
risk, in Debian's opinion.
>The problem is that some people inside Debian missinterpret
>http://www.debian.org/social_contract and in special try to establish
> different rules for cdrtools and the rest of the debian packages.
No, the problem is cdrecords unique combination of licenses.
John Hasler
> Well, I did discuss the problems with a German specialized lawyer who is
> also active on the OSS community and it turns out that I am of course
> able to sue the people behind wodim for more than violation.
> ...
> The people behind wodim do not follow the conditions of the GPL and they
> do not follow the conditions in the higher worthy Urbebertrechts law.
> Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The
> original names are used without permission and in addition, there are
> other Copyright violations.
Are you threatening to file a lawsuit? If so, against who, for what, and
in what jurisdiction?
> Noone at Debian is able to sue people because they do not own the needed
> rights on the software.
Why do you imagine that anyone at Debian has any desire to file suit over
this? It is not Debian that is alleging copyright infringement.
--
John Hasler
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> It _is_ a shame
>> that Debian does not come with the bug-free original software but with a
>> replacement that causes many problems for the Debian Users.
>
>Let's summarize:
>
>1. You'd like to have the 'bug-free original software' in debian.
That would be great. However, that requires convincing the ftp-masters that
Debian isn't taking legal risk by putting distributing the software. Even
then, Debian really can't be forced to distribute any particular piece of
software. See http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq points 12r, 16, and 26.
>2. You don't release your original software with a license compatible
>with the DFSG [1], ie your licence is explicitly not one of those
>endorsed by the debian project. In fact you deliberately changed your
>license from one endorsed by the debian project to a different one.
>
>This seems rather contradicting to me.
The DFSG doesn't mention the CDDL specifically, but I'm fairly sure CDDL is
generally considered a free license. I could be wrong, DFSG-free is
generally more strict that OSI-open.
Anyway, Debian is more concerned with the package, instead of the license.
E.g. pine used a license generally accepted as free, but interpreted it in an
odd way, resulting in the removal of pine from Debian. I think there has
been cases the other way around, too. By not exercising some options in a
generic license, a package using it might be free or not.
>3. You claim that your mixing of licenses is legal, despite dozens of
>people from different free and commercial distributions having a
>different opinion on the matter, including both GNU and Sun, who seem to
>agree that both licenses are incompatible. (GNU is the body that defined
>what 'free software' is, so it seems obvious that any license that is
>designed to be different by definition is 'not free' or at least 'less
>free'. Sun designed the CDDL explicitly to hinder mixing of GPL and CDDL
>codes [3].)
Yeah, I suppose it's possible Joerg could be right, but he's going to have to
provide significant actual support to his claim and not just keep repeating
it, for Debian to accept it. Each time he repeats the claim with no support
he sounds more and more disconnected from reality.
>4. You claim that distribution of debian's (modified) version of wodim
>is *illegal* despite the fact that you also claim that your software is
>free software and hence legally distributable in modified form as well
>as in unmodified form [2].
Joerg doesn't really have a problem with the distribution of the code
(modified or unmodified), but he is worried about the "Integrity of The
Author's Source Code" something allowed by point 4 of the DSFG. I'm assuming
he wants to exercise the option: "The license may require derived works to
carry a different name or version number from the original software."
However, neither license he's used as those terms in it, AFAIK.
His claim of violating the GPL / German "Copyright Law" seems to focus on the
symlinks provided with names that match the cdrecord binaries, and maybe a
few other uses of the strings "cdrecord" et al. This is like claiming that
IE infringes on Netscape's copyright by using the string "Mozilla" in it's
browser identification. Technical measures required for interoperability are
generally held to be not restricted by trademark, patent, or copyright law.
John Hasler
> The DFSG doesn't mention the CDDL specifically, but I'm fairly sure CDDL
> is generally considered a free license. I could be wrong, DFSG-free is
> generally more strict that OSI-open.
The CDDL is DFSG-compliant.
--
John Hasler
Joerg Schilling
> > The people behind wodim do not follow the conditions of the GPL and they
> > do not follow the conditions in the higher worthy Urbebertrechts law.
>
> > Whether the name is used directly or via a symlink does not matter. The
> > original names are used without permission and in addition, there are
> > other Copyright violations.
>
> Are you threatening to file a lawsuit? If so, against who, for what, and
> in what jurisdiction?
It does not make sense to inform you about these details.
The people who are responsible for the violations and the redistributors are
informed, they know that they are in conflit GPL and Urheberrecht and that
cdrkit cannot be legally distributed.
I try to avoid suing people but I am not willing to tolerate violations forever.
The related people need to understand that they need to follow the lawful rules.
If they don't, they will be sued at some time....
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Winfried Tilanus
Hi,
> It does not make sense to inform you about these details.
It is a pity you see it like that, see below.
> The people who are responsible for the violations and the redistributors are
> informed, they know that they are in conflit GPL and and that
> cdrkit cannot be legally distributed.
Well, if the software is distributed by Debian and if the developers of
that package are ignoring a violation of GPL and / or laws about
intellectual property, then it is a serious case that affects all Debian
users.
I am willing to use the (little) weight I have to stop such a violation.
But before I start a lobby to stop the involvement of Debian with such a
software, I would like to be able to judge myself the validity of your
claim. So I ask you to make the details of your claim public. I can read
/ speak German and don't mind to dive into German laws on intellectual
property.
> I try to avoid suing people but I am not willing to tolerate violations forever.
> The related people need to understand that they need to follow the lawful rules.
> If they don't, they will be sued at some time....
You are right that it is the best to avoid suing people. Fortunately
there is a whole world between tolerating violations and suing. Mobilize
people to support your case. And that can in this situation easyly be
achieved by giving all legal details, so people can see your claim is
justified. With enough people supporting you (inside and outside the
Debian project), you don't have to tolerate violations and you don't
have to sue anybody.
So please give us a chance to judge your claims ourselves, you can win a
lot by doing so.
Best wishes,
Winfried Tilanus
--
http://www.tilanus.com
xmpp:winf...@jabber.xs4all.nl
tel. 015-3613996 / 06-23303960
fax. 015-3614406
Joerg Schilling
There recently have been some mails from Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. and
Johannes Wiedersich that have not been send to me, so it seems that the
authors are not interested in a discussion. Their mail contained the usual
accusations: the claim that cdrtools is not free and that there is no new
releases in cdrtools. As these claims have lready been proven to be incorrect,
we will not go any further in trying to discuss at this level.....
Let me go back to the original topic.
Given the fact that the initator of wodim stopped working on wodim on May 6th
2007 and started to advertize for nerolinux instead, it is interesting to
read the term nerolinux in the subject of this thread. Is Debian moving to
closed software like nerolinux or what is the backgrund for not distrubuting
working CD/DVD/BD writing software with Debian? Did the initiator of wodim
intentionally introduce bugs that make "cdrkit" unusable in order to support
closed source software? Is Debian no longer interested in free and working
software?
The Original poster was Paul Cartwright and I had some conversations with him
during the past week.
First, Paul Cartwright had problems to download cdrtools and it turned out that
a bug in the firewall implementation of his linksys router was the reason.
After disabling the fireall for the time of the ftp transfer, he could
download cdrtools without problems.
Yesterday, Paul Cartwright was able to write a perfectly readable DVD using
mkisofs and cdrecord at 10x speed. He did this out of the box after he send me
the command line he was trying to use and I send him simething like please
use these commands instead:
mkisofs -o xxx.iso -dvd-video -V "video.2008" "/disk2/pauls/movies/some-name"
cdrecord -v xxx.iso
It turns out that it is not easy to make CD/DVD/BD recording working on Debian
as _all_ related software has been modified to call the defective
"genisoimage", "wodim" and similar even after the correctly working original
software was made available. People could file dozens of bugreports just for
these modifications.....
The software that he was originally using called growisofs and growisofs called
"genisoimage". It is unclear whether both fgrowisofs and growisofs are broken
on Debian or whether the problem is only related to the defective genisoimage
program.
My questions are:
- Are people interested in getting a working CD/DVD/BD writing toolchain
on Debian?
- Is there anybody inside Debian willing to support this by doing the
needed administrative work?
