xcdroast does no longer work with wodim: Who to blame?
Andreas Tscharner
xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
or something (apparently).
So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
or wodim?
Best regards
Andreas
--
("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._
`o_ o ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`)
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-'
_..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' .'
(il).-'' (li).' ((!.-'
Andreas Tscharner an...@vis.ethz.ch ICQ-No. 14356454
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Reinhard Tartler
> So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
> or wodim?
xcdroast
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
Joerg Schilling
>Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
>or something (apparently).
>So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
>or wodim?
You need to blame the people who are responsible for removing cdrecord
and who started to include a fork (wodim) that cannot be legally distributed.
Just add cdrecord from:
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
and you get a legal and working system.
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
Steve Langasek
> >xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
> >Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
> >or something (apparently).
> >So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
> >or wodim?
It's a bug in the xcdroast package. There is a 'cdrecord' dummy package in
unstable which provides a cdrecord compatibility symlink to wodim, so if a
package invokes cdrecord it's possible to still depend on it. Whoever
updated xcdroast to depend on wodim should have made it call wodim, at the
same time.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slan...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
gregor herrmann
> > >So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
> > >or wodim?
> It's a bug in the xcdroast package. There is a 'cdrecord' dummy package in
> unstable which provides a cdrecord compatibility symlink to wodim, so if a
> package invokes cdrecord it's possible to still depend on it. Whoever
> updated xcdroast to depend on wodim should have made it call wodim, at the
> same time.
That's what happened until 0.98+0alpha15-11* [0]; 0.98+0alpha16-1 still
has the patch in the source package but it's commented out in
debian/patches/series [1].
[0] http://bugs.debian.org/386251
[1] http://patch-tracking.debian.net/package/xcdroast
Cheers,
gregor, cc'ing the maintainer
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`- Warp 7 -- It's a law we can live with.
Josselin Mouette
> So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
> or wodim?
In the end, the one you have to blame is Joerg Schilling, for forcing us
to change the name of the binary.
--
.''`. Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
`- me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.
Ben Hutchings
> >xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
> >Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
> >or something (apparently).
>
> >So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
> >or wodim?
>
> You need to blame the people who are responsible for removing cdrecord
> and who started to include a fork (wodim) that cannot be legally distributed.
You're the one who distributes a legally dubious mixture of code covered
by GPLv2 and CDDL.
> Just add cdrecord from:
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
>
> and you get a legal and working system.
If by "working" you mean "complaining about every way that Linux differs
from Schilix". How is Schilix going, by the way? Do you have a second
user yet?
Ben.
Joerg Schilling
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 09:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > >xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
> > >Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
> > >or something (apparently).
> >
> > >So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
> > >or wodim?
> >
> > You need to blame the people who are responsible for removing cdrecord
> > and who started to include a fork (wodim) that cannot be legally distributed.
>
> You're the one who distributes a legally dubious mixture of code covered
> by GPLv2 and CDDL.
There is no "dubious" mixture..... even the FSF admits that GPLd code may use
CDDLd libraries from other projects (as done inside cdrtools which is a
collection of sevreral independent projects). The original software had a
full in depth legal review from the Sun legal department and Sun-legal did
not find any problem. Distributions that are interested in shipping working
legal software ship the original software.
The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
- The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
legally distributed.
- The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
distributed.
- The fork is full of bugs that have been introduced by the person who
initiated the fork and for this reason did not get the permission
to use the original name. Note that it is not even allowed to ship
symlinks with the original names as this makes users believe that
they use the original software.
If you like to blame a specific person for the current problems, you need to
blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who
ripped off the working DVD support code, who introduced dozens of new bugs and
who stopped working on the fork on May 6th 2007, leaving the fork
unmaintained. An interesting aspect of this person is that he started to
advertize for Nerolinux after May 6th 2007. It seems that he never was
interested in supporting FROSS but in causing harm for FROSS.
If you look at the bug tracking systems of the Linux distributors that
ship the illegal fork, you see a total of aprox. 100 bugs (many of them are
showstopper bugs) that are specific to the fork..... Upgrading to recent
original software from:
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
fixes all bugs from the bug-tracking systems that are not caused by packaging,
bugs in the Linux kernel or bugs in the Linux variant of hald.
What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
If Debian is interested in being a FROSS oriented distro that listenes to the
demands of their users, it seems to be obvious to admit that following the
person who introduced the fork was a mistake. He is longer active at Debian,
it should be simple to write a note on that this person caused harm to the
credibility of Debian and to this way correct a previous mistake.
Alexander Reichle-Schmehl
Ben Hutchings schrieb:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 09:28 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> [..] cdrecord [..]
>>> [..] wodim [..]
Please, not again. The arguments have been exchanged ad invinitum a couple
of times already. So if there is nothing new to bring up, please don't
restart the discussion.
Best regards,
Alexander
Brett Parker
> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> legally distributed.
Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
> - The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
> distributed.
Errr, in what way?
> - The fork is full of bugs that have been introduced by the person who
> initiated the fork and for this reason did not get the permission
> to use the original name. Note that it is not even allowed to ship
> symlinks with the original names as this makes users believe that
> they use the original software.
As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
one notices.
> If you like to blame a specific person for the current problems, you need to
> blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who
> ripped off the working DVD support code, who introduced dozens of new bugs and
> who stopped working on the fork on May 6th 2007, leaving the fork
> unmaintained. An interesting aspect of this person is that he started to
> advertize for Nerolinux after May 6th 2007. It seems that he never was
> interested in supporting FROSS but in causing harm for FROSS.
Very outdated version because of the licencing issues introduced by you
stopping a fork at any later version...
> If you look at the bug tracking systems of the Linux distributors that
> ship the illegal fork, you see a total of aprox. 100 bugs (many of them are
> showstopper bugs) that are specific to the fork..... Upgrading to recent
> original software from:
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
The fact that says 'alpha' of course inspires us all with confidence.
> fixes all bugs from the bug-tracking systems that are not caused by packaging,
> bugs in the Linux kernel or bugs in the Linux variant of hald.
So, it doesn't fix all the bugs, then. So, that's completely irrelevant,
you still have bugs. Well done.
> What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
> disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
Err, being a long term Debian user, I'd like to know where you get the
impression that it "disgusts Debian users" - you appear to be confusing
yourself with a Debian users. As I understand it, you wouldn't use a
Debian system if it was the last system available on earth, and so you
don't qualify as a user. Sorry.
> If Debian is interested in being a FROSS oriented distro that listenes to the
> demands of their users, it seems to be obvious to admit that following the
> person who introduced the fork was a mistake. He is longer active at Debian,
> it should be simple to write a note on that this person caused harm to the
> credibility of Debian and to this way correct a previous mistake.
Errr. Right. I think you are mistaken. Now, according to you nothing has
changed since May 2007, I can see - clearly - from
http://www.cdrkit.org/ that the last release was actually 2008/10/26,
I'd suggest that's neither 2007, or May. On the other hand, maybe I'm
incapable of parsing dates or actually looking things up.
Ho hum,
--
Brett Parker
Everything in this mail is my opinion. So there.
Josselin Mouette
écrit :
> Please, not again. The arguments have been exchanged ad invinitum a couple
> of times already. So if there is nothing new to bring up, please don't
> restart the discussion.
Why? It’s quite funny to discuss with Joerg Schilling. I prefer to do it
in private, but it is good to have some of the discussions in public: I
believe it strengthens the project by giving developers a common target,
instead of hurting each other in internal fights.
Cheers,
Giacomo A. Catenazzi
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 12:58 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a
> écrit :
>> Please, not again. The arguments have been exchanged ad invinitum a couple
>> of times already. So if there is nothing new to bring up, please don't
>> restart the discussion.
>
> Why? It’s quite funny to discuss with Joerg Schilling. I prefer to do it
> in private, but it is good to have some of the discussions in public: I
> believe it strengthens the project by giving developers a common target,
> instead of hurting each other in internal fights.
But hit hurts me, and I think also Debian in general.
ciao
cate
Joerg Schilling
> On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > legally distributed.
>
> Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
> half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
> sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and legal.
Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the fork
that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
See my bug report from December 2006.
> > - The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
> > distributed.
>
> Errr, in what way?
See my bug report from December 2006.
>
> > - The fork is full of bugs that have been introduced by the person who
> > initiated the fork and for this reason did not get the permission
> > to use the original name. Note that it is not even allowed to ship
> > symlinks with the original names as this makes users believe that
> > they use the original software.
>
> As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
> of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
> one notices.
It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in working
CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100 Bug Reports
against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat,
none of the reports applies to the original software.
> > If you like to blame a specific person for the current problems, you need to
> > blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who
> > ripped off the working DVD support code, who introduced dozens of new bugs and
> > who stopped working on the fork on May 6th 2007, leaving the fork
> > unmaintained. An interesting aspect of this person is that he started to
> > advertize for Nerolinux after May 6th 2007. It seems that he never was
> > interested in supporting FROSS but in causing harm for FROSS.
>
> Very outdated version because of the licencing issues introduced by you
> stopping a fork at any later version...
The original software did not introduce licensing issues. Please do not spread
FUD. The original code had a full legal review by the Sun legal department.
The fork however is undistributable because some people ignored the rules from
GPL and Copyright law.
> > If you look at the bug tracking systems of the Linux distributors that
> > ship the illegal fork, you see a total of aprox. 100 bugs (many of them are
> > showstopper bugs) that are specific to the fork..... Upgrading to recent
> > original software from:
> >
> > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
>
> The fact that says 'alpha' of course inspires us all with confidence.
The quality of the original software is much better than the quality of the
fork.
The minimal requirements for a "stable release" is that the software does not
have known bugs at release time. Using this rule, there never has been _any_
release from the fork while at the same time there have been 50 stable releases
from the orignal software.
> > fixes all bugs from the bug-tracking systems that are not caused by packaging,
> > bugs in the Linux kernel or bugs in the Linux variant of hald.
>
> So, it doesn't fix all the bugs, then. So, that's completely irrelevant,
> you still have bugs. Well done.
It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known
bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
unmodified source.
> > What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
> > disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
>
> Err, being a long term Debian user, I'd like to know where you get the
> impression that it "disgusts Debian users" - you appear to be confusing
> yourself with a Debian users. As I understand it, you wouldn't use a
> Debian system if it was the last system available on earth, and so you
> don't qualify as a user. Sorry.
Don't you read the bug reports? You seem to have missed the contact to the
debian users.....
> > If Debian is interested in being a FROSS oriented distro that listenes to the
> > demands of their users, it seems to be obvious to admit that following the
> > person who introduced the fork was a mistake. He is longer active at Debian,
> > it should be simple to write a note on that this person caused harm to the
> > credibility of Debian and to this way correct a previous mistake.
>
> Errr. Right. I think you are mistaken. Now, according to you nothing has
> changed since May 2007, I can see - clearly - from
> http://www.cdrkit.org/ that the last release was actually 2008/10/26,
> I'd suggest that's neither 2007, or May. On the other hand, maybe I'm
> incapable of parsing dates or actually looking things up.
Single character spelling changes cannot count as active development.
Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?
If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.
Please note: I believe that there is no resaon for Debian to continue to
support the person "Eduard Bloch". With his activities on cdrtools, he did harm
the credibilty of Debian. As this person is no longer active since nearly two
years, it should be the right time to stop arguing based on his attacks.
What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there is
mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently work for
Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform yourself based
on neutral information instead of the attacks from this person. The next step
would be to delete the incorrect claims and the slander from the Debian servers
that have been written by this person.
The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
compile it and install it (the latter as root) by calling "make install".
Then take the Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat buglist and test all the bugs against
the original software. You will find that all documented problem disappear once
you are using the original software (note that you may need to withdraw several
changes to other software that have been introduced to let them call cdrkit
instead of the original 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
Joerg Schilling
If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
**************
Josselin Mouette <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 13:55 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 12:57 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > > If Debian likes to get sued...
> > >
> > > Nobody likes it, but since you keep claiming around and around that what
> > > we are doing is illegal, maybe it is time to see on what grounds you are
> > > saying that.
> >
> > The fork _is_ illegal and it is bad to see that Debian did hide the related bug
> > report I made in December 2006.
>
> I???ll teach you something then: trying to intimidate people by making
> legal threats without ground is illegal in many countries. Either you
> prove they have ground (and you???ll have to go to court for that), or you
> stop making such threats *right now*.
A good point: Debian currently spreads several unproven claims about the
original software. It would help a lot of these claims were removed.
> > The original software on the other side is legal.
>
> Of course, since you are the author you can do whatever you want with
> it. However, the restrictions you impose on redistribution don???t allow
> us to distribute it as we want to.
This is wrong: I don't impose any restriction that makes the original code
undistributable. The fork however includes modifications that are incompatible
with the requirements from the Copyright law and the GPL.
> > I am not sure what software you are referring to.....
> > If you are _really_ sure about this, then I recommend you to fix the bugs in
> > your software. I get however lots of reports from various users who successfully
> > replaced the non-working fork by the working original software.
>
> I seriously doubt they can use any serious and modern frontend with the
> version you are currently distributing.
If you see problems with any frontend, you should make a bug report. The
original software works as documented. If there is any frontend does not work, it
has been broken and needs to be fixed.
BTW:
- K3b preferres the original cdrtools because they work correctly.
- Xcdroast also works correctly if you use the original software.
There are many reports from people who replaced the fork by unmodified original
software in order to finally be able to write CDs and DVDs.
> > > especially because of the lack of UTF-8 support. After all, Unicode is
> > > only a 18-year old standard, so I understand it is a bit too much to ask
> > > for its support.
> >
> > So why is there no UTF-8 support in the fork, you even have a related bug
> > report in the debian bug tracking?
>
> This report is clearly bogus. The reason why UTF-8 is not listed is that
> it is the charset that is selected when no option is specified.
>
> Several frontends to genisoimage/wodim *only* work with UTF-8 filenames.
> If they were serious issues with it, believe me, we???d know it.
You are uninformed and it does not make sense to continue the discussion
unless you first inform yourself:
- The fork introduced a non-working fake "implementation" for UTF-8 and
for this reason, there is a related bug report in the debian bug
tracking system.
