-----Original Message-----

Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 10:29:00 +0200 Subject: Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line From: Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) To: arch-general@archlinux.org

"Armando M. Baratti" wrote:

...

Arch Linux Wiki:

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning

...

(see "Burning an iso image")

The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...).

Better use the original software that is maintained and without known bugs.

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/

See also the man pages at:

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/man/cdrecord/index.html

Jörg

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

The use of cdrtools is explicitely encouraged on that page, if problems with cdrkit occur. Scroll down a bit.

On 05/21/2010 08:14 PM, Armando M. Baratti wrote:

On 21-05-2010 05:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

"Armando M. Baratti" wrote:

...

Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning

(see "Burning an iso image")

The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...).

Better use the original software that is maintained and without known bugs.

ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/

See also the man pages at:

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/man/cdrecord/index.html

Jörg

In fact I *use* cdrecord. I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are (at most) the same.

My fault not mentioning the other project.

Armando

cdrecord is same as wodim (newer name) -- Nilesh Govindarajan (निलेश गोविंदराजन) Twitter: nileshgr Facebook: nilesh.gr Website: www.itech7.com

"Armando M. Baratti" wrote:

On 22-05-2010 01:24, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:

...

On 05/21/2010 08:14 PM, Armando M. Baratti wrote:

...

...

In fact I *use* cdrecord. I've just pointed to the wiki page as it was handy and the options are (at most) the same.

My fault not mentioning the other project.

Armando

cdrecord is same as wodim (newer name)

Excuse me, I meant cdrtools.

In any case, it was not correct: cdrecord is not the same as wodim. wodim is a dead and buggy fork from a 5 year old cdrecord version. The old and new name for the maintained original software is cdrecord. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:

What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially declared by the developers.

Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly unbiased...

2010/5/23 Ng Oon-Ee :

On Sat, 2010-05-22 at 23:07 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:

...

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 22:49, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:

...

What ? Is that really true ?!?!? State some link where it is officially declared by the developers.

Joerg is the author of the software he recommends, so not exactly unbiased...

Well, on the flip-side he wrote the software, so his word can be considered the 'official declaration'.

This was discussed on this ML a couple of months back, just search Joerg's name as he was (obviously) one of the main contributors to that conversation.

Well.. the official declaration for cdrecord, not for wodim. If you want to hear the wodim side, it happens there : http://www.cdrkit.org/

On 05/26/10 07:27, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Do you really like to use extremely outdated, buggy and dead code?

Jörg

Yes

On 05/21/10 04:29, Joerg Schilling wrote:

"Armando M. Baratti" wrote:

...

Arch Linux Wiki: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning#Command-line_CD-burning

(see "Burning an iso image")

The URL you mention gives bad advise as it encourages you to use software that is unmaintained since many years and full of bugs (wodim, genisoimage, ...).

It's last updated in October 2009, and used in many distros... Wikipedia contains info and history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit -Isaac

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Rasmus Steinke wrote:

Jörg has a point. While of course being biased about his pet cdrtools, cdrkit is not on par with cdrtools in any way. Those updates you mention more or less only consist of small fixes, no progess at all in that package.

The ONLY reason cdrkit is used in many distributions is the license of cdrtools. Jörg mentions on his website that suns lawyers have analyzed the legal issues. Unfortunately there is no link to that analysis which makes this a pure claim.

Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.htm...

This doesnt change the fact that cdrtools is clearly superior to cdrkit. (Just check arch's bugtracker)

Rasi

If this wasn't the case, the situation wouldn't suck as much. Everyone would just use cdrkit without second thoughts. But when a project is forked by external (non-involved) people simply for fixing the license rather than fixing real technical problems, I wouldn't expect great progress being made. Anyway let's stop talking about all this non-sense BS. I am very happy with how the wiki (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CD_Burning) presents things by staying very practical. Install packaged cdrkit, and if it doesn't work for you, install cdrtools from AUR.

On 26/05/10 22:21, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Xavier Chantry wrote:

...

Jorg also mentioned that Eben Moglen approved the original software : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010380.html which was proved to be wrong from Eben Moglen himself : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.htm...

Just don't believe claims from Moglen that have been proven to be wrong. I never had a phone call with Moglen and the rest of his claims is wrong too.

I know Moglen as a person who frequently spreads wrong claims to the public :-( and I know him this way since 2001 when I was the first person who did ever try to sue companies that violate the GPL. This is why I warned Mark Shuttleworth about Moglen before he asked him.