Please note that there is a Debian cdrtools package available from the "grml"
Author, so there is no need to find a Debian package maintainer for cdrtools.
Also note that last Summer, Sun lawyers did an in depth license analysis on the
original cdrtools source and the conclusion from Sun Legal was that there is
neither a legal problem with the original software nor with distributing
binaries made from the original software. Is someone likes to prove that, the
Solaris Express Community Edition build 105 will be available in a few days
and it will include cdrtools release 2.01.01a54 which is fairly recent. The a55
release could not be included as the build 105 snapshot date was in
mid-Decedmber.
Note also that before the initiator of wodim appeared at Debian, there was a
good coperation. I am in hope that it is possible to correct mistakes from the
past and that soon, Debian users are able again to do CD/DVD/BD writing.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
> There recently have been some mails from Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. and
> Johannes Wiedersich that have not been send to me, so it seems that the
> authors are not interested in a discussion.
This discussion is happening on the debian-user mailing lists, and in
most cases, people send the replies on to the list. Naturally this will
not work for your case because you are not subscribed. I'm saying that
because to me it seems like the replies were not sent by accident and
because of the habit of replying only to the list, not because 'they are
not interested in a discussion'.
> Their mail contained the usual
> accusations: the claim that cdrtools is not free
Could you point the message where that claim was made? I've been
following the discussion, and don't remember seeing that claim ever
being made.
It has been said that cdrtools has been considered non-compliant with
the Debian Free Software Guidelines, but that is a different thing. It's
just Debian's way of deciding which software can be part of Debian and
which can't, and even if a given software is considered
non-DFSG-compliant, that is just the way Debian sees things, and does
not say anything about the software itself or its author.
> Let me go back to the original topic.
>
> Given the fact that the initator of wodim stopped working on wodim on May 6th
> 2007 and started to advertize for nerolinux instead,
You've said that several times, but has never showed something to
confirm that. It's not that I doubt it could be true, I just want some
confirmation.
Anyway, even if the original author of wodim is not working on it
anymore, somebody else is. According to
http://packages.qa.debian.org/c/cdrkit.html, exactly on May 6th 2007
version 1.1.6 was included in Debian. Since them, there have been three
more new versions (the current one is 1.1.9), so someone is working on
the package. This proves your claim that wodim has stopped being
developed is not valid.
> it is interesting to
> read the term nerolinux in the subject of this thread. Is Debian moving to
> closed software like nerolinux or what is the backgrund for not distrubuting
> working CD/DVD/BD writing software with Debian?
No, the reason is that your software does not meet Debian's
requirements. They perhaps may be too strict, but your software will not
be included in Debian unless either its license or Debian's requirements
change.
> Did the initiator of wodim
> intentionally introduce bugs that make "cdrkit" unusable in order to support
> closed source software? Is Debian no longer interested in free and working
> software?
>
I'd say this is quite unlikely.
> It turns out that it is not easy to make CD/DVD/BD recording working on Debian
> as _all_ related software has been modified to call the defective
> "genisoimage", "wodim" and similar even after the correctly working original
> software was made available. People could file dozens of bugreports just for
> these modifications.....
>
You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First, you complain that
there is a symlink cdrecord -> wodim. But now you complain that software
calls 'wodim' directly, which would eliminated the need for the
compatibility symlink.
> Also note that last Summer, Sun lawyers did an in depth license analysis on the
> original cdrtools source and the conclusion from Sun Legal was that there is
> neither a legal problem with the original software nor with distributing
> binaries made from the original software. Is someone likes to prove that, the
> Solaris Express Community Edition build 105 will be available in a few days
> and it will include cdrtools release 2.01.01a54 which is fairly recent. The a55
> release could not be included as the build 105 snapshot date was in
> mid-Decedmber.
>
Debian is not Sun. Debian has its own requirements, which can be more
strict. And cdrecord does not meet Debian's requirements. Saying it
meets Sun's makes no difference here. Also, the fact that a given
software does not meet Debian's requirements does not imply that there
is a problem with the software - it's just an incompatibility.
PS: If anyone replies to debian-user, there is no need to CC me, I
receive mails from that list. Thanks.
--
Eduardo M Kalinowski
edu...@kalinowski.com.br
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>There recently have been some mails from Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. and
>Johannes Wiedersich that have not been send to me, so it seems that the
>authors are not interested in a discussion.
Actually, we are interested in discussion, but the are following the
established Code of Conduct http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
for this forum and not including posters in the CC that have not explicitly
asked for it. If you would like to be CC'd, please ask; I will gladly
comply. I've also CC'd you on this email, but please forgive me if that's
not what you wanted; I'll will do my best to follow the Code of Conduct in
the future.
>Their mail contained the usual
>accusations: the claim that cdrtools is not free and that there is no new
>releases in cdrtools. As these claims have lready been proven to be
> incorrect, we will not go any further in trying to discuss at this
> level.....
I never claimed that there were no new releases of cdrtools. I claimed that
wodim has had more stable releases since the fork than cdrtools. Anyone can
verify my claim be going to http://www.cdrkit.org/releases/ and
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ then counting the number of releases since
2005 displayed.
>Given the fact that the initator of wodim stopped working on wodim on May
> 6th 2007 and started to advertize for nerolinux instead, it is interesting
> to read the term nerolinux in the subject of this thread. Is Debian moving
> to closed software like nerolinux or what is the backgrund for not
> distrubuting working CD/DVD/BD writing software with Debian?
cdrkit, wodim in particular, is working. I've used it many times in the last
few years.
Debian is not moving to closed software; the social contract has not be
amended in that direction nor are violations of the social contract ignored.
Debian (the OS) does not include nerolinux and Debian (the project) does not
distribute it
(http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=nerolinux&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all).
Debian users may, of course, use whatever tools they like, including
nerolinux.
Projects do not have absolute control over their developers. The initiator of
wodim may have stopped working on it and be more interested in nerolinux; I
cannot say. I can demonstrate that cdrkit (which wodim is part of) is
undergoing continued development since then. http://www.cdrkit.org/ shows a
release on 2008-10-26 and
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/?rev=0&sc=0 shows a commit on
2009-01-05.
> Did the
> initiator of wodim intentionally introduce bugs that make "cdrkit" unusable
> in order to support closed source software?
Doubtful. Still, Debian and the cdrkit project welcome bug reports, which
will not be ignored.
> Is Debian no longer interested
> in free and working software?
Debian maintains its commitments to free software and high-quality releases;
IANADD; TINASOTODP.
>The Original poster was Paul Cartwright and I had some conversations with
> him during the past week.
<snip: details>
I'm glad cdrecord/cdrtools was able to solve Paul's issue. Paul should file a
bug with the details so that Debian and the cdrkit project can fix the
underlying issue.
> _all_ related software has been modified to call the defective
>"genisoimage", "wodim" and similar
Yes, Debian does make Debian-specific changes to software in order to have the
software work better in the Debian distribution. Most free software
distributors do.
>- Are people interested in getting a working CD/DVD/BD writing toolchain
> on Debian?
We already have one. It may have specific bugs, just like our working mail
clients, our working kernels, and our working printing systems. Please file
these bugs we you encounter them so that they may be fixed.
>- Is there anybody inside Debian willing to support this by doing the
> needed administrative work?
Since we already have one, there is no administrative work necessary. So,
I'll do it. Done.
>Please note that there is a Debian cdrtools package available from the
> "grml" Author, so there is no need to find a Debian package maintainer for
> cdrtools.
All Debian packages need a Debian package maintainer, for various reasons. It
doesn't matter where else the package is available. It is possible
that "the 'grml' Author" could *be* the Debian package maintainer, but we do
need one.
Paul Cartwright
> I'm glad cdrecord/cdrtools was able to solve Paul's issue. Paul should
> file a bug with the details so that Debian and the cdrkit project can fix
> the underlying issue.
point me in the right direction.