- The original software implements a fully working UTF-8 support
> > wodim still has a lot more bugs than the outdated original it was based on.
>
> Show them. Come on.
I encourage you to read the Debian bug tracking system!
None of the bugs listed in the debian bug tracking system applies to the
original software.
Jörg
Josselin Mouette
very rude behavior.
Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> **************
> If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
> properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
> **************
The email you are replying to declares:
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na"
[snip]
--=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
See? “charset=UTF-8”. I’m using a mail client that understands encodings
that have been developed less than 20 years ago.
> > Of course, since you are the author you can do whatever you want with
> > it. However, the restrictions you impose on redistribution don???t allow
> > us to distribute it as we want to.
>
> This is wrong: I don't impose any restriction that makes the original code
> undistributable. The fork however includes modifications that are incompatible
> with the requirements from the Copyright law and the GPL.
Repeating yourself over and over again is not going to make your claims
true.
> > I seriously doubt they can use any serious and modern frontend with the
> > version you are currently distributing.
>
> If you see problems with any frontend, you should make a bug report. The
> original software works as documented. If there is any frontend does not work, it
> has been broken and needs to be fixed.
Indeed, the frontends have all been fixed, by calling wodim instead of
cdrecord. And now they work as expected.
> There are many reports from people who replaced the fork by unmodified original
> software in order to finally be able to write CDs and DVDs.
Please forward us such reports of people doing that successfully within
Debian; this looks like a lot of fun. Not forgetting that distributing
such solutions would violate the licensing of several of the frontends.
> > > wodim still has a lot more bugs than the outdated original it was based on.
> >
> > Show them. Come on.
>
> I encourage you to read the Debian bug tracking system!
Sorry, but simple reports are not convincing without analysis. Please
show where the bugs come from, and explain why they don’t apply to
cdrecord.
Brett Parker
> Brett Parker <iDu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > legally distributed.
> >
> > Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
> > half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
> > sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
>
> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and legal.
> Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the fork
> that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.
Is this the one that doesn't actually give any details but does just
randomly say the above? i.e. insubstantiated claims, and further
spreading of FUD?
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the GPL and thus may not be legally
> > > distributed.
> >
> > Errr, in what way?
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.
See above.
> >
> > > - The fork is full of bugs that have been introduced by the person who
> > > initiated the fork and for this reason did not get the permission
> > > to use the original name. Note that it is not even allowed to ship
> > > symlinks with the original names as this makes users believe that
> > > they use the original software.
> >
> > As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
> > of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
> > one notices.
>
> It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in working
> CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100 Bug Reports
> against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat,
> none of the reports applies to the original software.
Interesting - so, in your (somewhat naive) opinion - the *only* cd
burning software worth mentioning is your very own pet project... weird
that you would be so biased on that isn't it?
Does this mean that you're also blissfully unaware of the cdskin and
libburn projects? Apparently not everyone that is interesting in working
CD/DVD creation wants to use your software - apparently not everyone in
the world agrees with your view point. Now, kindly drop the FUD
spreading that your software is the only working software in the world
(there are plenty, for example, of free CD/DVD creation tools for the
Windows operating system, I suppose you'll claim all of those are using
your code? Yeah. Right.).
I'm very interested in *working* CD/DVD creation, and I've been very
happy with cdrkit - if you're telling me that the CDs/DVDs that I have
created (and used) with wodim don't work, then I'm *amazed*!
> > > If you like to blame a specific person for the current problems, you need to
> > > blame the person who started the "fork" based on very a outdated version, who
> > > ripped off the working DVD support code, who introduced dozens of new bugs and
> > > who stopped working on the fork on May 6th 2007, leaving the fork
> > > unmaintained. An interesting aspect of this person is that he started to
> > > advertize for Nerolinux after May 6th 2007. It seems that he never was
> > > interested in supporting FROSS but in causing harm for FROSS.
> >
> > Very outdated version because of the licencing issues introduced by you
> > stopping a fork at any later version...
>
> The original software did not introduce licensing issues. Please do not spread
> FUD. The original code had a full legal review by the Sun legal department.
> The fork however is undistributable because some people ignored the rules from
> GPL and Copyright law.
Which rules? The author ignored the GPL by adding invariant sections,
certainly. Well done.
> > > If you look at the bug tracking systems of the Linux distributors that
> > > ship the illegal fork, you see a total of aprox. 100 bugs (many of them are
> > > showstopper bugs) that are specific to the fork..... Upgrading to recent
> > > original software from:
> > >
> > > ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
> >
> > The fact that says 'alpha' of course inspires us all with confidence.
>
> The quality of the original software is much better than the quality of the
> fork.
That is, of course, purely your opinion.
> The minimal requirements for a "stable release" is that the software does not
> have known bugs at release time. Using this rule, there never has been _any_
> release from the fork while at the same time there have been 50 stable releases
> from the orignal software.
Ahh - but unknown bugs are fine... and I'd suggest that if you've done
50 releases since then, then you've had plenty of unknown bugs on the
way - using this metric, I don't believe that you've ever made a stable
release.
> > > fixes all bugs from the bug-tracking systems that are not caused by packaging,
> > > bugs in the Linux kernel or bugs in the Linux variant of hald.
> >
> > So, it doesn't fix all the bugs, then. So, that's completely irrelevant,
> > you still have bugs. Well done.
>
> It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
> even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known
> bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
> unmodified source.
But it is your duty to claim that anything other than your software is a
grave travesty and continue spreading unfounded claims? And I have to
*believe* you that they're all fixed? Maybe it's just that no body files
bug reports with you...
> > > What is the reason for shipping software that is undistributable and that
> > > disgusts the Debian users because it is full of unneeded bugs?
> >
> > Err, being a long term Debian user, I'd like to know where you get the
> > impression that it "disgusts Debian users" - you appear to be confusing
> > yourself with a Debian users. As I understand it, you wouldn't use a
> > Debian system if it was the last system available on earth, and so you
> > don't qualify as a user. Sorry.
>
> Don't you read the bug reports? You seem to have missed the contact to the
> debian users.....
>
> > > If Debian is interested in being a FROSS oriented distro that listenes to the
> > > demands of their users, it seems to be obvious to admit that following the
> > > person who introduced the fork was a mistake. He is longer active at Debian,
> > > it should be simple to write a note on that this person caused harm to the
> > > credibility of Debian and to this way correct a previous mistake.
> >
> > Errr. Right. I think you are mistaken. Now, according to you nothing has
> > changed since May 2007, I can see - clearly - from
> > http://www.cdrkit.org/ that the last release was actually 2008/10/26,
> > I'd suggest that's neither 2007, or May. On the other hand, maybe I'm
> > incapable of parsing dates or actually looking things up.
>
> Single character spelling changes cannot count as active development.
>
> Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
> bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?
I'm interested in where you're finding the showstopping bugs - looking
at the bug reports page for wodim, I can see 9 Important bugs - that's
not a whole lot of bugs, really. And most of them can probably be closed
now that lenny has been released and a newer version of cdrkit is in it.
> If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
> undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.
Err, the fork is perfectly distributable.
We are interested in our users, however, and as such that is why the
fork was created.
> Please note: I believe that there is no resaon for Debian to continue to
> support the person "Eduard Bloch". With his activities on cdrtools, he did harm
> the credibilty of Debian. As this person is no longer active since nearly two
> years, it should be the right time to stop arguing based on his attacks.
I think you'll find the current leader and release manager (and, infact,
DD in charge of) cdrkit is Joerg Jaspert - as can be clearly seen at the
bottom of www.cdrkit.org.
> What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there is
> mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently work for
> Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform yourself based
> on neutral information instead of the attacks from this person. The next step
> would be to delete the incorrect claims and the slander from the Debian servers
> that have been written by this person.
We're not focusing on the "attacks" from that person - what we focus on
is being able to modify the source in appropriate ways - your changes to
the source (i.e. declaring parts of it unmodifiable, going against the
GPL) prevented us from actually being able to do our job.
> The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
No, that wouldn't be a third step - and as you appear to just be trying
to get google juice for that URL by repeatedly pasting it in to a public
archived mailing list, you may end up losing out.
> compile it and install it (the latter as root) by calling "make install".
> Then take the Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat buglist and test all the bugs against
> the original software. You will find that all documented problem disappear once
> you are using the original software (note that you may need to withdraw several
> changes to other software that have been introduced to let them call cdrkit
> instead of the original software).
Marvellous - unpackaged, non-security supported software - just what we
all *love* on our systems.
You'll find that I don't suffer from the "documented problems" as you
put them to start off with, so why should I risk using something else
that may or may not work, and might just install a root kit instead.
"Thanks",
--
Brett Parker
Josselin Mouette
> > The email you are replying to declares:
> >
> > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na"
> > [snip]
> > --=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> claim.
Are you actually contesting the contents of a PGP-signed email ?
Now *that* is very interesting.
> So please fix your mailer
There is nothing broken in my mailer; it conforms to RFC 1847 (Security
Multiparts for MIME). Yours does not.
Joerg Schilling
> Please don???t forward private replies to a public mailing list: this is
> very rude behavior.
Well, this is an open discussion and I see no reason not to share your rude
replies with others.....
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 17:08 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > **************
> > If you are using a coding other than 7-Bit ASCII or ISO-8859-1, you need to
> > properly declare your transfer encoding. Please fix your mail client!
> > **************
>
> The email you are replying to declares:
>
> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na"
> [snip]
> --=-QLLn2OxCNRVAvKDPZ8Na
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is not true, your mail does not contain the content encoding type line you
claim.
My mail (the one you did reply to) on the other side is correct:
...
In-Reply-To: <1235654190.5228.47.camel@shizuru>
User-Agent: nail 11.22 3/20/05
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-Path: Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
So please fix your mailer
> > If you see problems with any frontend, you should make a bug report. The
> > original software works as documented. If there is any frontend does not work, it
> > has been broken and needs to be fixed.
>
> Indeed, the frontends have all been fixed, by calling wodim instead of
> cdrecord. And now they work as expected.
If you believe that breaking a frontend is a godd idea, then you should
not be a maintainer.
> > There are many reports from people who replaced the fork by unmodified original
> > software in order to finally be able to write CDs and DVDs.
>
> Please forward us such reports of people doing that successfully within
> Debian; this looks like a lot of fun. Not forgetting that distributing
> such solutions would violate the licensing of several of the frontends.
Please read the Debian bugtracking system for at least 70% of the typical well
known bugs in the fork...Note that you may need to check _all_ entries even
those declared as "closed" as many of them never have been fixed in the code.
> > > > wodim still has a lot more bugs than the outdated original it was based on.
> > >
> > > Show them. Come on.
> >
> > I encourage you to read the Debian bug tracking system!
>
> Sorry, but simple reports are not convincing without analysis. Please
> show where the bugs come from, and explain why they don???t apply to
> cdrecord.
I recommend you to read the Debian bug tracking system. If you do not
understand the reports and their background, you do not seem have the
needed skills for a dicussion on the problems.
The bug reports in the Debian bug tracking system do not apply to cdrtools
because they either have been introduced by Eduard Bloch and thus never have
been in the original software or because they have been fixed years ago in the
original software but obviously not in the fork.
Kai Wasserbäch
The only thing I remember is an ancient (2006) discussion on heise online (and
probably elsewhere too) [0] (German only, sorry) about this topic and all this
has been brought forward and not backed up by any proofs. Back then the last
reply was not to reply... could we please skip to that part. It's just not worth
the effort.
@all the DDs/DMs and all other contributors: please don't feed the troll. ;)
Thanks,
Kai
[0] http://www.heise.de/open/news/foren/forum-104357/msg-11172557/read/
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
>> xcdroast is looking for cdrecord, which does no longer exist in Debian
>> Sid (apparently). And wodim does no longer provide a symlink as cdrecord
>> or something (apparently).
>
>> So: xcdroast does no longer work. Who is to blame (Bug entry): xcdroats
>> or wodim?
>
> You need to blame the people who are responsible for removing cdrecord
> and who started to include a fork (wodim) that cannot be legally distributed.
>
> Just add cdrecord from:
>
> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
>
> and you get a legal and working system.
>
> Jörg
--
Kai Wasserbäch (Kai Wasserbaech)
E-Mail: deb...@carbon-project.org
Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt
URL: http://wiki.debianforum.de/Drizzt_Do%27Urden
GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2 0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2
(http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xE1DE59D2&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op=vindex)
John Goerzen
>
> The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
>
> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> legally distributed.
If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
do what it does.
If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
first place.
ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.
So please do not tell us to adopt your source tree for main because a
fork is illegal. The cognitive dissonance in that statement is amazing.
-- John
Joerg Schilling
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> >
> > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> >
> > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > legally distributed.
>
> If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
> do what it does.
It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.
> If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
> first place.
> ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.
The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
things that are forbidden by law.
Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
initiave:
No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
with the Copyright holders.
Eduard Bloch made a big mistake, he started a deffamation campaign against
cdrtools and Debian made the mistake to support Eduard Bloch.
I don't know whether you are able to change the named mistake, but please note
that I am the copyright holder for the vast majority of the cdrtools code. I am
licensing the code and I am able to sue people for Copyright violations on the
code, Debian is not. If Debian claims they might be sued because of so called
license problems in the original software, this is just FUD. I am not
interested to sue people as long as there is a chance to have a solution that
does not need a court. If Debian however continues to attack me, Debian should
be aware that at some point I am forced to sue people for violating GPL and
Copyright law with the fork.
So let me ask: Is Debian willing to "play nicely" with me in the future or is
Debian interested in continuing the attacks?
In case you don't know: My main interest is to make sure that the software I
write remains free and I am doing whaterver I need to ensure this. The license
change in cdrtools is a _reaction_ on the attacks from Eduard Bloch. So whom
does Debian support? Is it Eduard Bloch who is the initiator of the attacks or
is Debian interested rather in Free Software?
I am writing Free Software since 1982, this is much longer than Debian exists.
I support Freedom and if Debian is against Freedom, I cannot support Debian.
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
Darren Salt
> On 26 Feb 15:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Brett Parker <iDu...@sommitrealweird.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 26 Feb 11:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
>>>> legally distributed.