For obvious reasons, I only believe a claim from Moglen as long as it has been verified to be aligned with statements from other lawyers. With respect to Moglens public claims quoted above, Moglen is in conflict with many other lawyers, so I can't take him for serious here :-(

So you used him as an example of someone who supported you conclusions when they agreed with yours, but when his opinion conflicts with yours he becomes someone who can not be trusted... Very convenient!

[about time we changed the subject] Joerg, Even given you are correct about licensing terms (which I do not care to dispute), currently all risk lies on the distributor. Given many distributions have (perhaps wrongly) chosen not to package cdrtools, there is obviously some implied risk. This is to your disadvantage. No amount of emails from you is going to nullify that risk. Note that of all the people you have at some point claimed agree with you about cdrtools licensing, Eben Moglen is the only one to actually make a public statement and he did not back you up. Even if you now say he was always untrustworty, given you have used him as an example of someone who supported your interpretation makes all other claims of support from other people seem less reliable. As has been repeatedly asked, we need either 1) a public statement from a laywer who agrees that the license is fine, or 2) a change of license. _Nothing else_ is going to be considered enough for distributions to consider the implied risk distributing your software nullified. Until that point, any further discussion is futile. Just to be clear, replying without 1) or 2) above is futile. futile: serving no useful purpose; completely ineffective <efforts to convince him were futile> Futile... Allan

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Allan McRae wrote:

...

[about time we changed the subject]

Joerg,

Even given you are correct about licensing terms (which I do not care to dispute), currently all risk lies on the distributor.  Given many distributions have (perhaps wrongly) chosen not to package cdrtools, there is obviously some implied risk.  This is to your disadvantage. No amount of emails from you is going to nullify that risk.

If you would act at least be halfway consistent to what you claim, Arch needs to immediately drop the fork as there is a hint that there is a definite Copyright violation in the fork.

I am happy to discuss things _after_ you prove a consistent behavior......

For now we need to take the claim from "Nilesh Govindaraja" mase in

...

O66492 Nilesh Govindaraja Sat May 22 06:25  117/5416  Re: [arch-general] Burning From Command Line

as another attempt to start a trolling thread :-(

Unless someposts something serious in this threa, I'll ignore it.

To sum up, Arch users : 1) have a inconsitent behavior 2) troll 3) are not serious. And you are not happy to discuss things with them. Why don't you just stay away from this list then ? That way, everyone would be happy. Every time, you come here, it results in a thread with 100+ useless mails.

We have the lawyers from Sun legal, we have my German lawyers and we have Lawrence Rosen (the legal advisor of the OpenSOurce Initiatice OpenSource.org) that all confirm my statements. It is obvious to distrust a single person like Moglen that did stuck out with wrong claims long time before in special as he first confirmed to me in private that there is no problem with cdrtools.

Well people, you know what to do. First, STOP talking to Joerg. Then, if you want to do something about it, just go ahead and talk with these people Joerg kindly mentioned. Ask them whether they agree or disagree with Eben's interpretation that GPL compliance on mkisofs is broken : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.htm... Anything else you do (by trying to talk directly to Joerg) is completely useless.

On Thu 27 May 2010 14:43 +0200, Xavier Chantry wrote:

Dozens of people have contributed to the discussion, but no one actually cares about getting some clarifications ? I just don't get it. I feel like I did my part of the work already by getting a report from Eben, just to see Joerg accusing him of lying in return. Now it would be very nice and useful if someone could continue that work by getting in touch with other competent people.

That would be nice and useful if people actually believed that there would be an end to this discussion. Anyways, it's been stated that licensing isn't really the issue any more. The fact is no Dev or TU is interested in maintaining cdrtools. Jörg has something to learn about how to deal with people, but he's too stubborn to take any advice.

On Thu 27 May 2010 18:32 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Loui Chang wrote:

...

That would be nice and useful if people actually believed that there would be an end to this discussion. Anyways, it's been stated that licensing isn't really the issue any more. The fact is no Dev or TU is interested in maintaining cdrtools. Jörg has something to learn about

I am not sure whether you realized that cdrtools is well maintained and without known bugs.

Sorry I wasn't completely clear, by maintaining I meant maintaining the binary Arch Linux package. No one is interested in it, and you really can't force interest.

Am 27.05.2010 17:52, schrieb Loui Chang:

Anyways, it's been stated that licensing isn't really the issue any more. The fact is no Dev or TU is interested in maintaining cdrtools. Jörg has something to learn about how to deal with people, but he's too stubborn to take any advice.