I used to have a working system that could burn a DVD any time I wanted.Under
SUSE 9-10.1 I could, and under Debian Etch I could, and probably earlier this
year under Lenny I could. I have now created a large pile of coasters trying
to get k3B, Brasero, and makedvd to work, without success. Nerolinux works
everytime, and I was finally able to burn a DVD using mkisofs to create an
iso image, and cdrecord to burn it. Luckily I am command-line literate ( ok,
somewhat) so I can create scripts to do all this for regualr use. I would
MUCH rather just use K3B. My wife would never be able to figure this out,
would complain, turn and use her Vista laptop and burn it.
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
> point me in the right direction.
> I used to have a working system that could burn a DVD any time I wanted.Under
> SUSE 9-10.1 I could, and under Debian Etch I could, and probably earlier this
> year under Lenny I could. I have now created a large pile of coasters trying
> to get k3B, Brasero, and makedvd to work, without success. Nerolinux works
> everytime, and I was finally able to burn a DVD using mkisofs to create an
> iso image, and cdrecord to burn it. Luckily I am command-line literate ( ok,
> somewhat) so I can create scripts to do all this for regualr use. I would
> MUCH rather just use K3B. My wife would never be able to figure this out,
> would complain, turn and use her Vista laptop and burn it
There is a setting in K3B where you specify the paths to the programs it
uses. (Not sure the exact menu,but it is something like "Configure K3B".)
If your problem was solved with the original cdrecord, point k3b to use
that program, specifying its path instead of the default debian wodim.
--
Eduardo M Kalinowski
edu...@kalinowski.com.br
Paul Cartwright
> There is a setting in K3B where you specify the paths to the programs it
> uses. (Not sure the exact menu,but it is something like "Configure K3B".)
>
> If your problem was solved with the original cdrecord, point k3b to use
> that program, specifying its path instead of the default debian wodim.
it LOOKS like the defaults have now changed to the new cdrtools programs I
installed, it defaults now to mkisofs not genisoimage:
checkmark for mkisofs 2.1.1a55 not genisoimage 1.1.9
checkmark for cdrecord 2.1.1a55
checkmark for readcd 2.1.1a55
maybe it will work NOW. I'll try it maybe later today or tomorrow and let you
know.
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> I'm glad cdrecord/cdrtools was able to solve Paul's issue. Paul should
>> file a bug with the details so that Debian and the cdrkit project can fix
>> the underlying issue.
>
>point me in the right direction.
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
>I used to have a working system that could burn a DVD any time I
> wanted.Under SUSE 9-10.1 I could, and under Debian Etch I could, and
> probably earlier this year under Lenny I could.
Those are all useful bits of information that should probably be in the bug
report. It would be nice if you had exact package versions, but if you don't
it still helps narrow things down a bit.
Probably the most important part of reporting a bug is giving the maintainer
enough information to reproduce the bug on his or her system.
> I have now created a large
> pile of coasters trying to get k3B, Brasero, and makedvd to work, without
> success. Nerolinux works everytime, and I was finally able to burn a DVD
> using mkisofs to create an iso image, and cdrecord to burn it.
Again, I'm glad you were able to solve your problem. I'm sorry you had to
resort to using software on available in Debian.
> Luckily I am
> command-line literate ( ok, somewhat) so I can create scripts to do all
> this for regualr use. I would MUCH rather just use K3B. My wife would never
> be able to figure this out, would complain, turn and use her Vista laptop
> and burn it.
Yes, while creating the fs and burning should be able to be done from the
command-line, the GUI tools should work as well. Having the use software not
available in Debian is grounds for a bug, at least for this task.[1]
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
[1] It would be different if no software that Debian can distribute purports
to handle the task.
Paul Cartwright
> >point me in the right direction.
>
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
We strongly recommend that you report bugs in Debian using the reportbug
program. To install and start it, simply run:
aptitude install reportbug; reportbug
I'll give that a shot..
Paul Cartwright
> >point me in the right direction.
>
> http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting
Package: k3b
Version: 1.0.5-3
Followup-For: Bug #499066
done.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>
>done.
Thank you. You also might want to subscribe to the bug to receive updates to
it as email. (Link at the bug page.) Also,
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171019, the upstream bug, has a bit more
information.
I'm not sure this is really a k3b bug though -- you said it affected other
programs as well, yes. Please add to the bug what other programs you saw
affected -- it is possible that the bug may need to be reassigned (e.g. to
cdrkit or the kernel).
Johannes Wiedersich
Hash: SHA1
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> There recently have been some mails from Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. and
> Johannes Wiedersich that have not been send to me, so it seems that the
> authors are not interested in a discussion.
This was not my intention. It is considered impolite on this list to
send (private) cc copies. (It is also against the list's code of conduct
[1].)
You could follow the discussion via
- - subscription
- - http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2009/01/thrd2.html#00685
- - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user/343437
among other possibilities (like rss feeds).
I will cc you for future posts.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Cheers,
Johannes
NB: I sincerely hope that the issues about the license will be settled.
I really expect debian to only ship free software in a legally allowed
manner.
[1] http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAklnrdYACgkQC1NzPRl9qEXpzwCfexoeyhB5CtJS1Bo0gffrp7LT
u4IAn3DukcVOW2izDsv9Dlq8yt7j1h9v
=LtFr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Cartwright
> I'm not sure this is really a k3b bug though -- you said it affected other
> programs as well, yes. Please add to the bug what other programs you saw
> affected -- it is possible that the bug may need to be reassigned (e.g. to
> cdrkit or the kernel).
it also affected Brasero, which is the gnome tool, correct? Not sure that it
is kernel related, no kernel updates have been done in quite a while.. still
on 2.6.26-1
the problem is, I don't exactly know what broke, all I know is it stopped
working. K3B stopped working, but Nerolinux works, and cdrecord works. Wodim
and genisoimage didn't work. somehow I have to log in to change the info,
or.. maybe I can just update reportbug... I'm not real happy with that
reportbug system, I probably should have just created a NEW bug, but that one
looked like a similar issue.
Rainer Kluge
> On Friday 2009 January 09 13:50:57 Paul Cartwright wrote:
>> On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> Followup-For: Bug #499066
>>
>> done.
>
> Thank you. You also might want to subscribe to the bug to receive updates to
> it as email. (Link at the bug page.) Also,
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171019, the upstream bug, has a bit more
> information.
>
> I'm not sure this is really a k3b bug though -- you said it affected other
> programs as well, yes. Please add to the bug what other programs you saw
> affected -- it is possible that the bug may need to be reassigned (e.g. to
> cdrkit or the kernel).
I am afraid that this bug report will have no effect. The problem
discussed in this thread seems to be a problem in the tools used by k3b
and not a problem in k3b itself. The bug report should be for growisofs.
I would be surprised if the k3b maintainer takes any action. BTW,
nothing did happen since mid September!
Rainer Kluge
> On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is really a k3b bug though -- you said it affected other
>> programs as well, yes. Please add to the bug what other programs you saw
>> affected -- it is possible that the bug may need to be reassigned (e.g. to
>> cdrkit or the kernel).
>
> it also affected Brasero, which is the gnome tool, correct? Not sure that it
> is kernel related, no kernel updates have been done in quite a while.. still
> on 2.6.26-1
> the problem is, I don't exactly know what broke, all I know is it stopped
> working. K3B stopped working, but Nerolinux works, and cdrecord works. Wodim
> and genisoimage didn't work. somehow I have to log in to change the info,
> or.. maybe I can just update reportbug... I'm not real happy with that
> reportbug system, I probably should have just created a NEW bug, but that one
> looked like a similar issue.
>
...and you should try to give a more specific description of the
problem. Does the write process fail? If yes, are there error messages?
If no, what happens exactly when you try to read the DVD? Is it a data
or video DVD. Maybe all this is somewhere in this tread - among all
these legel discussions - but you should put it in the bug report anyway.
Regards
Rainer
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> I'm not sure this is really a k3b bug though -- you said it affected other
>> programs as well, yes. Please add to the bug what other programs you saw
>> affected -- it is possible that the bug may need to be reassigned (e.g. to
>> cdrkit or the kernel).
>
>it also affected Brasero, which is the gnome tool, correct? Not sure that it
>is kernel related, no kernel updates have been done in quite a while.. still
>on 2.6.26-1
This original reporter of your bug noticed a breakage after moving from 2.6.25
to 2.6.26, but I'm not sure it is a kernel bug either.