>>> Err, it's a fork of the GPL2 code, before you went insane and relicenced
>>> half of it to CDDL and added random "Don't change this" invariant
>>> sections - how do you see it conflicting with Copyright law?
>> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and
>> legal. Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the
>> fork that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>> See my bug report from December 2006.
> Is this the one that doesn't actually give any details but does just
> randomly say the above? i.e. insubstantiated claims, and further spreading
> of FUD?
Indeed it is he. He makes for an interesting diversion for a few days (if the
posting rate isn't too high) before it tails off into the same old "wodim is
full of bugs and is illegal! cdrecord is perfect! Use it and gain the
Blessing of St. Joerg!"[1] rant, at which point we all switch off and ignore
him.
[snip]
>> It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in
>> working CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100
>> Bug Reports against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian,
>> Ubuntu and Redhat, none of the reports applies to the original software.
(... idly wonders how many of those 100 are duplicates, but can't be bothered
to check...)
> Interesting - so, in your (somewhat naive) opinion - the *only* cd burning
> software worth mentioning is your very own pet project... weird that you
> would be so biased on that isn't it?
> Does this mean that you're also blissfully unaware of the cdskin and
> libburn projects?
... yes, this thread is following the usual track. I fully expect any
response from St. Joerg to say something like
"But they're not cdrecord; they are not The Original Software. All ye who use
them commit the gravest of sins; and all thy CDs and all thy DVDs shall all
be defective; and ye shall burn forever in the Light of the Perfect Laser
which the Eye of Schilling issueth and the Software of Schilling
controlleth."
[snip]
>> It is not my duty to "fix" Linux kernel bugs or hald bugs if there is not
>> even a way to work around these bugs. But believe me that _all_ well known
>> bugs from the fork disappear if you install the original software from an
>> unmodified source.
> But it is your duty to claim that anything other than your software is a
> grave travesty and continue spreading unfounded claims? And I have to
> *believe* you that they're all fixed? Maybe it's just that no body files
> bug reports with you...
I wouldn't be surprised to find that he reads the bug trackers of Debian, Red
Hat, Ubuntu etc. then goes off and does some bug fixing.
[snip]
>> Please explain me why there are so many showstopper bugs in the Debian
>> bugtracking system that are unfixed since 2+ years?
> I'm interested in where you're finding the showstopping bugs - looking at
> the bug reports page for wodim, I can see 9 Important bugs - that's not a
> whole lot of bugs, really. And most of them can probably be closed now that
> lenny has been released and a newer version of cdrkit is in it.
That's easy. It's a bug in wodim, therefore it's a showstopper. :-)
>> If you are interested in your users, you should upgrade from the
>> undistributable fork to the legal original source as soon as possible.
> Err, the fork is perfectly distributable.
He repeats it in the hope that somebody will believe him. It happens
occasionally (I've seen it), and my opinion is that the one so gulled by him
is, for want of a better word, uninformed. [2]
[snip]
>> What I read here and from other prople in private mail shows that there
>> is mainly missing information at the side of the people who currently
>> work for Debian. I good starter would be if you and others try to inform
>> yourself based on neutral information
Did that.
>> instead of the attacks from this person.
The attacks continued.
"You are uninformed."
"Inform yourself."
"cdrecord is the master of all. All other software *must* *be*
*exterminated*. Go forth, my informed ones, seek it out and destroy it.
EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! *EXTERMINATE!*" [3]
[snip]
>> The third step would be to fetch the latest original source from:
>> ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/
> No, that wouldn't be a third step - and as you appear to just be trying
> to get google juice for that URL by repeatedly pasting it in to a public
> archived mailing list, you may end up losing out.
Hmm, so I shouldn't quote ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/? Why not?
I like quoting ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/. (Muhahaha.)
[snip]
> "Thanks",
<AOL>.
(Now where did I put that popcorn...)
[1] I might be exaggerating. Slightly. Just a smidgeon. Hardly worth
mentioning at all, really.
[2] Actually, I'm not sure that I *want* a better word there.
[3] He wishes. (Allegedly.)
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | user of wodim | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | and growisofs | Army
| + Output less CO2 => avoid boiling weather. TIME IS RUNNING OUT *FAST*.
Never insult an alligator until you've crossed the river.
Darren Salt
[snip rebuttal of "fork is not legally distributable"]
> So please do not tell us to adopt your source tree for main because a
> fork is illegal. The cognitive dissonance in that statement is amazing.
I've just worked it out. He's an Electric Monk.
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | Northumberland | Army
| + Travel less. Share transport more. PRODUCE LESS CARBON DIOXIDE.
I am Eliza of Borg. How does assimilation make you feel?
John Goerzen
> John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> wrote:
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
>>>
>>> - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
>>> legally distributed.
>> If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
>> do what it does.
>
> It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
> constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
> allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.
>
>> If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
>> first place.
>
>> ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.
>
> The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
> because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
When will you enumerate these?
Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.
By enumerate, I mean at the line-by-line level in the source.
I found the rest of your message similarly vague; you said people made
mistakes, that Debian attacked you. URLs please?
-- John
Josselin Mouette
> So please do not tell us to adopt your source tree for main because a
> fork is illegal. The cognitive dissonance in that statement is amazing.
For someone who can invent contents of PGP-signed emails, inventing
legal breaches is like breathing.
--
Joerg Schilling fact #17: cdrecord has no bugs. If you think you found a
bug in cdrecord, this is actually a bug in your eyes.
Darren Salt
> Joerg Schilling wrote:
[snip]
>> The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no
>> longer because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
> When will you enumerate these?
What, and leave him without an argument? Can't have that.
[snip]
--
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | again representing | Toon
| RISC OS, Linux | youmustbejoking,demon,co,uk | myself, not Debian | Army
| + Burn less waste. Use less packaging. Waste less. USE FEWER RESOURCES.
Look under the sofa cushion; you will be surprised at what you find.
Benjamin M. A'Lee
> As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
> software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
> things that are forbidden by law.
>
> Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
> initiave:
>
> No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
> in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
> they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
> with the Copyright holders.
Uh, citation needed. "Giving you all grants you need to change anything
in the source" is practically the definition of an open-source licence,
with the exception of removing the original copyright and licence
notices.
What changes have been made that are supposedly illegal? (Note that
introducing new bugs is, sadly, not illegal anywhere that I know of. If
it were, Microsoft would've been out of business years ago, along with
probably everybody else. ;) )
--
Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk
web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0
William Pitcock
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 00:18 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> wrote:
>
> > Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > >
> > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > legally distributed.
> >
> > If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
> > do what it does.
>
> It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
> constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
> allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.
While I personally do not use wodim, simply because wodim does not
inspire much confidence with me being based on cdrecord, I have a few
observations:
1. If your code was licensed correctly, and there wasn't concerns about
it's quality, then nobody inside Debian would have forked it.
2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
anything published describing problems with cdrecord would be the
opinions of wodim's authors, not the Debian project itself, or the wodim
project itself. As a result, no personal harm to your reputation has
been done in the context of the Urheberrechtsgesetz[1] by the fork of
cdrecord itself. As a result, it appears that your argument that the
fork of cdrecord being illegal is actually invalid.
3. You might be taken more seriously at this point if you didn't act
like a toddler. I'm just saying... every time this subject comes up, you
show up and whine and whine and whine. It's doing you no good. Try
something else, like improving cdrecord with your time instead of
wasting it whining here.
Please note that I haven't even tried wodim. I suspect it is not any
better than cdrecord, and further I don't care. All of the burning apps
I use are based around libburn, which seems to have a drama-free
maintainer. I consider that to be a good thing, the fact that it
supports more than just CD burning without any bogus license key-based
closed-source "cdrecord-pro" software is a plus.
[1] Everyone here should read the Urheberrechtsgesetz here
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/UrhG.htm and stop listening to
Joerg's bollocks. He appears to be very misinformed.
>
> > If your code wasn't Free Software, then we wouldn't be using it in the
> > first place.
>
> > ISTR that your code WAS free, but now isn't.
>
> The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
> because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
What changes are those? Can you identify them? "All of them" is not a
valid response here, just FYI.
>
> As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
> software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
> things that are forbidden by law.
I am pretty sure Eduard knows what he is doing.
>
> Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
> initiave:
>
> No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
> in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
> they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
> with the Copyright holders.
Just because you can sue someone does not make their actions illegal. I
can sue somebody for skipping a rock across a puddle in their own
property, mind I would be laughed out of court for doing this, but I
hope you see my point here.
>
> Eduard Bloch made a big mistake, he started a deffamation campaign against
> cdrtools and Debian made the mistake to support Eduard Bloch.
>
> I don't know whether you are able to change the named mistake, but please note
> that I am the copyright holder for the vast majority of the cdrtools code. I am
> licensing the code and I am able to sue people for Copyright violations on the
> code, Debian is not. If Debian claims they might be sued because of so called
> license problems in the original software, this is just FUD. I am not
> interested to sue people as long as there is a chance to have a solution that
> does not need a court. If Debian however continues to attack me, Debian should
> be aware that at some point I am forced to sue people for violating GPL and
> Copyright law with the fork.
>
People who make threats should be fully prepared to deal with backlash
from those threats. How will Fraunhofer handle such a public relations
disaster? You may want to keep this in consideration before continuing
with legal threats, as I am pretty sure that it will be all over
slashdot, and Fraunhofer will likely be asked for a comment.
> So let me ask: Is Debian willing to "play nicely" with me in the future or is
> Debian interested in continuing the attacks?
>
> In case you don't know: My main interest is to make sure that the software I
> write remains free and I am doing whaterver I need to ensure this. The license
> change in cdrtools is a _reaction_ on the attacks from Eduard Bloch. So whom
> does Debian support? Is it Eduard Bloch who is the initiator of the attacks or
> is Debian interested rather in Free Software?
>
Please go away with your threats. We're tired of hearing about it.
If you want people to play nice; you should be prepared to do so
yourself. Instead all we see is temper-tantrums. If you want to work
with the wodim team to resolve any conflicts, than you should employ
some diplomacy to do so. Right now your behaviour does not seem very
diplomatic; and I have failed to find any diplomatic contact between you
and the wodim authors in the past. If I am wrong, please produce
e-mails.
As I see it, the problem here is *you*. So maybe *you* need to change
your strategy. Because I am pretty sure that you do not scare anybody
with these threats.
> I am writing Free Software since 1982, this is much longer than Debian exists.
> I support Freedom and if Debian is against Freedom, I cannot support Debian.
>
I find this statement patently absurd. You clearly do not support
Freedom, as you are inhibiting on Debian's rights to distribute wodim.
Hypocrite.
Joerg Schilling
> > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is no longer
> > because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
>
> When will you enumerate these?
>
> Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.
As long as Debian hides related Bug reports and as long as Debian continues to
publish slander against me and my software, I cannot see any will to change the
current situation that is 100% a result of activities from some people that
called themself "Debian maintainers".
Explaining the situation in more details, than I did in the open during the past
years already, takes time. Please understand that I am not going to waste my
time with trolls. Debian as whole did lose any credibility because of the
cdrtools attacks that have been initated by Eduard Bloch and that have been
supported by other Debian people. If you are seriously interested to change
this situation, give me a strong sign that there is a will at Debian to get
rid of the situation that has been created by Eduard Bloch by attacking me and
my projects in 2004 .....
As I mentioned already: the license change in cdrtools was a _reaction_ on the
attacks run by Eduard Bloch and others. The attacks from this person started in
May 2004 as personal attacks and increased over time. I understand that in
bigger associations there is a higher probability to also have bad people but
any assicoation needs to find ways to deal with problems that result from
bad people's actions.
Are aou interested to change this situation?
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
Jean Parpaillon
you are finished talking, type RET twice.
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 11:03:55 Joerg Schilling, vous avez écrit :
> John Goerzen <jgoe...@complete.org> wrote:
> > > The code that was taken by Debian for the fork WAS free but now it is
> > > no longer because Debian did apply changes that are forbidden by law.
> >
> > When will you enumerate these?
> >
> > Until you do, I can't see your arguments being taken seriously by anyone.
>
> As long as Debian hides related Bug reports and as long as Debian continues
> to publish slander against me and my software, I cannot see any will to
> change the current situation that is 100% a result of activities from some
> people that called themself "Debian maintainers".
Is it because is 100% a result of activities from some people that
called themself debian maintainers that you came to me?
>
> Explaining the situation in more details, than I did in the open during the
> past years already, takes time. Please understand that I am not going to
> waste my time with trolls.
Does it bother you that you are not going to waste your time with
trolls?
> Debian as whole did lose any credibility because
> of the cdrtools attacks that have been initated by Eduard Bloch and that
> have been supported by other Debian people.
Are you sure that is the real reason?
> If you are seriously interested
> to change this situation, give me a strong sign that there is a will at
> Debian to get rid of the situation that has been created by Eduard Bloch by
> attacking me and my projects in 2004 .....
When did you first know that there is a will at debian to get rid of
the situation that has been created by eduard bloch by attacking you
and your projects in 2004?
>
> As I mentioned already: the license change in cdrtools was a _reaction_ on
> the attacks run by Eduard Bloch and others.
Why do you say that?
> The attacks from this person
> started in May 2004 as personal attacks and increased over time.
Earlier you said is 100% a result of activities from some people that
called themself debian maintainers?
> I
> understand that in bigger associations there is a higher probability to
> also have bad people but any assicoation needs to find ways to deal with
> problems that result from bad people's actions.
Is the fact that in bigger associations there is a higher probability
to also have bad people but any assicoation needs to find ways to deal
with problems that result from bad people's actions the real reason?
>
> Are aou interested to change this situation?
>
Maybe the cdrtools attacks that have been initated by eduard bloch and
that have been supported by other debian people have something to do
with this.
> Jörg
>
Can you elaborate on that?
> --
> 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
--
Jean Parpaillon - Kerlabs
Engineer
Bâtiment Germanium
80 avenue des buttes de Coësmes
35700 Rennes - France
Tel.: +33 6 80 332 73 85
http://www.kerlabs.com/
William Pitcock
> Before Eduard Bloch made insane modifications, the code was GPLv2 and legal.