>the problem is, I don't exactly know what broke, all I know is it stopped
>working.
That's fine, but that information is not in the bug. If you don't want to
repeat information you've already given the mailing list, please add some URL
to the bug report that the maintainer can use to locate the thread. Your
description "see thread is debian-user:
Re: k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X" is much harder to
find than you might think, especially "later". A link to gmane or marc a al.
would be best, I think.
>I'm not real happy with that
>reportbug system, I probably should have just created a NEW bug, but that
> one looked like a similar issue.
You should have been able to create a new bug through reportbug. But, I think
bugs that have to be split is better than bugs that have to be merged,
usually.
If you find some features lacking from reportbug, you could always file a bug
against it. No guarantees there though -- new features are generally at the
whim of the maintainers or upstream.
Wayne Topa
> On Friday 2009 January 09 13:50:57 Paul Cartwright wrote:
>> On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> Followup-For: Bug #499066
>>
>> done.
>
> Thank you. You also might want to subscribe to the bug to receive updates to
> it as email. (Link at the bug page.) Also,
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171019, the upstream bug, has a bit more
> information.
>
> I'm not sure this is really a k3b bug though -- you said it affected other
> programs as well, yes. Please add to the bug what other programs you saw
> affected -- it is possible that the bug may need to be reassigned (e.g. to
> cdrkit or the kernel).
I must be missing somthing here. Running Testing/unstable and the only
cdrkit I can find is cdrkit-doc. Is this just an etch package (cdrkit)?
wayne
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> it is possible that the bug may need to be reassigned (e.g. to
>> cdrkit or the kernel).
>
>I must be missing somthing here. Running Testing/unstable and the only
>cdrkit I can find is cdrkit-doc. Is this just an etch package (cdrkit)?
http://packages.debian.org/source/etch/cdrkit
That's a link to the Etch version, but it's also in Lenny and Sid. It's the
source package for wodim etc.
Paul Cartwright
> ...and you should try to give a more specific description of the
> problem. Does the write process fail?
put it back in, it said it was blank. Other times, it wouldstart buring, get
to 27% then hang and fail.
If you look back in this thread or the other thread I gave the error messages.
like this one:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.user/browse_thread/thread/72de0f9c14bc4a05/1280fb0da9c33e03?lnk=raot&pli=1
. I even tried running
K3B from a root terminal. When I run k3b to create a video DVD here is the
console output:
Capacity: 510:38:38 (LBA 2297888) (4706074624 Bytes)
Remaining size: 510:38:38 (LBA 2297888) (4706074624 Bytes)
Used Size: 00:00:00 (LBA 0) (0 Bytes)
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE dataLen = 72
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE successful with reported
length: 68
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: Number of supported write speeds via GET
PERFORMANCE: 4
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 22160 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 16620 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 11080 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 5540 KB/s
adding udi /org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/volume_empty_dvd_r
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET CONFIGURATION length det failed.
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET CONFIGURATION length det failed.
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET CONFIGURATION length det failed.
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE dataLen = 72
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE successful with reported
length: 68
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: Number of supported write speeds via GET
PERFORMANCE: 4
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 22160 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 16620 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 11080 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 5540 KB/s
First sec data area: 43:41:33 (LBA 196608) (402653184
Last sec data area: 202:21:17 (LBA 910592) (1864892416 Bytes)
Last sec layer 1: 00:00:00 (LBA 0) (0 Bytes)
Layer 1 length: 00:00:01 (LBA 1) (2048 Bytes)
Layer 2 length: 202:21:17 (LBA 910592) (1864892416 Bytes)
DiskInfo:
Mediatype: DVD-R Sequential
Current Profile: DVD-R Sequential
Disk state: incomplete
Empty: 0
Rewritable: 0
Appendable: 1
Sessions: 0
Tracks: 1
Layers: 1
Capacity: 510:46:46 (LBA 2298496) (4707319808 Bytes)
Remaining size: 510:46:45 (LBA 2298495) (4707317760 Bytes)
Used Size: 00:00:01 (LBA 1) (2048 Bytes)
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE dataLen = 8
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: GET PERFORMANCE reports bogus dataLen: 8
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: Number of supported write speeds via 2A: 4
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 8468 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 7056 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 4234 KB/s
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0 : 2822 KB/s
(K3bDevice::ScsiCommand) failed:
command: READ (10) (28)
errorcode: 70
sense key: NOT READY (2)
asc: 3a
ascq: 0
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: READ 10 failed!
(K3bDevice::ScsiCommand) failed:
command: READ (10) (28)
errorcode: 70
sense key: NOT READY (2)
asc: 3a
ascq: 0
(K3bDevice::Device) /dev/scd0: READ 10 failed!
( did that sequence quite a few more times..)
---------------------------------------
it ejected the DVD, said success, yet the DVD is blank
> If yes, are there error messages?
> If no, what happens exactly when you try to read the DVD? Is it a data
> or video DVD. Maybe all this is somewhere in this tread - among all
> these legel discussions - but you should put it in the bug report anyway.
>
> Regards
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Paul Cartwright
> That's fine, but that information is not in the bug. If you don't want to
> repeat information you've already given the mailing list, please add some
> URL to the bug report that the maintainer can use to locate the thread.
> Your description "see thread is debian-user:
> Re: k3b & brasero don't work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X" is much harder
> to find than you might think, especially "later". A link to gmane or marc
> a al. would be best, I think.
here is the original thread with my original failure- subject:
unable to burn DVD :
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.debian.user/browse_thread/thread/248b0a96d4c49e83/39bba6b6592d012b?lnk=gst&q=dvd+fail+pcartwright#39bba6b6592d012b
I'm not sure when this started, I don't burn that many discs of any type..
started up braseros, to burn a DVD that was only 1.8Gb. got this error:
<SNIP>
roGrowisofs stderr: Done with: The File(s)
Block(s) 713532
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: Writing: UDF Anchor end volume
Start Block 713812
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: Done with: UDF Anchor end volume
Block(s) 1
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: Writing: UDF Pad end
Start Block 713813
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: Done with: UDF Pad end
Block(s) 150
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: Max brk space used 0
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: 713963 extents written (1394 MB)
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: :-[ WRITE@LBA=ae4e0h failed with
SK=0h/ASC=00h/ACQ=03h]: Input/output error
BraseroGrowisofs stderr: :-( write failed: Input/output error
BraseroGrowisofs called brasero_job_error
BraseroGrowisofs finished with an error
BraseroGrowisofs asked to stop because of an error
error = 1
message = "Unhandled error, aborting"
BraseroGrowisofs stopping
BraseroGrowisofs got killed
Session error : Unhandled error, aborting (brasero_burn_record burn.c:2369)
Paul Cartwright
> I am afraid that this bug report will have no effect. The problem
> discussed in this thread seems to be a problem in the tools used by k3b
> and not a problem in k3b itself. The bug report should be for growisofs.
> I would be surprised if the k3b maintainer takes any action. BTW,
> nothing did happen since mid September!
I'll do another one against wodim/growisofs..
that's the part of reportbug I wasn't sure of.. where do you find if a bug has
already been posted, is it close enough to add to, or do you create a new one
because X is different..
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>On Fri January 9 2009, Rainer Kluge wrote:
>> I am afraid that this bug report will have no effect. The problem
>> discussed in this thread seems to be a problem in the tools used by k3b
>> and not a problem in k3b itself. The bug report should be for growisofs.
>> I would be surprised if the k3b maintainer takes any action. BTW,
>> nothing did happen since mid September!
>
>I'll do another one against wodim/growisofs..
No need. Anyone that wants to wrestle with
http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control can make the neccessary changes to
the existing bug. If you've already opened a new one, no worries, but you
might want to mention the new bug in the old one and vice-versa. That way
the bugs can be merged/cloned as needed to get all the information in one
place.
>that's the part of reportbug I wasn't sure of.. where do you find if a bug
> has already been posted, is it close enough to add to, or do you create a
> new one because X is different..
It's really a judgement call. I usually search/browse b.d.o looking for my
bug. If I find it I just add more information by email. If I am unable to
find it, I'll then use reportbug and generally tell reportbug that "None of
these are my bug" or somesuch.[1] Browsing existing bugs also helps you
identify the unique information about your situation that is worth mentioning
in the bug.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
[1] I do make sure and read the bugs reportbug proposes, sometimes I missed
them during my search/browse and they are appropriate.
Paul Cartwright
> bug. If I find it I just add more information by email. If I am unable to
> find it, I'll then use reportbug and generally tell reportbug that "None of
> these are my bug" or somesuch.[1] Browsing existing bugs also helps you
> identify the unique information about your situation that is worth
> mentioning in the bug.
it was a little frustrating trying to browse.. I didn't quite get the hang of
looking in one bug,then I CTRL-D, ran reportbug again, tried another bug..
time consuming and not fun...
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
>> I usually search/browse b.d.o looking for
>> my bug. If I find it I just add more information by email. If I am
>> unable to find it, I'll then use reportbug and generally tell reportbug
>> also helps you identify the unique information about your situation that
>> is worth mentioning in the bug.
>
>it was a little frustrating trying to browse.. I didn't quite get the hang
> of looking in one bug,then I CTRL-D, ran reportbug again, tried another
> bug.. time consuming and not fun...
That's not how I do it. I just use the bug numbers from the list and go
directly to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=bug_number_here
in a browser window not invoked by/controlled by/related to reportbug.
Actually, there's less typing than that, because I use konqueror which has a
dbug:bug_number_here shortcut.
Still, I have no doubt reportbug could be improved.
Bob Cox
> On Fri January 9 2009, Rainer Kluge wrote:
> > I am afraid that this bug report will have no effect. The problem
> > discussed in this thread seems to be a problem in the tools used by k3b
> > and not a problem in k3b itself. The bug report should be for growisofs.
> > I would be surprised if the k3b maintainer takes any action. BTW,
> > nothing did happen since mid September!
>
> I'll do another one against wodim/growisofs..
Hi Paul - I have just been looking at this bug report of yours, which I
assume is the one at
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=511369
I have followed much of this thread because I use k3b daily to burn DVDs
(and the occasional CD) with no problems at all with it or, presumably,
with its various external applications (wodim etc). I have been
wondering if I could identify exactly what is 'different' about your
setup nd causing you these problems. My Lenny installation is up to
date and everything has been installed with aptitude from Debian and
Debian-multimedia repositories, so of I can help by providing version
numbers or anything then please ask in this list but I suspect they will
be exactly what apt-cache policy for lenny would show.
Anyway, in your bug report you say you "took out" genisoimage, but then
go on to say you were able to successfully use mkisofs. However, on my
system, mkisofs is just a symlink to genisoimage. In fact the package
description for mkisofs says "This is a dummy package to ease the
transition to genisoimage, the fork of mkisofs. It provides a mkisofs
symlink to genisoimage for compatibility purposes. Please use
genisoimage instead of mkisofs."
I only mention this because it does look a bit confusing but maybe I'm
missing something. If so, sorry for the noise.
--
Bob Cox. Stoke Gifford, near Bristol, UK.
Please reply to the list only. Do NOT send copies directly to me.
Debian on the NSLU2: http://bobcox.com/slug/
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>Anyway, in your bug report you say you "took out" genisoimage, but then
>go on to say you were able to successfully use mkisofs. However, on my
>system, mkisofs is just a symlink to genisoimage. In fact the package
>description for mkisofs says "This is a dummy package to ease the
>transition to genisoimage, the fork of mkisofs. It provides a mkisofs
>symlink to genisoimage for compatibility purposes. Please use
>genisoimage instead of mkisofs."
He also indicated that he installed cdrtools from Joerg's site. That installs
a non-symlink mkisofs.
Bob Cox
> On Saturday 2009 January 10 00:22:17 Bob Cox wrote:
> >Anyway, in your bug report you say you "took out" genisoimage, but then
> >go on to say you were able to successfully use mkisofs. However, on my
> >system, mkisofs is just a symlink to genisoimage. In fact the package
> >description for mkisofs says "This is a dummy package to ease the
> >transition to genisoimage, the fork of mkisofs. It provides a mkisofs
> >symlink to genisoimage for compatibility purposes. Please use
> >genisoimage instead of mkisofs."
>
> He also indicated that he installed cdrtools from Joerg's site. That installs
> a non-symlink mkisofs.
Ah, thank you Boyd. I missed the significance of that.
Tzafrir Cohen
> On Friday 2009 January 09 21:15:31 Paul Cartwright wrote:
> >On Fri January 9 2009, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> >> I usually search/browse b.d.o looking for
> >> my bug. If I find it I just add more information by email. If I am
> >> unable to find it, I'll then use reportbug and generally tell reportbug
> >> that "None of these are my bug" or somesuch. Browsing existing bugs
> >> also helps you identify the unique information about your situation that
> >> is worth mentioning in the bug.
> >
> >it was a little frustrating trying to browse.. I didn't quite get the hang
> > of looking in one bug,then I CTRL-D, ran reportbug again, tried another
> > bug.. time consuming and not fun...
>
> That's not how I do it. I just use the bug numbers from the list and go
> directly to http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=bug_number_here
> in a browser window not invoked by/controlled by/related to reportbug.
> Actually, there's less typing than that, because I use konqueror which has a
> dbug:bug_number_here shortcut.
Other useful shortcuts:
http://bugs.debian.org/NNNNNN . e.g.: http://bugs.debian.org/123456
http://bugs.debian.org/PACKAGE . e.g. http://bugs.debian.org/wodim
>
> Still, I have no doubt reportbug could be improved.
http://packages.debian.org/reportbug-ng
--
Tzafrir Cohen | tza...@jabber.org | VIM is
http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's
tza...@cohens.org.il | | best
ICQ# 16849754 | | friend
Paul Cartwright
> Hi Paul - I have just been looking at this bug report of yours, which I
> assume is the one at
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=511369
I'm not sure how it picked that namd/email combo, unless I signed up for
reportbug with it long ago.... I use my yahoo account for some online STUFF
where I don't want to give out my good email IDs..
>
> I have followed much of this thread because I use k3b daily to burn DVDs
> (and the occasional CD) with no problems at all with it or, presumably,
> with its various external applications (wodim etc). I have been
> wondering if I could identify exactly what is 'different' about your
> setup nd causing you these problems. My Lenny installation is up to
> date and everything has been installed with aptitude from Debian and
> Debian-multimedia repositories, so of I can help by providing version
> numbers or anything then please ask in this list but I suspect they will
> be exactly what apt-cache policy for lenny would show.
your repositories & mine might differ, and I've turned off the multimedia one
because it kept failing.
>
> Anyway, in your bug report you say you "took out" genisoimage, but then
> go on to say you were able to successfully use mkisofs. However, on my
> system, mkisofs is just a symlink to genisoimage. In fact the package
> description for mkisofs says "This is a dummy package to ease the
> transition to genisoimage, the fork of mkisofs. It provides a mkisofs
> symlink to genisoimage for compatibility purposes. Please use
> genisoimage instead of mkisofs."
>
some /usr/bin/ files:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 24 2009-01-08 12:07
cdrecord -> /opt/schily/bin/cdrecord
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 23 2009-01-08 12:09
mkisofs -> /opt/schily/bin/mkisofs
and you are correct, I didn't take out genisoimage, but I did change mkisofs.
ii genisoimage 9:1.1.9-1 Creates ISO-9660 CD-ROM filesystem images
ii mkisofs 9:1.1.9-1 Dummy transition package for genisoimage
> I only mention this because it does look a bit confusing but maybe I'm
> missing something. If so, sorry for the noise.
it is confusing, trust me.. trying to figure out what program calls what, and
what the error means, and why nero linux works and k3B/Brasero don't.. I
still don't know why Nero works or what it uses to burn stuff, and I still
don't know what changed to break k3B. I used to use makedvd -burn and then it
just stopped working. I still don't know exactly what they call or what
program is doing the actual work. I don't really WANT to know all the
underlying programs I JUST WANT IT TO WORK. But I am willing to work with
people to figure out what broke and help FIX it. Joerg was very patient with
me, helping me navigate through the maze to download/install cdrecord and
make it work.