> Now the cude is undistributable because of modifications in the fork
> that are incompatible with the Copyright law.
>
> See my bug report from December 2006.
>
Please provide a URL for this supposed bug report. I have spent the last
30 minutes datamining bugs.debian.org for it, and have found nothing
other than replies to other bug reports from you which mostly have to do
with whining.
William
Joerg Schilling
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
> > software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
> > things that are forbidden by law.
> >
> > Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
> > initiave:
> >
> > No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
> > in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
> > they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
> > with the Copyright holders.
>
> Uh, citation needed. "Giving you all grants you need to change anything
> in the source" is practically the definition of an open-source licence,
> with the exception of removing the original copyright and licence
> notices.
I recommend you to read the Copyright law:
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
There are rights that _cannot_ be given away.
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
Benjamin M. A'Lee
> "Benjamin M. A'Lee" <bma-...@subvert.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:18:07AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > As you don't know what grants and what duties you have when dealing with free
> > > software, please try to inform yourself. You may get into trouble if you change
> > > things that are forbidden by law.
> > >
> > > Let me quote the license person from the board of directors from the OpenSource
> > > initiave:
> > >
> > > No OpenSource license gives you all grants you need to change anything
> > > in the source. If the authors or Copyright holders of a software like,
> > > they may always sue you. If you like to avoid being sued, play nicely
> > > with the Copyright holders.
> >
> > Uh, citation needed. "Giving you all grants you need to change anything
> > in the source" is practically the definition of an open-source licence,
> > with the exception of removing the original copyright and licence
> > notices.
>
> I recommend you to read the Copyright law:
>
> http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
>
> There are rights that _cannot_ be given away.
Which of these rights do you consider is being infringed?
--
Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk
web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0
Ben Finney
> Le jeudi 26 février 2009 à 12:58 +0100, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl a
> écrit :
> > Please, not again. The arguments have been exchanged ad invinitum
> > a couple of times already. So if there is nothing new to bring up,
> > please don't restart the discussion.
>
> Why? It’s quite funny to discuss with Joerg Schilling.
No, it's not. It is juvenile, and if it doesn't constructively advance
the discussion, needlessly inflames hostile sentiment.
> I prefer to do it in private, but it is good to have some of the
> discussions in public: I believe it strengthens the project by
> giving developers a common target, instead of hurting each other in
> internal fights.
I disagree completely. It weakens the project, by encouraging puerile
behaviour no better than poking an anthill. To remain strong, a
community needs to deprecate such behaviour, not encourage it.
Far better to keep those discussions outside the context of a Debian
discussion forum, if they need to happen at all, instead of playing
games that require attacks upon others. Please stop making the
situation worse.
If you want a way for people to let off steam, find a way to do it
that doesn't involve treating anyone as a “target”.
--
\ “Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe |
`\ or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” —Arthur C. Clarke, |
_o__) 1999 |
Ben Finney
William Pitcock
> William Pitcock <nen...@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > > > >
> > > > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > > > legally distributed.
> > > >
> > > > If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
> > > > do what it does.
> > >
> > > It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
> > > constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
> > > allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.
> >
> > While I personally do not use wodim, simply because wodim does not
> > inspire much confidence with me being based on cdrecord, I have a few
> > observations:
> >
> > 1. If your code was licensed correctly, and there wasn't concerns about
> > it's quality, then nobody inside Debian would have forked it.
>
> are some "Debian maintainers" that rather attack software authors instead of
> colaborating.
It is impossible to collaborate when you add invariant sections to the
code. Well done.
Generally it is considered to be bad taste when you change the licensing
rules abruptly.
>
> wodim has been created by Eduard Bloch because he is a person who is interested
> in actively preventing collaboration.
>
I am sorry that you are hurt about that, but get over it.
> The attacks run by him started in May 2004 and at that time he did already
> create broken (buy him) versions of cdrecord and shipped them as Debian package.
>
>
> > 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> > cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
>
> There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the fork.
I have a solution that I think will make us all happy.
Why not just get rid of cdrkit and write some nice wrappers for cdrecord
and other components of cdrtools using libburn/libisofs. That way we get
a CD/DVD/BD burning engine that isn't originated from *you*, so *you*
can't complain about it anymore.
If cdrkit is as buggy as you claim, and you are so busy trolling, then I
feel that we cannot hold confidence in your product either. Good job on
that.
After all, if we aren't using your code or any derivative of your code,
then you have no reason to complain at us.
William
Joerg Schilling
> > > > The fork distributed by Debian may however be called dubious:
> > > >
> > > > - The fork is in conflict with the Copyright law and thus may not be
> > > > legally distributed.
> > >
> > > If your code was Free Software, then it is perfectly legal for Debian to
> > > do what it does.
> >
> > It seems that you first need to learn what Free Software means and what
> > constraints the License and the Copyright law enforce. A Free software license
> > allows you to do many things, it does definitely not allow you what Debian did.
>
> While I personally do not use wodim, simply because wodim does not
> inspire much confidence with me being based on cdrecord, I have a few
> observations:
>
> 1. If your code was licensed correctly, and there wasn't concerns about
> it's quality, then nobody inside Debian would have forked it.
This is an asumption that is only true in a "nice world". Unfortunately, there
are some "Debian maintainers" that rather attack software authors instead of
colaborating.
wodim has been created by Eduard Bloch because he is a person who is interested
in actively preventing collaboration.
The attacks run by him started in May 2004 and at that time he did already
create broken (buy him) versions of cdrecord and shipped them as Debian package.
> 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the 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
Norbert Preining
> that doesn't involve treating anyone as a “target”.
It's not "anyone", it is simply "one", and that "one" is making himself
anyway prime target with openly declaring all Linux developers as
completely incompetent programmers, and he (who has never written an
operating system, although contributing to Solaris) is the only one with
ideas on how everything should be.
Come on, that *is* a good target, even of higher interest. This guy
should be brought either down to reality, or to a .... (uups I don't
utter it here or I will get sooo many flames).
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <prei...@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <prei...@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of memory.
We wish to hold the whole sky,
But we never will.
--- Windows Error Haiku
William Pitcock
> William Pitcock <nen...@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > are some "Debian maintainers" that rather attack software authors instead of
> > > colaborating.
> >
> > It is impossible to collaborate when you add invariant sections to the
> > code. Well done.
>
> maintainer.
>
So what?
>
> > Generally it is considered to be bad taste when you change the licensing
> > rules abruptly.
>
> It is generally considered bad taste to offend and to try to blackmail the
> Copyright holder. As this has been done by the Debian package maintainer,
> Debian should not complain. Note that the license change was caused by
> attacks from a Debian maintainer and that the license change that was done
> in an agreement with the other authors.
What does Eduard being a Debian maintainer have to do with it? Also,
ISTR Eduard no longer being involved in Debian at all, or cdrkit.
William
Roger Leigh
> William Pitcock <nen...@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
>
> There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the fork.
Please provide specific details, rather than vaguely defined "major
problems".
Are we talking about copyright infringement, licence infringement, or
what?
Which lines in which files?
Your current "SCO" approach is not productive.
Thanks,
Roger
--
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Joerg Schilling
> > are some "Debian maintainers" that rather attack software authors instead of
> > colaborating.
>
> It is impossible to collaborate when you add invariant sections to the
> code. Well done.
This is a text that has been created in collaboration a former Debian
maintainer.
> Generally it is considered to be bad taste when you change the licensing
> rules abruptly.
It is generally considered bad taste to offend and to try to blackmail the
Copyright holder. As this has been done by the Debian package maintainer,
Debian should not complain. Note that the license change was caused by
attacks from a Debian maintainer and that the license change that was done
in an agreement with the other authors.
Jörg
Josselin Mouette
> > http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/index.html
> >
> > There are rights that _cannot_ be given away.
>
> Which of these rights do you consider is being infringed?
He’s talking about moral rights, which exist in several Europe
countries. They include:
* the right to get the work back and ask everyone using it to stop
doing so, with the condition to indemnify them for the losses
(in France, this right does not apply to software, and IIRC this
is the same in Germany);
* the right to oppose a modification of the work - for Software,
this does only apply to modifications affecting the honor or
reputation of the author.
This is the latter right that Jörg Schilling is trying to apply. But for
that he needs to show how the modifications affect his honor or
reputation.
So far, the only things affecting JS’s honor and reputation are the
emails he sent, so I think we’re pretty safe on this topic.
Joerg Schilling
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > William Pitcock <nen...@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> > > cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
> >
> > There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the fork.
>
> Please provide specific details, rather than vaguely defined "major
> problems".
Read the related entry in the Debian bugtracking system before asking me for
details.
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
Holger Levsen
flaming, trolling and shitting on -devel is not useful for the general
audience, even is some people think it is.
/me fully agrees with <874oygd...@benfinney.id.au>
Joerg Schilling
> > > Generally it is considered to be bad taste when you change the licensing
> > > rules abruptly.
> >
> > It is generally considered bad taste to offend and to try to blackmail the
> > Copyright holder. As this has been done by the Debian package maintainer,
> > Debian should not complain. Note that the license change was caused by
> > attacks from a Debian maintainer and that the license change that was done
> > in an agreement with the other authors.
>
> What does Eduard being a Debian maintainer have to do with it? Also,
> ISTR Eduard no longer being involved in Debian at all, or cdrkit.
Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did under
the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
appeared at Debian.
Josselin Mouette
> Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did under
> the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
> appeared at Debian.
Change your license, and maybe we’ll be able to think of collaborating.
As for excuses, I guess we could be fine with excuses from you for all
the shit you said about Debian for the last years.
Josselin Mouette
Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 13:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> Josselin Mouette <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did under
> > > the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
> > > appeared at Debian.
> >
> > Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
>
> You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me.
Maybe you should buy yourself an English dictionary. Since you don’t
seem to understand this word, the German word for it is “Erpressung”.
This is a serious accusation, and it has nothing to do with imposing
conditions (Vorbedingung) or negotiation (Verhandlung).
For example, if you go to a butcher’s, you can have a steak, but you
won’t have it until you pay. That’s not blackmailing. The butcher is not
forcing you to pay: you can just go away without a steak and that’s all.
The same goes for Debian. You can collaborate with us, but only about
software that’s released under a free licensing scheme. If you don’t
want that, you can go piss away some other people, and we won’t care.
That’s all.
William Pitcock
> Roger Leigh <rle...@codelibre.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:38AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > William Pitcock <nen...@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2. I am not convinced that there is any legal issue with the fork of
> > > > cdrecord as wodim; it is clearly identified that it is a fork, and
> > >
> > > There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the fork.
> >
> > Please provide specific details, rather than vaguely defined "major
> > problems".
>
> Read the related entry in the Debian bugtracking system before asking me for
> details.
>
Can you provide a URL to this entry? I have still yet to find it.
William
Joerg Schilling
> Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did under
> > the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
> > appeared at Debian.
>
> Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me.
Have a nice day and try to steal other people's time.....
Joerg Schilling
> Note: you still haven???t fixed your email client.
>
> Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 13:34 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > Josselin Mouette <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Le vendredi 27 février 2009 à 12:37 +0100, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
> > > > Then it seems the right time for Debian to excuse for what Mr. Bloch did under
> > > > the name of Debian and to start to collaborate again as usual before he
> > > > appeared at Debian.
> > >
> > > Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
> >
> > You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me.
>
> Maybe you should buy yourself an English dictionary. Since you don???t
> seem to understand this word, the German word for it is ???Erpressung???.
> This is a serious accusation, and it has nothing to do with imposing
> conditions (Vorbedingung) or negotiation (Verhandlung).
It seems that you do not understant what freedom means - try to inform yourself
before popping up again.
Kalle Kivimaa
> Josselin Mouette <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
>> Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
>
> You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me.
Stating a fact is not blackmail. As SFLC has determined that CDDL and
GPL are incompatible [1], Debian is unable to distribute any software
which contains code with those two licenses mixed in. If you wish for
the cdrtools to be included in Debian (or in any major Linux
distribution), you should fix that problem. This is nonnegotiable, as
we would be breaking the copyright law by distributing software for
which we have no license to do so.
If you feel that the SFLC's opinion is wrong, you are of course free
to provide us with competent legal advice countering SFLC's opinion.
[1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news-team/2009-February/000413.html
--
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *
Alberto Garcia
> > > > There definitely _is_ a major legal problem with the fork.
> > > Please provide specific details, rather than vaguely defined
> > > "major problems".
> > Read the related entry in the Debian bugtracking system before
> > asking me for details.
> Can you provide a URL to this entry? I have still yet to find it.
I have to say that for a person who doesn't know the exact details of
the fork, this thread is quite vague (especially for its size).
So I googled a bit. There's a bit of background here:
http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/
And the bug report is probably this one:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
Berto
Bernd Zeimetz
> So I googled a bit. There's a bit of background here:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/
>
> And the bug report is probably this one:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
Which doesn't say anything more specific. It plays on the same level as this
thread here. And the only thing that will happen is that I run out of popcorn
and become fat.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
Reinhard Tartler
> If you feel that the SFLC's opinion is wrong, you are of course free
> to provide us with competent legal advice countering SFLC's opinion.
opinions can only be proven right or wrong in court. It seems that Sun's
opinion is that the combination doesn't impose redistribution problems,
whereas SFLC's opinion differs. Debian's arguments pretty much match
SFLC's.
The main problem here is that Joerg seems to be more interested in
having proved that opinion wrong than in actually getting his software
packaged and distributed in Linux distributions.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
George Danchev
> Kalle Kivimaa <kil...@debian.org> writes:
> > If you feel that the SFLC's opinion is wrong, you are of course free
> > to provide us with competent legal advice countering SFLC's opinion.
>
> opinions can only be proven right or wrong in court. It seems that Sun's
> opinion is that the combination doesn't impose redistribution problems,
> whereas SFLC's opinion differs. Debian's arguments pretty much match
> SFLC's.
OTOH, no court is able to prevent people to express their own opinion unless
one lives in a regime jurisdiction.
> The main problem here is that Joerg seems to be more interested in
> having proved that opinion wrong than in actually getting his software
> packaged and distributed in Linux distributions.
This is not very interesting, since we can live without Joerg's software. I
for one have been using cdrskin for more than 3 years now quite happily. By
the way, any help in maintaining libburn/libisofs/libisoburn/cdrskin packages
would be appreciated.
P.S. Btw, not that I care about JS, but what I'm *very* interested in is to
hear the opinion of Fraunhofer when they read all the mailing list traffic
genereated by their employee (OpenBSD's mailing lists included, since they
have also been badly bombarded in the past by similar topics around star
licensing "discussions").
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Russell Coker
> I have to say that for a person who doesn't know the exact details of
> the fork, this thread is quite vague (especially for its size).
>
> So I googled a bit. There's a bit of background here:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/
>
> And the bug report is probably this one:
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377109
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joerg_Schilling
I notice that Joerg's Wikipedia page is rather bare.
Instead of spending time covering all the old arguments on this list, perhaps
some people could add links (such as the ones you cited) to Joerg's Wikipedia
page. A Wikipedia page about Joerg that is remotely complete and also
neutral requires a reference to these issues (the current page only has two
paragraphs).
--
rus...@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog
Goswin von Brederlow
> On 26 Feb 15:47, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> It seems that you are spreding FUD. Everybody who is interested in working
>> CD/DVD creating uses the original software. There are nearly 100 Bug Reports
>> against the fork in the bug tracking systems from Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat,
>> none of the reports applies to the original software.
>
> Interesting - so, in your (somewhat naive) opinion - the *only* cd
> burning software worth mentioning is your very own pet project... weird
> that you would be so biased on that isn't it?
No. He is saying that all the many Debian, Ubuntu and RedHat users
that use wodim and find and report bugs are not interested in creating
working CD/DVD. We obvisously only burn CD/DVD to be used as coasters
or they would be using the original software.
I've just added a set of Debian Lenny amd64 and i386 DVDs to my
coaster collection.
> Does this mean that you're also blissfully unaware of the cdskin and
> libburn projects? Apparently not everyone that is interesting in working
> CD/DVD creation wants to use your software - apparently not everyone in
> the world agrees with your view point. Now, kindly drop the FUD
> spreading that your software is the only working software in the world
> (there are plenty, for example, of free CD/DVD creation tools for the
> Windows operating system, I suppose you'll claim all of those are using
> your code? Yeah. Right.).
>
> I'm very interested in *working* CD/DVD creation, and I've been very
> happy with cdrkit - if you're telling me that the CDs/DVDs that I have
> created (and used) with wodim don't work, then I'm *amazed*!
They don't work. You didn't use them successfully. You didn't even
burn them as wodim is totaly broken. He told me the same about the
about 1000 dvds I've burned under Debian.
These are not the droids you are looking for. *hand wave*
MfG
Goswin
PS: If I burn a Windows CD with wodim do I violate the copyright?
After all Schilli assured me it won't work so I can't be pirating,
right?
Goswin von Brederlow
> Kalle Kivimaa <kil...@debian.org> writes:
>
>> If you feel that the SFLC's opinion is wrong, you are of course free
>> to provide us with competent legal advice countering SFLC's opinion.
>
> opinions can only be proven right or wrong in court. It seems that Sun's
> opinion is that the combination doesn't impose redistribution problems,
> whereas SFLC's opinion differs. Debian's arguments pretty much match
> SFLC's.
>
> The main problem here is that Joerg seems to be more interested in
> having proved that opinion wrong than in actually getting his software
> packaged and distributed in Linux distributions.
No. He is not interested in proving it one way or the other or he
would go to court. He just wan't to write about it.
MfG
Goswin
Arthur de Jong
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joerg_Schilling
>
> I notice that Joerg's Wikipedia page is rather bare.
>
> Instead of spending time covering all the old arguments on this list,
> perhaps some people could add links (such as the ones you cited) to
> Joerg's Wikipedia page. A Wikipedia page about Joerg that is remotely
> complete and also neutral requires a reference to these issues (the
> current page only has two paragraphs).
Have a look at the cdrtools page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools
The cdrkit page also has some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit
--
-- arthur - ade...@debian.org - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
Russell Coker
> > The main problem here is that Joerg seems to be more interested in
> > having proved that opinion wrong than in actually getting his software
> > packaged and distributed in Linux distributions.
>
> No. He is not interested in proving it one way or the other or he
> would go to court. He just wan't to write about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jörg_Schilling
Could you please find some references to support your claims and use them to
update the above Wikipedia page?
--
rus...@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog
William Pitcock
> On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 12:43 +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joerg_Schilling
> >
> > I notice that Joerg's Wikipedia page is rather bare.
> >
> > Instead of spending time covering all the old arguments on this list,
> > perhaps some people could add links (such as the ones you cited) to
> > Joerg's Wikipedia page. A Wikipedia page about Joerg that is remotely
> > complete and also neutral requires a reference to these issues (the
> > current page only has two paragraphs).
>
> Have a look at the cdrtools page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools
>
> The cdrkit page also has some info:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit
>
We should take information from those pages and copyedit them into
something suitable for inclusion on Joerg's page. The best part is Joerg
will probably try to delete it, but it will be reverted due to
"vandalism".
William
Russell Coker
> > Have a look at the cdrtools page:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools
> >
> > The cdrkit page also has some info:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit
>
> We should take information from those pages and copyedit them into
> something suitable for inclusion on Joerg's page. The best part is Joerg
> will probably try to delete it, but it will be reverted due to
> "vandalism".
There is no requirement of "we" for editing Wikipedia. If you believe that
something needs doing then go ahead and give it your best shot. If you
believe that you can't quite nail it then do the best you can and ask for
assistance in polishing it.
As for Joerg trying to delete it, there is no evidence so far of him being a
wiki vandal. It should be possible to create a version of his page which
captures all the essential facts in a neutral tone that doesn't offend him.
Speaking for myself, if you were to create a Wikipedia page about me that
included quotes from some of my best arguments in support of a topic that
mattered to me then I would be quite happy with that. I don't think that I'm
notable enough - just in case anyone is considering doing so.
Joerg Schilling
> Joerg.S...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) writes:
> > Josselin Mouette <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
> >> Change your license, and maybe we???ll be able to think of collaborating.
> >
> > You seem to be unable for collaboration as you try to blackmail me.
>
> Stating a fact is not blackmail. As SFLC has determined that CDDL and
> GPL are incompatible [1], Debian is unable to distribute any software
...
> If you feel that the SFLC's opinion is wrong, you are of course free
> to provide us with competent legal advice countering SFLC's opinion.
>
> [1] https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news-team/2009-February/000413.html
I prefer to listen to credible statements.....
The only true claim in the quoted text is that Mark Shuttleworth did stop his
attempt to switch to cdrtools - I am sorry to see his change in supporting
OpenSource
His change in mind was based on intentionally wrong and self contradicting
statements made by Eben Moglen.
I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
mkisofs. These statements from Eben Moglen (made to me in private) are not
self contradicting and thus more credible (*). Given the fact that the Sun legal
department also made a full in depth legal review for cdrtools and did not find
and problem, I am still waiting for a fact based proof for the so-called problem.
*) He even concurs with me that the claims about CDDL GPL compatibility made
on the web pages from the FSF are wrong.
Let me conclude: the claim that there is a license problem in the original
cdrtools is nothing but libel.
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
Norbert Preining
> I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
> there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
> mkisofs. These statements from Eben Moglen (made to me in private) are not
> *) He even concurs with me that the claims about CDDL GPL compatibility made
> on the web pages from the FSF are wrong.
Then why don't you ask him to make this statement available to the
general public? That is the only way to resolve that dilemma.
Nobody here can trust on a private email you are telling us to have.
Without proof of that email, either by an open statement of Moglen, or
you publishing that email and Moglen agreeing with it, why should anyone
trust you/the email.
Gedankenexperiment: I have a private email from Sun's lawyers department
that states that the combinations is indeed a problem and they already
start in the background a re-licensing.
> Let me conclude: the claim that there is a license problem in the original
> cdrtools is nothing but libel.
Proof needed. A private email does not count as long as it is not open.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <prei...@logic.at> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <prei...@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOK Meanwhile, the starship has landed on the surface
of Magrathea and Trillian is about to make one of the most
important statements of her life. Its importance is not
immediately recognised by her companions.
TRILL. Hey, my white mice have escaped.
ZAPHOD Nuts to your white mice.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Steve Langasek
> I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
> there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
> mkisofs.
Yes, I have a private mail exchange with Jesus that corroborates this.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slan...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
George Danchev
> > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news-team/2009-February/000413.h
> >tml
>
> I prefer to listen to credible statements.....
>
> The only true claim in the quoted text is that Mark Shuttleworth did stop
> his attempt to switch to cdrtools - I am sorry to see his change in
> supporting OpenSource
>
> His change in mind was based on intentionally wrong and self contradicting
> statements made by Eben Moglen.
>
> I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
> there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
> mkisofs. These statements from Eben Moglen (made to me in private) are not
> self contradicting and thus more credible (*). Given the fact that the Sun
> legal department also made a full in depth legal review for cdrtools and
> did not find and problem, I am still waiting for a fact based proof for the
> so-called problem.
Are you stating that the statements of the vice president of marketing for
Sun's operating platforms group were not credible?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050205022937327
Note, this is a public statement, not a mystic private mail exchange.
> *) He even concurs with me that the claims about CDDL GPL compatibility
> made on the web pages from the FSF are wrong.
You should explain in full depth to FSF and SMI their own creations.
> Let me conclude: the claim that there is a license problem in the original
> cdrtools is nothing but libel.
Yes, the Sunshine is also a libel, while the Sunset is not. Makes sense?
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Russell Coker
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 05:31:36PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
> > there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used
> > in mkisofs.
>
> Yes, I have a private mail exchange with Jesus that corroborates this.
Jesus says entirely different things in his email to me. I think that the
email you received was from Lucifer.
--
rus...@coker.com.au
http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Main Blog
http://doc.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog
Joerg Schilling
> On Sunday 01 March 2009 18:31:36 Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-news-team/2009-February/000413.h
> > >tml
> >
> > I prefer to listen to credible statements.....
> >
> > The only true claim in the quoted text is that Mark Shuttleworth did stop
> > his attempt to switch to cdrtools - I am sorry to see his change in
> > supporting OpenSource
> >
> > His change in mind was based on intentionally wrong and self contradicting
> > statements made by Eben Moglen.
> >
> > I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
> > there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
> > mkisofs. These statements from Eben Moglen (made to me in private) are not
> > self contradicting and thus more credible (*). Given the fact that the Sun
> > legal department also made a full in depth legal review for cdrtools and
> > did not find and problem, I am still waiting for a fact based proof for the
> > so-called problem.
>
> Are you stating that the statements of the vice president of marketing for
> Sun's operating platforms group were not credible?
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050205022937327
I see no relation between this and cdrtools.
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
Michelle Konzack
> As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
> of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
> one notices.
I have 35 TEAC CD-Burner, 18 TraxData and a bunch of Yamaha.
All they are SCSI and not a singel one is working with wodim.
The same goes for my 4 DVD burners which are SCSI too.
Since I have the CD-Burner in production, I have not the time to check
wodim years for bugs.
I have installed cdrecord and it just work like Nero4linux with the
difference, that Nero can handel only one Burner @once but cdrecors all
28 TEAC burner on the installed 4 Cards @once...
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
<http://www.tamay-dogan.net/> <http://www.can4linux.org/>
Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886
+49/177/9351947 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi
+33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Joerg Schilling
> On So, 01 Mär 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > I have a private mail exchange with Eben Moglen where Moglen explains why
> > there is no problem with the specific GPL CDDL combination that is used in
> > mkisofs. These statements from Eben Moglen (made to me in private) are not
> [...]
> > *) He even concurs with me that the claims about CDDL GPL compatibility made
> > on the web pages from the FSF are wrong.
>
> Then why don't you ask him to make this statement available to the
> general public? That is the only way to resolve that dilemma.
publishing the related mail alone would not help because you need to understand
the legal background in order to understand the mail exchange.
As long as people in this list are not interested in understanding the legal
background, there is no difference whether the mail is made public or not.
As Moglens recent and incorrect claims have already been made public, Moglen
has no longer the right to keep the private mail exchange secret - it is the
only way to proove that he is no longer correct. But I will nut publish the
private mail exchange unless there is proof that I am giving this information
to open minded people who understand the text in it's relevence.
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
Josselin Mouette
> As long as people in this list are not interested in understanding the legal
> background, there is no difference whether the mail is made public or not.
>
> As Moglens recent and incorrect claims have already been made public, Moglen
> has no longer the right to keep the private mail exchange secret - it is the
> only way to proove that he is no longer correct. But I will nut publish the
> private mail exchange unless there is proof that I am giving this information
> to open minded people who understand the text in it's relevence.
Jörg, it’s you who are asking for something to begin with.
If you don’t publish this email, we will simply not believe you, that’s
all.
(Also, if you publish it, please make sure that it is PGP-signed - even
if your mailer doesn’t handle it.)
Josselin Mouette
> I have 35 TEAC CD-Burner, 18 TraxData and a bunch of Yamaha.
> All they are SCSI and not a singel one is working with wodim.
>
> The same goes for my 4 DVD burners which are SCSI too.
>
> Since I have the CD-Burner in production, I have not the time to check
> wodim years for bugs.
>
> I have installed cdrecord and it just work like Nero4linux with the
> difference, that Nero can handel only one Burner @once but cdrecors all
> 28 TEAC burner on the installed 4 Cards @once...
Unfortunately, as such, we are not going to distribute either Nero
(which is non-free) nor cdrecord (which is undistributable). If you are
interested into improving CD burning support in Debian, you’re welcome
to either help fixing these bugs in wodim or help resolving the
licensing situation of cdrecord.
Thanks,
Michelle Konzack
> Unfortunately, as such, we are not going to distribute either Nero
> (which is non-free) nor cdrecord (which is undistributable). If you are
> interested into improving CD burning support in Debian, you’re welcome
> to either help fixing these bugs in wodim or help resolving the
> licensing situation of cdrecord.
Josselin, HOW can someone try to support something, if SCSI support is
droped? The SCSI support require VERY MUCH working on it and I have NO
CLUE about SCSI programming.