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Celejar
Paul Cartwright <a...@pcartwright.com> wrote:
...
> yes, that is my bug report. When I type "reportbug" it started the process.
> I'm not sure how it picked that namd/email combo, unless I signed up for
> reportbug with it long ago.... I use my yahoo account for some online STUFF
> where I don't want to give out my good email IDs..
On my system, that information is stored in $HOME/.reportbugrc
> Paul Cartwright
Celejar
--
mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email
ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator
Paul Cartwright
> > yes, that is my bug report. When I type "reportbug" it started the
> > process. I'm not sure how it picked that namd/email combo, unless I
> > signed up for reportbug with it long ago.... I use my yahoo account for
> > some online STUFF where I don't want to give out my good email IDs..
>
> On my system, that information is stored in $HOME/.reportbugrc
yes, it is,thanks!
# name and email setting (if non-default)
# realname "Paul Cartwright"
email "xx...@yahoo.com"
I'll change that!
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
Joerg Schilling
> On Friday 2009 January 09 09:25:31 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >There recently have been some mails from Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. and
> >Johannes Wiedersich that have not been send to me, so it seems that the
> >authors are not interested in a discussion.
>
> Actually, we are interested in discussion, but the are following the
Then please follow the Nettiquette rules and send Cc:'s!
> I never claimed that there were no new releases of cdrtools. I claimed that
> wodim has had more stable releases since the fork than cdrtools. Anyone can
> verify my claim be going to http://www.cdrkit.org/releases/ and
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ then counting the number of releases since
> 2005 displayed.
Well, face the reality:
The minimum requirements one need to have on a "stable release" is that it
does not have known bugs at the time of piublishing. With this contraints,
wodim never had a stable release in it's lifetime.
Cdrecord had 50 stable releases that match the requirements within the past
three years.
For wodim (better cdrkit in general), there are dozens of documented bugs that
are not fixed since years. Instead the people behind wodim publish fix typos
in the man pages and in the source comment in order to pretend activity.
If you speak for the Debian community, then it looks like Debian is if Debian
is completely uninterested in the Debian users.
> cdrkit, wodim in particular, is working. I've used it many times in the last
> few years.
cdrkit is not working and besides the problems from the _current_ thread
there are dozens of other bugs in cdrkit. Many of them are show stopper bugs as
they make it impossible to use th software at all.
> > Did the
> > initiator of wodim intentionally introduce bugs that make "cdrkit" unusable
> > in order to support closed source software?
>
> Doubtful. Still, Debian and the cdrkit project welcome bug reports, which
> will not be ignored.
???? Are you again ignoring reality?
There is a Debian user (Paul) who cannot write DVDs because Debian does not
include working software (cdrtools).
Paul asked here and did not get help from the Debian cummunity.
Paul did get help from me and simply going to the vanilla original software
fixed his problem.
If Paul makes a bug report, this will just add another bug to the long list of
bugs in cdrkit but it will not result in a bugfix. People who like to write
CDs, DVDs or BDs just use the original software because Debian does anything to
prevent a vanilla Debian to be useful for this task.
Do whatever you like but don't forget that your current habbit is anti-OSS and
against Debian users.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>Then please follow the Nettiquette rules and send Cc:'s!
The rules for this mailing list are available from the URL I posted. Please
follow them and do not CC me on posts to the list. If you would like to be
CC'd on posts to the list, you'll need to ask for them. I will take the
quoted text as a request to be CC'd on this message.
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> I claimed
>> that wodim has had more stable releases since the fork than cdrtools.
>
>The minimum requirements one need to have on a "stable release" is that it
>does not have known bugs at the time of piublishing.
We have different requirements for a stable release.
>Cdrecord had 50 stable releases that match the requirements within the past
>three years.
These do not meet my requirements for a stable release. They are explicitly
marked as "alpha" by the person/group releasing them. For me, that means
they are not stable releases.
>If you speak for the Debian community,
I speak for only myself.
>> cdrkit, wodim in particular, is working. I've used it many times in the
>> last few years.
>
>cdrkit is not working
I disagree. Next time I burn a CD with wodim, shall I send you the logs to
show that wodim is working? Or perhaps post them to a public forum?
>If Paul makes a bug report, this will just add another bug to the long list
> of bugs in cdrkit but it will not result in a bugfix.
Since previous bugs files have resulted in a bugfix, I choose not to believe
your predictions of the future.
> People who like to
> write CDs, DVDs or BDs just use the original software because Debian does
> anything to prevent a vanilla Debian to be useful for this task.
I like to write CDs and DVDs; I use wodim (and other programs from the cdrkit
project). Unfortunately, I do not yet own a BD writer.
Rainer Kluge
>> of bugs in cdrkit but it will not result in a bugfix.
>
> Since previous bugs files have resulted in a bugfix, I choose not to believe
> your predictions of the future.
>
Given the bug statistics for wodim, this is a rather optimistic attitude:
Status
* 35 Outstanding
* 1 Forwarded
* 4 Resolved
The 4 resolved include one with no fix due to missing feedback and two
concerning printing wrong messages!!!!!
Only 2 bugs with status "more information needed". Does it mean that for
33 bugs there is enough information available but no correction available?
I do not agree with Joerg on all this legal issues (better: I do not
bother about), but I am afraid that concerning the wodim development
status he may be right.
Joerg Schilling
> >The minimum requirements one need to have on a "stable release" is that it
> >does not have known bugs at the time of piublishing.
>
> We have different requirements for a stable release.
>
> >Cdrecord had 50 stable releases that match the requirements within the past
> >three years.
>
> These do not meet my requirements for a stable release. They are explicitly
> marked as "alpha" by the person/group releasing them. For me, that means
> they are not stable releases.
So you are happy if someone givey you pre-alpha's and calls them "stable"?
This sounds really strange.
> >cdrkit is not working
>
> I disagree. Next time I burn a CD with wodim, shall I send you the logs to
> show that wodim is working? Or perhaps post them to a public forum?
This does not prove anything. There are too many cases where it does nto work
at all (e.g. on laptops, ...). I am talking on usability and not whether wodim
may work sometimes under specific conditions.
> I like to write CDs and DVDs; I use wodim (and other programs from the cdrkit
> project). Unfortunately, I do not yet own a BD writer.
If you like to do this, you better use working software like cdrtools.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> >The minimum requirements one need to have on a "stable release" is that
>> > it does not have known bugs at the time of piublishing.
>>
>> We have different requirements for a stable release.
>>
>> >Cdrecord had 50 stable releases that match the requirements within the
>> > past three years.
>>
>> These do not meet my requirements for a stable release. They are
>> explicitly marked as "alpha" by the person/group releasing them. For me,
>> that means they are not stable releases.
>
>So you are happy if someone givey you pre-alpha's and calls them "stable"?
>This sounds really strange.
My first requirement is that the release team does not feel the need to use
the qualifier "alpha". I did not say that was my only condition. Please
don't put words into my mouth.
>> >cdrkit is not working
>>
>> I disagree. Next time I burn a CD with wodim, shall I send you the logs
>> to show that wodim is working? Or perhaps post them to a public forum?
>
>This does not prove anything. There are too many cases where it does nto
> work at all (e.g. on laptops, ...). I am talking on usability and not
> whether wodim may work sometimes under specific conditions.
I have burned on my laptop many times in the last 2 years, using wodim. Shall
I send you logs of it working on a laptop? I can show you many cases where
wodim is working. I can show you many cases when I have used wodim, showing
that it is usable. As far as usability is concerned, wodim and cdrecord have
virtually the same interface so they have roughly the same usability.[1]
What would convince you that wodim is working? I've offered logs, I'm not
sure what else I can offer. Or, have you simply closed your mind to the
possibility that working CD/DVD/BD burning free software other than cdrtools
exists?
>> I like to write CDs and DVDs; I use wodim (and other programs from the
>> cdrkit project). Unfortunately, I do not yet own a BD writer.
>
>If you like to do this, you better use working software like cdrtools.