Even my old CDR-55S where working up to Woody perfectly and then from
one day to anoter, SCSI support was droped.
Wodim claim to burn a CD/DVD and then after it is finished, the CD is
empty. Not even touched and broken. It spinned for 15-20 minutes and
thats all.
Since it s not possibel to install wodim and cdrecord in parallel, there
is no way for testing. And I am burning arround 500 CD's and 120 DVD's
per day (for a customer).
Steve McIntyre
>Am 2009-03-01 23:35:17, schrieb Josselin Mouette:
>> Unfortunately, as such, we are not going to distribute either Nero
>> (which is non-free) nor cdrecord (which is undistributable). If you are
>> interested into improving CD burning support in Debian, you’re welcome
>> to either help fixing these bugs in wodim or help resolving the
>> licensing situation of cdrecord.
>
>Josselin, HOW can someone try to support something, if SCSI support is
>droped? The SCSI support require VERY MUCH working on it and I have NO
>CLUE about SCSI programming.
Michelle,
You may have no clue about SCSI programming, but I'd hope you have
some about how to report bugs. I don't see any wodim bugs from you
describing your problem, which makes it a little difficult for us to
do anything for you.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
"I suspect most samba developers are already technically insane... Of
course, since many of them are Australians, you can't tell." -- Linus Torvalds
Miguel Gea Milvaques
> I am writing Free Software since 1982, this is much longer than Debian exists.
> I support Freedom and if Debian is against Freedom, I cannot support Debian.
Jajajajajajajajajaja.... Now we have a new Micro$oft-Debian xDDDDDDDDDD
Michelle Konzack
Am 2009-03-02 00:23:47, schrieb Steve McIntyre:
> Michelle,
>
> You may have no clue about SCSI programming, but I'd hope you have
> some about how to report bugs. I don't see any wodim bugs from you
> describing your problem, which makes it a little difficult for us to
> do anything for you.
I had installed wodim and before I send a bugreport, I try to figure out
whats going on. And all I know was, that wodim told me after 20 minutes
the CD was ready... No error message or something like this.
So, if I write a bugreport:
----8<---------------------------------------------
Package: wodim
Version: x.y.z
Severity: normal
wodim does not work and I can not tell you why,
because there are no errors.
----8<---------------------------------------------
You would anser:
----8<---------------------------------------------
To: NNNN-done@...
Subject: User is a A....le
...does not know how to write bugreports
----8<---------------------------------------------
It took me two month to figure out what happen: wodim is ignoring SCSI
error messages, something Jöerg has written something like this (I think
over two years ago).
Sorry, but I have no time to figure out, why a burner station with 28
attached SCSI does not work...
wodim was a little bit to frustrating...
And now with Lenny, my whole system produce per day two hand full
coredums (the Openoffice cd's are always between 600 and 900 MByte,
iceweasel, pidgin, gimp, sometimes mutt, courier,...)
Some of the coredumps are here:
<http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/coredumps/>
And since I am on GSM/GPRS/UMTS (Upstream arround 10kByte/sec) ist is
not realy funny to upload a compressed coredump of 43 MByte on my Server
Note: I have installed two production systems where the first is
Lenny and the second Etch where Etch is working but Lenny
show problems in mass. Under Etch I have sound, but the
same configuration under Lenny does not enable the
Loudspeaker. There is NOT a singel error message.
Car is SB Live 5.1! and an onboard VIA.
It is frustrating because when I started for exactly 10 years in march
1999 with 2.1/Slink and it worked perfectly... nearly from scratch!
Michelle Konzack
>> I am writing Free Software since 1982, this is much longer than Debian exists.
>> I support Freedom and if Debian is against Freedom, I cannot support Debian.
Fsck! -- thats definitiveliy b...s..t!
> Jajajajajajajajajaja.... Now we have a new Micro$oft-Debian xDDDDDDDDDD
I wish I had at least a STM-1 at home, I would you send you all 300
coredumps since the release weekend of Lenny...
I have over 16 GByte of coredumps: OpenOffice, Iceweasel, mutt, pidgin,
FvwmForm, mimedecode, gimp, mc, ...
Some are here: <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/coredumps/> and I
can not more upload since I am on GSM and ma sped and traffic is limited
Memnon Anon
> Michelle wrote:
>>Josselin, HOW can someone try to support something, if SCSI support is
>>droped? The SCSI support require VERY MUCH working on it and I have NO
>>CLUE about SCSI programming.
>
> Michelle,
>
> You may have no clue about SCSI programming, but I'd hope you have
> some about how to report bugs. I don't see any wodim bugs from you
> describing your problem, which makes it a little difficult for us to
> do anything for you.
Okay. I could /kick/ myself for answering anything in this thread, but I
have to.
I have no clue about the law-side of this, but from a mere user side:
(debian user since potato)
Do I think, Joerg Schilling is a pleasant upstream to work with?
No.
Do I think, Joerg Schilling is good in communication or only really
trying to reestabilish a good relationship?
Certainly not!
But! From a user-only perspective:
Do I think that the software Joerg Schilling provides is superior?
Yes.
I saw several distributions turning away from Schilli software, yet,
several of them returned. People are lazy, they do not always write
bug reports, even if they should. But I saw people on debian.user
and debian.user.german, who got their devices working, when
Debian packages failed.
I am not certain, I am no "code writer", still, this is my impression.
So, do I say, Debian should revert its policy?
No!
If Debian as a whole considers this software as non-free, or at least
as debatable, fine. Thats a reason, and I certainly trust debian more
than a single person or some obscure emails.
Debian stands for freedom, and every single debian user knows:
If you use debian, there (might be some, but generally speaking)
are no compromises to this. Great!
But, on the other hand, please do not try to stress that the debian
fork is as good as Schillings. It is not necessary, the
non-free argument is enough!
To all the maintainers of the fork:
I sincerely beg your pardon, if my impression is just wrong,
and I really consider every work for debian important.
This is my impression, and as this thread more and more
circles around "bugs in wodim" etc., especially, since a posting,
stating that wodim does _not_ work for everyone as fine,
gets the "You sent no bugreport" answer (which is true!, but imho
reflects the experience of a lot of people out there)
, I wanted to share my impression.
Someone in this thread mentioned something like, that users are clever
enough to not fall for this wrong statements, that the fork has more bugs.
Sorry, I do. Still, I think debian is better of without Schillings software.
/me should just shut up.
Feel free to correct me or ignore my posting.
I certainly will say no more on this topic...
Don Armstrong
> I had installed wodim and before I send a bugreport, I try to figure
> out whats going on. And all I know was, that wodim told me after 20
> minutes the CD was ready... No error message or something like this.
So then you have:
1) wodim tries to burn cd
2) cd doesn't actually start burning
3) wodim reports success anyway
These three things form a perfectly legitimate bug report, provided
that you combine them with other information about the drive you're
burning to, etc.
> It took me two month to figure out what happen: wodim is ignoring
> SCSI error messages, something Jöerg has written something like this
> (I think over two years ago).
There's still no bug report filed by you against wodim, AFAICT.
Complaining about bugs in software when you haven't cared enough about
the bug to even file them is a non-starter.
> Sorry, but I have no time to figure out, why a burner station with
> 28 attached SCSI does not work...
And yet you expect a volunteer to find time to magically find out
about your problem and fix it?
> And now with Lenny, my whole system produce per day two hand full
> coredums (the Openoffice cd's are always between 600 and 900 MByte,
> iceweasel, pidgin, gimp, sometimes mutt, courier,...)
>
> Some of the coredumps are here:
> <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/coredumps/>
>
> And since I am on GSM/GPRS/UMTS (Upstream arround 10kByte/sec) ist is
> not realy funny to upload a compressed coredump of 43 MByte on my Server
As near as I can tell, none of these coredumps have corresponding
bugs. Please file them. It's impossible for maintainers of packages to
resolve problems that are affecting you if they don't know about them.
Finally, if your network situtation is really poor, you can always
examine the coredump yourself; it's not that difficult. If a
maintainer needs something specific run on it, they'll ask you for it.
Don Armstrong
--
He was wrong. Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them
neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a
lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the Marie Celeste, and
the chuck keys for electric drills.
-- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p166
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
William Pitcock
> Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 à 22:31 +0100, Michelle Konzack a écrit :
> > I have 35 TEAC CD-Burner, 18 TraxData and a bunch of Yamaha.
> > All they are SCSI and not a singel one is working with wodim.
> >
> > The same goes for my 4 DVD burners which are SCSI too.
> >
> > Since I have the CD-Burner in production, I have not the time to check
> > wodim years for bugs.
> >
> > I have installed cdrecord and it just work like Nero4linux with the
> > difference, that Nero can handel only one Burner @once but cdrecors all
> > 28 TEAC burner on the installed 4 Cards @once...
>
> Unfortunately, as such, we are not going to distribute either Nero
> (which is non-free) nor cdrecord (which is undistributable). If you are
> interested into improving CD burning support in Debian, you’re welcome
> to either help fixing these bugs in wodim or help resolving the
> licensing situation of cdrecord.
Or look into libburn + cdrskin, which should "just work".
William
George Danchev
> Am 2009-02-26 12:46:25, schrieb Brett Parker:
> > As someone that uses wodim quite a bit, I've not noticed it to be "full
> > of bugs", so I'd suggest that you're spreading FUD and hoping that no
> > one notices.
>
> I have 35 TEAC CD-Burner, 18 TraxData and a bunch of Yamaha.
> All they are SCSI and not a singel one is working with wodim.
>
> The same goes for my 4 DVD burners which are SCSI too.
>
> Since I have the CD-Burner in production, I have not the time to check
> wodim years for bugs.
Could you please instlall cdrskin and try to burn your data too. It provides
some of the cdrecord/wodim options in a compatible way, so you should feel it
familiar. Exhaustive examples are given in the manpage, and of course if
something unexpected happens, please gather all the related information
(messages and drive description included) and file a bug report as usual. In
case some info is missing we can ask later on. Thanks.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Goswin von Brederlow
> But! From a user-only perspective:
>
> Do I think that the software Joerg Schilling provides is superior?
> Yes.
I've tried it back when Debian still had a cdrecord and that, on
request by Joerg Schilling, did not include the dvd burning patch. One
had to rebuild the cdrecord package with the "dvd=yes"
manually. Debian users where deprived of DVD burning in the official
package just to accomodate Joerg Schilling. So much for the then
maintainer not trying to work with him.
First I installed his cdrecord and then it still just said the media
is to big for a CD. So you hunt some more and find the DVD
version. Grudgingly I installed that and it complained about not
having a license key. The fun of non-free software. Some more hunting
to find out there is a key at no cost for linux users and getting that
installed and it still couldn't burn DVDs.
apt-get source cdrecord
sensible-editor debian/rules to set dvd=yes
debuild -us -uc
sudo dpkg -i cdrecord*deb
Worked perfectly ever since.
> I saw several distributions turning away from Schilli software, yet,
> several of them returned. People are lazy, they do not always write
> bug reports, even if they should. But I saw people on debian.user
> and debian.user.german, who got their devices working, when
> Debian packages failed.
This might be cruel but I don't care at all about those people. Software
does not fix itself. By not reporting bugs they have lost the right to
complain about it. Call it a cost of free/open software. Nobody claims
Debian software is free as in beer, only free as in speech. It just
makes me sad that people are unwilling to spend the 5 minutes it takes
to run reportbug and detail what burnder they have and how the problem
presents itself.
> I am not certain, I am no "code writer", still, this is my impression.
There seem to be experiences going both ways. That is a common effect
in forks. Both will fix the bugs that people report or experience
themself and those don't always match.
> So, do I say, Debian should revert its policy?
> No!
>
> If Debian as a whole considers this software as non-free, or at least
> as debatable, fine. Thats a reason, and I certainly trust debian more
> than a single person or some obscure emails.
> Debian stands for freedom, and every single debian user knows:
> If you use debian, there (might be some, but generally speaking)
> are no compromises to this. Great!
>
> But, on the other hand, please do not try to stress that the debian
> fork is as good as Schillings. It is not necessary, the
> non-free argument is enough!
ACK. At this point the quality of the original and fork are completly
irrelevant and I hope more people do see that. In Debians eyes the
original is just undistributable and therefore the fork is the only
option, no matter how bad it is (and it works for me [tm]).
> To all the maintainers of the fork:
>
> I sincerely beg your pardon, if my impression is just wrong,
> and I really consider every work for debian important.
>
> This is my impression, and as this thread more and more
> circles around "bugs in wodim" etc., especially, since a posting,
> stating that wodim does _not_ work for everyone as fine,
> gets the "You sent no bugreport" answer (which is true!, but imho
> reflects the experience of a lot of people out there)
> , I wanted to share my impression.
I think the "You sent no bugreport" answere reflects some frustration
of the authors of the fork. It is verry frustrating to be torn down
for how bad the fork is without being given any hint in what way and
how it could be fixed.
As such dear authors keep your spirits high. Your efforts are highly
valued and not wasted.
> Someone in this thread mentioned something like, that users are clever
> enough to not fall for this wrong statements, that the fork has more bugs.
> Sorry, I do. Still, I think debian is better of without Schillings software.
>
> /me should just shut up.
> Feel free to correct me or ignore my posting.
> I certainly will say no more on this topic...
MfG
Goswin
Goswin von Brederlow
> I wish I had at least a STM-1 at home, I would you send you all 300
> coredumps since the release weekend of Lenny...
>
> I have over 16 GByte of coredumps: OpenOffice, Iceweasel, mutt, pidgin,
> FvwmForm, mimedecode, gimp, mc, ...
Since everything seems to be dumping core on your system have you
thought about the possibility that it might be your system that is at
fault? Such a widespread range of coredumps usualy means one of the
core libraries is corrupted on your filesystem or you have faulty
ram. Or maybe a root-kit that breaks things?
Given that you only have the core-dumps since Lenny I would suspect
something got scrambled during the upgrade. Some bit flipped somewhere.