I prefer to use working, free software like cdrkit. See my earlier messages
for why I consider cdrtools non-free software.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
[1] "Usability" is a loaded word. Etymologically, it should mean "the quality
of being usable" but it actually means "the degree to which an object or
device is easy to use with no specific training".
Joerg Schilling
> >So you are happy if someone givey you pre-alpha's and calls them "stable"?
> >This sounds really strange.
>
> My first requirement is that the release team does not feel the need to use
> the qualifier "alpha". I did not say that was my only condition. Please
> don't put words into my mouth.
That's strange, you happily use pre-alpha code as long as it is not called
alpha?
> >> >cdrkit is not working
> >>
> >> I disagree. Next time I burn a CD with wodim, shall I send you the logs
> >> to show that wodim is working? Or perhaps post them to a public forum?
> >
> >This does not prove anything. There are too many cases where it does nto
> > work at all (e.g. on laptops, ...). I am talking on usability and not
> > whether wodim may work sometimes under specific conditions.
>
> I have burned on my laptop many times in the last 2 years, using wodim. Shall
> I send you logs of it working on a laptop? I can show you many cases where
> wodim is working. I can show you many cases when I have used wodim, showing
> that it is usable. As far as usability is concerned, wodim and cdrecord have
> virtually the same interface so they have roughly the same usability.[1]
This is definitely not true. Wodim does not work for many (if not most) people.
This alone causes differences in usability.
As cdrtools introduced _many_ new features during the past 3 years, even iff
wodim would work, it did not give you the same usability.
> What would convince you that wodim is working? I've offered logs, I'm not
> sure what else I can offer. Or, have you simply closed your mind to the
> possibility that working CD/DVD/BD burning free software other than cdrtools
> exists?
You cannot convince people to believe things that are verifiably wrong.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?ordering=normal;archive=0;src=cdrkit;dist=unstable;repeatmerged=0
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrkit
Note that many of these bugs are showstopper bugs and that there are more
bugreports that have been removed although they are of course present.
> I prefer to use working, free software like cdrkit. See my earlier messages
> for why I consider cdrtools non-free software.
As mentioned before: cdrkit is neither free nor working.
If you like to use free and working software, you need to use the original cdrtools.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> >So you are happy if someone givey you pre-alpha's and calls them
>> > "stable"? This sounds really strange.
>>
>> My first requirement is that the release team does not feel the need to
>> use the qualifier "alpha". I did not say that was my only condition.
>> Please don't put words into my mouth.
>
>That's strange, you happily use pre-alpha code as long as it is not called
>alpha?
My first requirement is that the release team does not feel the need to use
the qualifier "alpha". I did not say that was my only condition. Please
don't put words into my mouth.
(See. I can repeat myself, too!)
>You cannot convince people to believe things that are verifiably wrong.
Yet *YOU* continue to try.
>> I prefer to use working, free software like cdrkit. See my earlier
>> messages for why I consider cdrtools non-free software.
>
>As mentioned before: cdrkit is neither free nor working.
As mentioned before: cdrkit is both free and working.
>If you like to use free and working software, you need to use the original
> cdrtools.
IMO, the original cdrtools is not free software.
Jochen Schulz
>
> As mentioned before: cdrkit is neither free nor working.
Jörg, is there anything we can do to make you recognize the fact that
there are different opinions on that subject and that there is no sense
in trying to educate anyone on this list? You are doing yourself and
this list a disservice by repeating your sermon every few months.
J.
--
Fashion is more important to me than war, famine, disease or art.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Joerg Schilling
> Joerg Schilling:
> >
> > As mentioned before: cdrkit is neither free nor working.
>
> Jörg, is there anything we can do to make you recognize the fact that
> there are different opinions on that subject and that there is no sense
> in trying to educate anyone on this list? You are doing yourself and
> this list a disservice by repeating your sermon every few months.
Jochen, is there anything that I can do to help you to understand that
a straightforward obvious Copyright violation is not subject to something you
may call an "opinion"?
You as a user are not going to run into problems as the Copyright law allows to
run software independent from whether it has been published illegally. Debian
however is definitively in conflict with the Copyright law....
Winfried Tilanus
> Debian however is definitively in conflict with the Copyright law....
Jörg, this is a severe accusation. If it is true, then it calls for
immediate action. So I ask you once again: please give us all juridical
details, so we can judge the validity of this accusation ourselves and
make work of stopping this violation.
thanks,
Winfried
--
http://www.tilanus.com
xmpp:winf...@jabber.xs4all.nl
tel. 015-3613996 / 06-23303960
fax. 015-3614406
Jochen Schulz
> Jochen Schulz <m...@well-adjusted.de> wrote:
>
>> Jörg, is there anything we can do to make you recognize the fact that
>> there are different opinions on that subject and that there is no sense
>> in trying to educate anyone on this list? You are doing yourself and
>> this list a disservice by repeating your sermon every few months.
>
> Jochen, is there anything that I can do to help you to understand that
> a straightforward obvious Copyright violation is not subject to something you
> may call an "opinion"?
Your mocking doesn't help your case.
> You as a user are not going to run into problems as the Copyright law allows to
> run software independent from whether it has been published illegally. Debian
> however is definitively in conflict with the Copyright law....
So sue them or shut up. If your view is as indisputable as you think, it
should be no problem to find (financial) support. I'd be happy to see
this issue resolved once and for all.
J.
--
If I won the lottery I would keep all the money and wallpaper my house
with it.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
>Joerg Schilling:
>> You as a user are not going to run into problems as the Copyright law
>> allows to run software independent from whether it has been published
>> illegally. Debian however is definitively in conflict with the Copyright
>> law....
>
>So sue them or shut up.
While I want Jörg to "shut up" as much as the next person, I would *greatly*
prefer a solution that doesn't involve Debian allocating resources to legal
proceedings.
Jörg, the evidence and arguments you've put forth so far have failed to
convince Debian to voluntarily stop distributing cdrkit (including wodim),
which you claim violates your copyright. If you have a goal of resolving
this issue, please provide previously-unreleased evidence or arguments,
preferably those requested by DDs--the persons that set Debian policy.
IANAL, IANADD, TINLA, TINASOTODP.
>If your view is as indisputable as you think, it
>should be no problem to find (financial) support.
In fact, the SFLC may be able to help you. Their entire purpose is to come to
the legal aid of free software.
>I'd be happy to see
>this issue resolved once and for all.
+1
Andrei Popescu
> > Still, I have no doubt reportbug could be improved.
>
> http://packages.debian.org/reportbug-ng
Careful, several Debian Developers have complained about it, including
the Release Team:
Regards,
Andrei
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
(Albert Einstein)
Chris Bannister
> On 01/16/2009 Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
>
> > Debian however is definitively in conflict with the Copyright law....
>
> Jörg, this is a severe accusation. If it is true, then it calls for
> immediate action. So I ask you once again: please give us all juridical
> details, so we can judge the validity of this accusation ourselves and
> make work of stopping this violation.
Maybe Jörg could comment on the below article:
http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
--
Chris.
======
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
-- Stephen F Roberts
Joerg Schilling
> Maybe Jörg could comment on the below article:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
Let me answer as quick as your question was:
Everything starting with the word "Unfortunately" in this article is plain FUD.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg 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
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
<Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote about 'Re: k3b & brasero don't
work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X':
>Chris Bannister <mocki...@earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
>
>Everything starting with the word "Unfortunately" in this article is
> plain FUD.
Could please take it point by point? Here's my take:
"Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and Jörg Schilling
released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license."
True.
"The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL."
The FSF and Sun have said as much, but IANAL. From what I understand, Jörg
seems to believe this is not actually issue in the case. From what I
understand, his opinion is based on his beliefe that no GPL code is linked
to CDDL code in cdrtools.
"The FSF itself says that this
is the case as do people who helped draft the CDDL."
True.
"One current and
one former Sun employee visited the annual Debian conference in Mexico
in 2006."
True.
"Danese Cooper clearly stated there that the CDDL was
intentionally modelled on the MPL in order to make it GPL-
incompatible."
True.
"For everyone who wants to hear this first-hand, we have
video from that talk available at [2]."
True.