> Some are here: <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/coredumps/> and I
> can not more upload since I am on GSM and ma sped and traffic is limited
>
> Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
> Michelle Konzack
> Systemadministrator
> 24V Electronic Engineer
> Tamay Dogan Network
> Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
MfG
Goswin
Michelle Konzack
> Or look into libburn + cdrskin, which should "just work".
Does not support the DVD's I need:
Description: command line CD/DVD writing tool
This is a cdrecord replacement that:
- Burns to all single layer DVD types
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is NO support for DVD18 and DVD20 which my TraxData and Yamaha
support. And NO, DVD20 can not be burned on PATA/SATA Burners. This is
a question of hardware and not software and thist is, WHY the TraxData
and Yamahy cost over 700 Euro.
- TAO mode (CD Track at Once, DVD Packet)
- SAO mode (CD Session at Once, DVD DAO)
I need Disk-At-Once for the Teac CDR-55S but does cdrskin support it?
And does it support burning of more then one CD/DVD at once? I mean, a
full CD/DVD set, e.g. Debian Lenny+2 with 7 Binary DVD's? I have not
even found something that claim "libburn4" does support SCSI U320 Burner
:-(
Michelle Konzack
> Since everything seems to be dumping core on your system have you
> thought about the possibility that it might be your system that is at
> fault? Such a widespread range of coredumps usualy means one of the
> core libraries is corrupted on your filesystem or you have faulty
> ram. Or maybe a root-kit that breaks things?
Since the release of Lenny, I have installed arround 60 Workstaions, but
making tararchives of the original installation and reinstalled Lenny
from scratch, using the first binary DVD and the rest over Net.
Nearly 80% of all Workstations do not work properly.
The half of them is without sound (all Creative LABS)
00:13.0 Multimedia audio controller: Creative Labs SB Live! EMU10k1 (rev 0a)
00:13.1 Input device controller: Creative Labs SB Live! Game Port (rev 0a)
which is needed for telephony. Then I have a couple of Dual-Screen
Workstations with the above card...
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Matrox Graphics, Inc. MGA G400/G450 (rev 82)
xserver-xor-video-mga does not work... Now I use the framebuffer which
is working nicely but I do not know the performance differnce between
"mga" and 2fbdev".
While Fvwm was working fine under Sarge and Etch, no it stoped working
correctly. The first time afte 7 years.
Maybe there is a new config option, but curently I have flying windows
arround, I mean, news windows are placed in non-expected places. I want
my message boxes ans such back in the center if I do not use explicit
geometry. But it is going more strange, because my own GTK2+ application
are placed correctly like the OpenOffice ones...
I have set EWMH to reserve space for my FvwmButton (Panel) and the
FvwmTaskbar but they are now ignored...
While reading the huge manpages, nothing has changed...
> Given that you only have the core-dumps since Lenny I would suspect
> something got scrambled during the upgrade. Some bit flipped somewhere.
I was thinking this too, and have tared the broken installation like the
Etch and Sarge ones and reinstalled the WHOLE thing from scratch.
The error persists.
This is WHY I run under "ulimit -c unlimited" to get this pigs with the
disavantage, that I get the absoulut MEGA coredumps over my NFVv4 since
${HOME} is in my Intranet Server.
If I get a usefull coredump, I will try to put it on my USB key and
upload it in the Internet Caffee onto my server.
Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
24V Electronic Engineer
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
Bill Unruh
> Memnon Anon <gegendos...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> But! From a user-only perspective:
>>
>> Do I think that the software Joerg Schilling provides is superior?
>> Yes.
>
> I've tried it back when Debian still had a cdrecord and that, on
> request by Joerg Schilling, did not include the dvd burning patch. One
> had to rebuild the cdrecord package with the "dvd=yes"
> manually. Debian users where deprived of DVD burning in the official
> package just to accomodate Joerg Schilling. So much for the then
> maintainer not trying to work with him.
Yes, branching to a version which included DVD support made sense in 2005. It
makes no sense today. The dvd version has been open source since about 2006.
The license issue is problematic, especially since copyright laws differ in
different countries. Derivative works is an especially tricky concept since it
is so poorly defined in law, and the courts have been all over the place on
it. It would be really really nice if Debian released Moglin's opinion that
they received re the cdrtools issue and Schilling released his, and Moglin
allowed them to do so.
Too much of this issue has become embroiled in really really childish
vindictiveness. Schilling has both written a good piece of software and has
been willing to extend it and support it, something that noone else has
apparently been willing to do. That should count for a lot.
On the license issue, all sides are to a large extent on the same page.
Schilling has released his stuff with an open source license (CDDL is
certainly that), and the requirement of the GPL that both the source code AND
the build system be and remain available to future users is guarenteed.
At that point, the fact that the two sides cannot step over the final tiny
hurdles is a real shame.
The issue is one of the users. They do not give a damn if Schilling is a
difficult and arrogant SOB or if the Debian people put principle above all
else. They just want good software, which works, not just on the most popular
brands but on all brands of CD, DVD, blueray, ... and to be assured that it
will keep working. Surely in all of this it is that user that needs to be kept
topmost in mind.
>
> First I installed his cdrecord and then it still just said the media
> is to big for a CD. So you hunt some more and find the DVD
> version. Grudgingly I installed that and it complained about not
> having a license key. The fun of non-free software. Some more hunting
> to find out there is a key at no cost for linux users and getting that
> installed and it still couldn't burn DVDs.
That is an old story. It no longer applies.
>
> apt-get source cdrecord
> sensible-editor debian/rules to set dvd=yes
> debuild -us -uc
> sudo dpkg -i cdrecord*deb
>
> Worked perfectly ever since.
>
>> I saw several distributions turning away from Schilli software, yet,
>> several of them returned. People are lazy, they do not always write
>> bug reports, even if they should. But I saw people on debian.user
>> and debian.user.german, who got their devices working, when
>> Debian packages failed.
>
> This might be cruel but I don't care at all about those people. Software
> does not fix itself. By not reporting bugs they have lost the right to
> complain about it. Call it a cost of free/open software. Nobody claims
> Debian software is free as in beer, only free as in speech. It just
> makes me sad that people are unwilling to spend the 5 minutes it takes
> to run reportbug and detail what burnder they have and how the problem
> presents itself.
Bug reporting is important, but more important is that the maintainers find
the bugs before they are reported. Schilling has demonstrated that he is
willing to do that.
>
>> I am not certain, I am no "code writer", still, this is my impression.
>
> There seem to be experiences going both ways. That is a common effect
> in forks. Both will fix the bugs that people report or experience
> themself and those don't always match.
But the great maintainers are the ones that find the bugs before others report
them and bugs that they would never come across themselves.
>
>> So, do I say, Debian should revert its policy?
>> No!
>>
>> If Debian as a whole considers this software as non-free, or at least
>> as debatable, fine. Thats a reason, and I certainly trust debian more
>> than a single person or some obscure emails.
>> Debian stands for freedom, and every single debian user knows:
>> If you use debian, there (might be some, but generally speaking)
>> are no compromises to this. Great!
>>
>> But, on the other hand, please do not try to stress that the debian
>> fork is as good as Schillings. It is not necessary, the
>> non-free argument is enough!
>
> ACK. At this point the quality of the original and fork are completly
> irrelevant and I hope more people do see that. In Debians eyes the
No they are NOT irrelevant. For the users, that is the key. And surely it is
the users ( the customers) who should be the prime consideration.
I agree that legal issues are a concern, but they are almost always something
that can be worked through.
> original is just undistributable and therefore the fork is the only
> option, no matter how bad it is (and it works for me [tm]).
Ah yes. I works for me, the hell with anyone else.
>
>> To all the maintainers of the fork:
>>
>> I sincerely beg your pardon, if my impression is just wrong,
>> and I really consider every work for debian important.
>>
>> This is my impression, and as this thread more and more
>> circles around "bugs in wodim" etc., especially, since a posting,
>> stating that wodim does _not_ work for everyone as fine,
>> gets the "You sent no bugreport" answer (which is true!, but imho
>> reflects the experience of a lot of people out there)
>> , I wanted to share my impression.
>
> I think the "You sent no bugreport" answere reflects some frustration
> of the authors of the fork. It is verry frustrating to be torn down
> for how bad the fork is without being given any hint in what way and
> how it could be fixed.
Sorry, that is how it works. He has reported a bug. Here. If what he says is
right, namely it does not work with SCSI it is a bug which should have been
caught before it ever went out the door
>
> As such dear authors keep your spirits high. Your efforts are highly
> valued and not wasted.
Well, really they are. There is this piece of software which does everything
they want it to do, and they are tinkering with an old version of that same
software, trying to keep up, and not really wanting to do so.
This whole thing would be a farce if it were not a tragedy.
Maybe it is impossible to bring Schilling and Debian together. Sometimes
tragedies do occur, but that is where the efforts should go.
>
>> Someone in this thread mentioned something like, that users are clever
>> enough to not fall for this wrong statements, that the fork has more bugs.
>> Sorry, I do. Still, I think debian is better of without Schillings software.
>>
>> /me should just shut up.
>> Feel free to correct me or ignore my posting.
>> I certainly will say no more on this topic...
>
Russ Allbery
> The license issue is problematic, especially since copyright laws differ
> in different countries. Derivative works is an especially tricky concept
> since it is so poorly defined in law, and the courts have been all over
> the place on it. It would be really really nice if Debian released
> Moglin's opinion that they received re the cdrtools issue and Schilling
> released his, and Moglin allowed them to do so.
I believe that the relevant legal opinion was given to Ubuntu, not to
Debian. I do not believe that Moglin gave a separate legal opinion to
Schilling, in private e-mail or anywhere else.
> On the license issue, all sides are to a large extent on the same page.
> Schilling has released his stuff with an open source license (CDDL is
> certainly that), and the requirement of the GPL that both the source
> code AND the build system be and remain available to future users is
> guarenteed. At that point, the fact that the two sides cannot step over
> the final tiny hurdles is a real shame.
You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the licensing issues involved,
or any of the other past history that went into this fork. All issues
look simple, resolvable, and unfortunate if you ignore 90% of the problem.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Thomas Schmitt
i am the author of cdrskin and not subscribed here.
Please Cc me.
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> All they are SCSI and not a singel one is working with wodim.
Hm. What are the symptoms ?
William Pitcock wrote:
> > Or look into libburn + cdrskin, which should "just work"
Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Does not support the DVD's I need:
> - Burns to all single layer DVD types
That is a bit an outdated statement.
cdrskin-0.6.2 burns DVD+R DL and BD meanwhile.
DVD-R DL seem not widely in use and technically
unattractive. HD DVD is even more exotic.
I have directed my attention to BD-R and BD-RE.
Nice media. They only have to come down in price.
> There is NO support for DVD18 and DVD20 which my TraxData and Yamaha
> support.
Double sided dual layer DVDs. Wow, that's exotic.
Good news ist that they are not mentioned
in the MMC specs. This gives hope that they
can be handled like their vanilla cousins.
I assume they have a type like DVD-R or DVD+R ?
What do you get from this inquiry command ?
cdrskin -v dev=... -atip | fgrep Current
> I need Disk-At-Once for the Teac CDR-55S but does cdrskin support it?
Yes. You get it if you use option -sao or if
you give no -tao and the size of the imput data
is predictable.
> And does it support burning of more then one CD/DVD at once?
Simultaneous operation of burners and/or readers
is no problem for cdrskin or other libburn programs.
It takes some effort not to spoil the burn runs
of simultaneous instances of itself.
(The system backbone needs to be strong enough
so there appear no bottle necks, of course.)
> have not even found something that claim
> "libburn4" does support SCSI U320 Burner
It is not libburn which decides about the
usability of a certain cabling or controller.
If your Linux kernel supports it via ioctl(SG_IO)
then libburn can talk to it.
Since you report that cdrecord can talk to it on
Linux, libburn should be able too. We all use SG_IO
to send our commands.
Another obstacle might be if the drive is
so old that it does not comply to MMC-3 resp.
MMC-5.
Any info available on that ?
Have a nice day :)
Thomas
Josselin Mouette
> The issue is one of the users. They do not give a damn if Schilling is a
> difficult and arrogant SOB or if the Debian people put principle above all
> else. They just want good software, which works, not just on the most popular
> brands but on all brands of CD, DVD, blueray, ... and to be assured that it
> will keep working. Surely in all of this it is that user that needs to be kept
> topmost in mind.
The only thing for which you’ll need Schily-based software in Debian is
for burning CDs. For DVDs and Blu-Rays, we have dvd+rw-tools already.
Bernd Zeimetz
> I have over 16 GByte of coredumps: OpenOffice, Iceweasel, mutt, pidgin,
> FvwmForm, mimedecode, gimp, mc, ...
>
> Some are here: <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/coredumps/> and I
> can not more upload since I am on GSM and ma sped and traffic is limited
Use gdb, get a backtrace and upload that.
I doubt anybody wants to have the core file.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
Josselin Mouette
> I have over 16 GByte of coredumps: OpenOffice, Iceweasel, mutt, pidgin,
> FvwmForm, mimedecode, gimp, mc, ...
>
> Some are here: <http://devel.debian.tamay-dogan.net/coredumps/> and I
> can not more upload since I am on GSM and ma sped and traffic is limited
Are you aware that your core dumps contain private data? Especially,
Iceweasel dumps are likely to contain your passwords or your keys. You
should never, ever share full core dumps publicly.
Bernd Zeimetz
> The only thing for which you’ll need Schily-based software in Debian is
> for burning CDs. For DVDs and Blu-Rays, we have dvd+rw-tools already.
>
What about libburn + cdrskin and similar tools?
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
Michael Banck
> I wish I had at least a STM-1 at home, I would you send you all 300
> coredumps since the release weekend of Lenny...
Please report bugs in the appropriate forum, e.g. the BTS. debian-devel
is not for general complaints.
thanks,
Michael
Bernd Schubert
> Am 2009-03-02 06:23:26, schrieb Goswin von Brederlow:
> > Since everything seems to be dumping core on your system have you
> > thought about the possibility that it might be your system that is at
> > fault? Such a widespread range of coredumps usualy means one of the
> > core libraries is corrupted on your filesystem or you have faulty
> > ram. Or maybe a root-kit that breaks things?
>
> Since the release of Lenny, I have installed arround 60 Workstaions, but
> making tararchives of the original installation and reinstalled Lenny
> from scratch, using the first binary DVD and the rest over Net.
>
> Nearly 80% of all Workstations do not work properly.
Maybe you should start to test Debian-Testing from time to time and report
bugs if something doesn't work for you? Just complaining *after* a release
isn't really helpful.
>
> The half of them is without sound (all Creative LABS)
>
> 00:13.0 Multimedia audio controller: Creative Labs SB Live! EMU10k1 (rev
> 0a) 00:13.1 Input device controller: Creative Labs SB Live! Game Port (rev
> 0a)
What exactly is the problem? Kernel related? If so try a more recent kernel
version or an older version and then report a bug.
>
> which is needed for telephony. Then I have a couple of Dual-Screen
> Workstations with the above card...
>
> 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Matrox Graphics, Inc. MGA G400/G450 (rev
> 82)
>
> xserver-xor-video-mga does not work... Now I use the framebuffer which
> is working nicely but I do not know the performance differnce between
> "mga" and 2fbdev".
The mga driver never worked properly without its binary blob if you wanted
more then a single vga connection. Don't know what the situation is now, maybe
matrox doesn't provide a recent binary for Lenny's xorg version. If you want,
go ahead and check yourself on the matrox site.
>
> While Fvwm was working fine under Sarge and Etch, no it stoped working
> correctly. The first time afte 7 years.
Again, test yourself before a release and write bugs. You are definitely not
an ordinary helpless user, but you make extensive usage of free software. So
the least you can do is to write bug reports.
>
> Maybe there is a new config option, but curently I have flying windows
> arround, I mean, news windows are placed in non-expected places. I want
> my message boxes ans such back in the center if I do not use explicit
> geometry. But it is going more strange, because my own GTK2+ application
> are placed correctly like the OpenOffice ones...
>
> I have set EWMH to reserve space for my FvwmButton (Panel) and the
> FvwmTaskbar but they are now ignored...
>
> While reading the huge manpages, nothing has changed...
Sorry, no idea, I never liked fvwm. I
>
> > Given that you only have the core-dumps since Lenny I would suspect
> > something got scrambled during the upgrade. Some bit flipped somewhere.
>
> I was thinking this too, and have tared the broken installation like the
> Etch and Sarge ones and reinstalled the WHOLE thing from scratch.
>
> The error persists.
Go ahead and check your installation with 'debsums'.
Cheers,
Bernd
George Danchev
> Le dimanche 01 mars 2009 à 22:25 -0800, Bill Unruh a écrit :
>> The issue is one of the users. They do not give a damn if Schilling is a
>> difficult and arrogant SOB or if the Debian people put principle above all
>> else. They just want good software, which works, not just on the
>> most popular
>> brands but on all brands of CD, DVD, blueray, ... and to be assured that it
>> will keep working. Surely in all of this it is that user that needs
>> to be kept
>> topmost in mind.
>
> The only thing for which you’ll need Schily-based software in Debian is
> for burning CDs. For DVDs and Blu-Rays, we have dvd+rw-tools already.
You don't need Schily-based software for burning CDs. Consider cdrskin
and xorriso instead.
Joerg Schilling
> If you don???t publish this email, we will simply not believe you, that???s
> all.
Using "majestetis pluralis" in this relation seems to be a bit absurd.
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
Didier Raboud
> Josselin Mouette <jo...@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> If you don???t publish this email, we will simply not believe you,
>> that???s all.
>
> Using "majestetis pluralis" in this relation seems to be a bit absurd.
>
> Jörg
If you don't publish this email, I will not believe you, that's all.
--
Swisslinux.org − Le carrefour GNU/Linux en Suisse −
http://www.swisslinux.org
Goswin von Brederlow
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Memnon Anon <gegendos...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> But, on the other hand, please do not try to stress that the debian
>>> fork is as good as Schillings. It is not necessary, the
>>> non-free argument is enough!
>>
>> ACK. At this point the quality of the original and fork are completly
>> irrelevant and I hope more people do see that. In Debians eyes the
>
> No they are NOT irrelevant. For the users, that is the key. And surely it is
> the users ( the customers) who should be the prime consideration.
> I agree that legal issues are a concern, but they are almost always something
> that can be worked through.
What I'm getting at is that they MUST be worked through before any
choice can be made which side to keep. At the moment the only choice
for Debian is to use the fork. The original is legally not an option
no matter how much user would like to have it (if they do, I don't).
The "better quality" of the original might be an incentive to work
through the legal stuff but you have to work through it before you can
even think about replacng the fork with it again.
>> original is just undistributable and therefore the fork is the only
>> option, no matter how bad it is (and it works for me [tm]).
>
>
> Ah yes. I works for me, the hell with anyone else.
That's not what I'm saying. I just wanted to relativate the "no matter
how bad it is" because I don't see any of the suposed problems and
none have been reported in the BTS.
>>> To all the maintainers of the fork:
>>>
>>> I sincerely beg your pardon, if my impression is just wrong,
>>> and I really consider every work for debian important.
>>>
>>> This is my impression, and as this thread more and more
>>> circles around "bugs in wodim" etc., especially, since a posting,
>>> stating that wodim does _not_ work for everyone as fine,
>>> gets the "You sent no bugreport" answer (which is true!, but imho
>>> reflects the experience of a lot of people out there)
>>> , I wanted to share my impression.
>>
>> I think the "You sent no bugreport" answere reflects some frustration
>> of the authors of the fork. It is verry frustrating to be torn down
>> for how bad the fork is without being given any hint in what way and
>> how it could be fixed.
>
> Sorry, that is how it works. He has reported a bug. Here. If what he says is
> right, namely it does not work with SCSI it is a bug which should have been
> caught before it ever went out the door
Will you buy the maintainer all kinds of scsi burners so they can test
each? I myself and several others have used debians cdrecord with scsi
just fine so the bug must be some quirk of that specific config. You
can never forsee all those quirks.
>> As such dear authors keep your spirits high. Your efforts are highly
>> valued and not wasted.
>
> Well, really they are. There is this piece of software which does everything
> they want it to do, and they are tinkering with an old version of that same
> software, trying to keep up, and not really wanting to do so.
> This whole thing would be a farce if it were not a tragedy.
> Maybe it is impossible to bring Schilling and Debian together. Sometimes
> tragedies do occur, but that is where the efforts should go.
And here we have to disagree. I don't see Schilling moving one iota
from his position and trying to compromise with someone so set in
stone is just wasted.
MfG
Goswin
Bill Unruh
> Bill Unruh <un...@physics.ubc.ca> writes:
>
>> The license issue is problematic, especially since copyright laws differ
>> in different countries. Derivative works is an especially tricky concept
>> since it is so poorly defined in law, and the courts have been all over
>> the place on it. It would be really really nice if Debian released
>> Moglin's opinion that they received re the cdrtools issue and Schilling
>> released his, and Moglin allowed them to do so.
>
> I believe that the relevant legal opinion was given to Ubuntu, not to
> Debian. I do not believe that Moglin gave a separate legal opinion to
> Schilling, in private e-mail or anywhere else.
So Ubuntu shared it with Debian. In that case I see no obstacle to making it
public. It has already been shared and copied to people not the original
recipients. I assume the Debian people actually saw it before making their
decision.
>
>> On the license issue, all sides are to a large extent on the same page.
>> Schilling has released his stuff with an open source license (CDDL is
>> certainly that), and the requirement of the GPL that both the source
>> code AND the build system be and remain available to future users is
>> guarenteed. At that point, the fact that the two sides cannot step over
>> the final tiny hurdles is a real shame.
>
> You appear to be completely unfamiliar with the licensing issues involved,
> or any of the other past history that went into this fork. All issues
> look simple, resolvable, and unfortunate if you ignore 90% of the problem.
Yup. That is the way settlements are reached, by ignoring 90% of the problem,
since 90% is usually the fraction that is actually completely irrelevant to
the dispute-- personal feeling, history,....
I really do not give a damn about the history of this dispute. I am a user,
and I want top class software in my distros.
Bill Unruh
> Bill Unruh <un...@physics.ubc.ca> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>
...
>>
>> No they are NOT irrelevant. For the users, that is the key. And surely it is
>> the users ( the customers) who should be the prime consideration.
>> I agree that legal issues are a concern, but they are almost always something
>> that can be worked through.
>
> What I'm getting at is that they MUST be worked through before any
> choice can be made which side to keep. At the moment the only choice
> for Debian is to use the fork. The original is legally not an option
> no matter how much user would like to have it (if they do, I don't).
>
> The "better quality" of the original might be an incentive to work
> through the legal stuff but you have to work through it before you can
> even think about replacng the fork with it again.
Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are operating
legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his software
distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the opinion that there is
no legal impediment to that happening. Debian is of the opinion that there IS
an impediment. It is not that Schilling recognizes the impediment and refuses
to clear it, it is that he does not believe that there is one. Thus both sides
are to a large extent on the same page (wanting to distribute and to do so
without legal impediment). Now the question is, is there some way of clearing
out the underbrush so that both sides agree that there is no impediment.
(Note that the chances of any legal action being taken by anyone with respect
to cdrtools is miniscule. So it is not fear that stands in the way, but a
"legal quibble".
>
>>> original is just undistributable and therefore the fork is the only
>>> option, no matter how bad it is (and it works for me [tm]).
>>
>> Sorry, that is how it works. He has reported a bug. Here. If what he says is
>> right, namely it does not work with SCSI it is a bug which should have been
>> caught before it ever went out the door
>
> Will you buy the maintainer all kinds of scsi burners so they can test
> each? I myself and several others have used debians cdrecord with scsi
> just fine so the bug must be some quirk of that specific config. You
> can never forsee all those quirks.
Look I never said that maintaining is easy. It is not. And
Schilling has proven himself willing to do it, to buy "all kinds of scsi
burners" or get ahold of them, and make it work. That is worth a HUGE amount.
>
>>> As such dear authors keep your spirits high. Your efforts are highly
>>> valued and not wasted.
>>
>> Well, really they are. There is this piece of software which does everything
>> they want it to do, and they are tinkering with an old version of that same
>> software, trying to keep up, and not really wanting to do so.
>> This whole thing would be a farce if it were not a tragedy.
>> Maybe it is impossible to bring Schilling and Debian together. Sometimes
>> tragedies do occur, but that is where the efforts should go.
>
> And here we have to disagree. I don't see Schilling moving one iota
> from his position and trying to compromise with someone so set in
> stone is just wasted.
Well, I think there is the problem. This has come down to personal issues, not
legal or technical. Everyone is so dug into their positions that they simply
spend time lobbing grenades at each other, rather then trying to work through
the problem. Yes, Schilling is "difficult" but by now, so is Debian. The
amount of childish vituperation that has been seen in this discussion mostly
but not all coming from the Debian side is pretty disgusting.
George Danchev
--cut--
> Agreed, both sides have to come to the conclusion that they are operating
> legally. On the plus side, Schilling would like to have his software
> distributed in the distros. He is also strongly of the opinion that there
> is no legal impediment to that happening. Debian is of the opinion that
> there IS an impediment. It is not that Schilling recognizes the impediment
> and refuses to clear it, it is that he does not believe that there is one.
Obviously Schilling is not Debian, so the distributor's rules apply... and
Debian is not alone in that a decision.
> Thus both sides are to a large extent on the same page (wanting to
> distribute and to do so without legal impediment). Now the question is, is
> there some way of clearing out the underbrush so that both sides agree that
> there is no impediment. (Note that the chances of any legal action being
> taken by anyone with respect to cdrtools is miniscule. So it is not fear
> that stands in the way, but a "legal quibble".
I see only one way out: talk to Schilling to revert that GPL+CDDL license
mixture, and it is all done, and it is cheap and easy.
> >>> original is just undistributable and therefore the fork is the only
> >>> option, no matter how bad it is (and it works for me [tm]).
> >>
> >> Sorry, that is how it works. He has reported a bug. Here. If what he
> >> says is right, namely it does not work with SCSI it is a bug which
> >> should have been caught before it ever went out the door
> >
> > Will you buy the maintainer all kinds of scsi burners so they can test
> > each? I myself and several others have used debians cdrecord with scsi
> > just fine so the bug must be some quirk of that specific config. You
> > can never forsee all those quirks.
>
> Look I never said that maintaining is easy. It is not. And
> Schilling has proven himself willing to do it, to buy "all kinds of scsi
> burners" or get ahold of them, and make it work. That is worth a HUGE
> amount.
Very nice, but do you really believe it? Don't answer me ;-)
> >>> As such dear authors keep your spirits high. Your efforts are highly
> >>> valued and not wasted.
> >>
> >> Well, really they are. There is this piece of software which does
> >> everything they want it to do, and they are tinkering with an old
> >> version of that same software, trying to keep up, and not really wanting
> >> to do so.
> >> This whole thing would be a farce if it were not a tragedy.
> >> Maybe it is impossible to bring Schilling and Debian together. Sometimes
> >> tragedies do occur, but that is where the efforts should go.
> >
> > And here we have to disagree. I don't see Schilling moving one iota
> > from his position and trying to compromise with someone so set in
> > stone is just wasted.
>
> Well, I think there is the problem. This has come down to personal issues,
> not legal or technical. Everyone is so dug into their positions that they
> simply spend time lobbing grenades at each other, rather then trying to
> work through the problem. Yes, Schilling is "difficult" but by now, so is
> Debian.
I don't think that Debian is treating cdrtoos in any specific way, just normal
rules apply as usual. And quite frankly I don't see any good reasons why
Debian should compromise its principles in the name of cdrtools licensing
games. And it is not that there are no good alternatives like dvd+rw-tools,
cdrskin, xorriso, xfburn, and finally decent libs like libburn, libisofs,
libisoburn so that anyone can benefit from; but I'm not going to beg you
using them like Schilling does. For me, cdrtools turn to be the mostly
useless pile of bits for the last three years, and it is no more interesting
for me whether Schilling is wrong or rigth, but that is me. As we all know,
monopoli is not so much a funny game when it is over, and I really wonder why
this thread is still alive.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>