"You can read the FSF position about the CDDL at [3]."
True.
"The thread behind
[4] contains statements on the issue made by Debian people; for more
context also see the other mails in that thread."
True enough, though the value of message in that thread differs. I'll
refrain from reviewing the individual statements in that thread, though I
suggest other do if they want to hear more of Debian's side of the
arguments.
"In short - the CDDL has extra restrictions, which the GPL does not
allow."
True.
"Jörg has a different opinion about this and has repeatedly
stated that the CDDL is not incompatible, interpreting a facial
expression in the above-mentioned video, calling us liars and generally
appearing unwilling to consider our concerns (he never replied to the
parts where we explained why it is incompatible)."
As I understand it, it is largely not true. The post does not appear to
provide any references to support these statements. I beleive they can be
safely ignored. I would welcome any references confirming or refuting
these statements.
"As he has basically
ignored what we have said, we have no choice but to fork."
Not entirely true. Debian has two distinct choices to make: (A) (1)
distribute cdrtools or (2) not and (B) (1) distribute cdrtools-compatible
software not based on cdrtools, (2) distribute cdrtools-compatible
software based on cdrtools, or (3) not distribute cdrtools-compatible
software.
Debian chose A2+B2, believing A1 carried undue legal risk to the Debian
project, A2+B3 would be a disservice to Debian users, A2+B1 would be
slower than A2+B2, and A2+B2 was possible based on the license of earlier
versions of cdrtools.
I agree with Debian's decision and the thought process behind it. Jörg
believes A1 does not but Debian at legal risk, and that B1 and B2 actually
violate the GPL and "German Copyright Law" because of the necessary
symlinks required.
"While the CDDL
*may* be a free license, we never questioned if it is free or not, as it
is not our place to decide this as the Debian cdrtools
maintainers."
Not entirely true. It is the responsibility of everyone contributing to
the Debian project to ensure software distributed by Debian meets the DFSG
or at least is distributable by Debian. If a developer is considering
uploading a package, they are supposed to make sure it is in the right
section based on its license and it is distributable by Debian. The
ftp-masters share this role. Non-DD maintainers should also will this
role
"However, having been approved by OSI doesn't mean it's ok
for any usage, as Jörg unfortunately seems to assume."
I'm not sure if Jörg assumes that. However, it is very much true. Just
because OSI approves a license does not mean that the license is
DFSG-free. DSFG-freeness is the exclusive purview of the Debian project.
"There are several
OSI-approved licenses that are GPL-incompatible and CDDL is one of
them."
True.
"That is and always was our point."
I'll assume this is true.
"For our fork we used the last GPL-licensed version of the program code
and killed the incompatibly licensed build system."
True.
"It is now replaced by
a cmake system, and the whole source we distribute should be free of
other incompatibilities, as to the best of our current knowledge."
True.
"Anyone who wants to help with this fork, particularly developers of
other distributions, is welcome to join our efforts."
True
"You can contact us
on IRC, server irc.oftc.net, channel #debburn, or via mail at
debbur...@lists.alioth.debian.org. Our svn repository is
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn."
I believe the repository may have moved, but otherwise true.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
[2]
http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-small/2006-05-14/tower/OpenSolaris_Java_and_Debian-Simon_Phipps__Alvaro_Lopez_Ortega.ogg
[3] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/08/msg00552.html
Joerg Schilling
> On Saturday 17 January 2009, Joerg Schilling
> <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote about 'Re: k3b & brasero don't
> work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X':
> >Chris Bannister <mocki...@earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
> >
> >Everything starting with the word "Unfortunately" in this article is
> > plain FUD.
>
> Could please take it point by point? Here's my take:
>
> "Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and Jörg Schilling
> released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license."
>
> True.
Given the fact that attacking Sun (the largest donator of OpenSOurce software)
is definitely FUD, we can safely ignore your post.
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.
work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X':
>"Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
>> On Saturday 17 January 2009, Joerg Schilling
>> <Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote about 'Re: k3b & brasero
>> don't
>> work, nerolinux does- works ar 2X':
>> >Chris Bannister <mocki...@earthlight.co.nz> wrote:
>> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/198171/
>> >Everything starting with the word "Unfortunately" in this article is
>> > plain FUD.
>> Could please take it point by point? Here's my take:
>>
>> "Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and Jörg Schilling
>> released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license."
>>
>> True.
>Given the fact that attacking Sun (the largest donator of OpenSOurce
> software) is definitely FUD, we can safely ignore your post.
I not sure how you characterize this as "attacking Sun". Is it not true
that Sun released the CDDL? Is it not true that parts of cdrtools are
licensed under the CDDL? I agree that the the bias instilled by the
work "Unfortunately" is unfair, but I believe the statement is otherwise
factual. Sun is a large contributor of OSI-open, FSF-free, and DSFG-free
code; I do not mean to make false statements about their behavior.
Also, I think it is unfair to "ignore [my] post" since my remaining points
did not depend on this point. Can anyone that cares (or, perhaps, is
schooled in formal logic and needs some exercise) back me up on that
assertion?
Winfried Tilanus
Hi,
> Can anyone that cares (or, perhaps, is
> schooled in formal logic and needs some exercise) back me up on that
> assertion?
Maybe it is time to stop discussing and look at this discussion from a
distance.
Jörg didn't produce solid evidence for two of his statements:
- CDDL is compatible with GPL and the DFSG.
- Debian is violating his rights on his intellectual property.
The only behaviour I see from Jörg right now, is repeating the
statements but ignoring requests to produce evidence, although he claims
he has the evidence.
It is very unfortunate he is not giving evidence for his statements: I
respect his contribution to the free software community very much, Jörg
has been an incredible pioneer. But IMHO his current behaviour makes him
loose his credibility very fast. It is painful to see such a respected
programmer getting more and more damaged by his own behaviour.
I wish I had the means to resolve this discussion once and for all,
there is already too much damage done. But I am just as empty-handed as
everybody else in this duscussion.
best wishes,
Winfried
--
http://www.tilanus.com
xmpp:winf...@jabber.xs4all.nl
tel. 015-3613996 / 06-23303960
fax. 015-3614406
ow...@netptc.net
Unfortunately in situations like these there is only one ultimate
solution-someone has to sue someone and get the issue resolved in
court. Although the arguements presented here come from bright
people they are, albeit educated, merely opinions. Also if either
side would cousult some plethora of lawyers we would not have a
resolution, merely a plethore more opinions. Although I am a
neophyte in the Debian community I humbly suggest that this thread be
dropped.
Larry>>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.d
>ebian.org
Joerg Schilling
> >> "Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and Jörg Schilling
> >> released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license."
> >>
> >> True.
> >Given the fact that attacking Sun (the largest donator of OpenSOurce
> > software) is definitely FUD, we can safely ignore your post.
>
> I not sure how you characterize this as "attacking Sun". Is it not true
> that Sun released the CDDL? Is it not true that parts of cdrtools are
Using the word "unfortunately" in relation with a OSS donation is a really bad
attack. Please tell me why Sun was attacked?
Lisi Reisz
> "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <b...@iguanasuicide.net> wrote:
> > >> "Unfortunately Sun then developed the CDDL[1] and Jörg Schilling
> > >> released parts of recent versions of cdrtools under this license."
> > >>
> > >> True.
> > >
> > >Given the fact that attacking Sun (the largest donator of OpenSOurce
> > > software) is definitely FUD, we can safely ignore your post.
> >
> > I not sure how you characterize this as "attacking Sun". Is it not true
> > that Sun released the CDDL? Is it not true that parts of cdrtools are
>
> Using the word "unfortunately" in relation with a OSS donation is a really
> bad attack. Please tell me why Sun was attacked?
Sun wasn't attacked, so noone can tell you why it was.
It would appear that English is not your native language since you seem
frequently just to misunderstand what is said. Are you perhaps
(mis)translating into another language? Or are you perversely deliberately
misundersanding?
Anyhow, I apologise to the rest of you for having lost my battle with myself
and fed the troll. But that last statement is such linguistic and semantic
nonsense, I could no longer resist.
Perhaps we should all now go home to tea and leave the troll to feed himself?
Lisi