When has that happened? I would gladly package cdrtools. I know from many users that it is superior to cdrkit (although I never had any trouble with either of them). However, I fear that some of my fellow developers would stop me from doing that due to the questionable license situation. What has happened to Open Source Software anyway? People keep claiming their software is "free", but then they argue about so-called "free" licenses being incompatible. This used to be about free sharing of code, but now we need lawyers involved just to do that? Whenever a lawyer is involved, there is certainly no freedom, just random blabla that nobody understands. For me, this is about quality of software and the ease of distributing it (and of course open-ness of source code wherever possible). And as long as nobody sues us for it, I am glad to distribute any piece of software.

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Loui Chang wrote:

http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-January/010357.html http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013557.html

eh? more circles? On Thu 27 May 2010 19:11 +0200, Thomas Bächler wrote:

When has that happened? I would gladly package cdrtools. I know from many users that it is superior to cdrkit (although I never had any trouble with either of them). However, I fear that some of my fellow developers would stop me from doing that due to the questionable license situation.

What has happened to Open Source Software anyway? People keep claiming their software is "free", but then they argue about so-called "free" licenses being incompatible. This used to be about free sharing of code, but now we need lawyers involved just to do that? Whenever a lawyer is involved, there is certainly no freedom, just random blabla that nobody understands.

For me, this is about quality of software and the ease of distributing it (and of course open-ness of source code wherever possible). And as long as nobody sues us for it, I am glad to distribute any piece of software.

bang. this look like a winner here, eh? Jeorg says there is no problem with inclusion. Thomas says there is no problem with packaging. it would appear that there is no problem. C Anthony

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Thomas Bächler wrote:

Am 27.05.2010 17:52, schrieb Loui Chang:

When has that happened? I would gladly package cdrtools. I know from many users that it is superior to cdrkit (although I never had any trouble with either of them). However, I fear that some of my fellow developers would stop me from doing that due to the questionable license situation.

Does anyone has problem with Thomas packaging crtools? If not, then problem solved. Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com

On 27/05/10 00:04, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Allan McRae wrote:

...

[about time we changed the subject]

Joerg,

Even given you are correct about licensing terms (which I do not care to dispute), currently all risk lies on the distributor. Given many distributions have (perhaps wrongly) chosen not to package cdrtools, there is obviously some implied risk. This is to your disadvantage. No amount of emails from you is going to nullify that risk.

If you would act at least be halfway consistent to what you claim, Arch needs to immediately drop the fork as there is a hint that there is a definite Copyright violation in the fork.

I am happy to discuss things _after_ you prove a consistent behavior......

A lot of people make claims against cdrtools. I do not care that they all stem from "slander" at Debian, those claims have spread. One person makes claims about cdrkit. We will consistently ignore the claims of single people, dismissing them as crackpots. And the license of cdrtools is not even the reason that cdrtools is not packaged in Arch. On the edge license cases like this have never really been considered by Arch developers as an issue. They are all free licenses in spirit. Only clear cases of licenses prohibiting distribution have prevented us from packaging something we wanted to in the past (e.g. acrobat, opera). As far as I know, there is no official decision stating cdrtools can not be packaged for Arch, just no-one has the motivation to do so. So lets be blunt here, because doing otherwise is getting us nowhere. I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you. My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you. I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools. I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly. Allan

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:06 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

...

I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you. My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating. If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you. I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools. I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly.

I agree. Deficient upstream is a completely valid reason for excluding things. i.e. Ion3

Well said Allan. I considered filtering out all emails with 'cdrtools' in the body, but haven't gotten round to logging in to gmail's interface to do that.

On Wed 26 May 2010 21:59 +0530, Piyush P Kurur wrote:

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:06:36AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Allan McRae wrote:

...

I do not speak for the other Arch developers, but the reason why I will not officially package cdrtools for Arch is you.  My impression of you is that you are very, very annoying and irritating.  If there was a bug report made about the cdrtools package in Arch, then I would have to deal with you.  I do not particularly want to do that, so I will not package cdrtools.  I have heard similar opinions expressed by developers from various other distributions while at Linux meetings, so I am not alone here, even though I might be the only one blunt enough to say it directly.

I agree. Deficient upstream is a completely valid reason for excluding things. i.e. Ion3

I like this thread. Burning CD on command line looks like a long ``burning'' issue.

Ba dum, ting!

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 13:35 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

ust to make clear how picky license violations are handled with Solaris, check that "libcdio" has been removed from Solaris distributions in 2007 because of the license violations in libcdio that have been found by Sun lawyers in the Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio?

Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL. Please stop spreading this nonsense.

On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 14:29 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Jan de Groot wrote:

...

...

Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio?

Libcdio doesn't violate any license, but it's GPL, while Sun doesn't want GPL'ed libraries in Solaris. GPL for libraries is very restrictive. In fact, everything you link against libcdio will have all restrictions applied by the GPL license, even if that software is LGPL.

You are obviously not correct, check Solaris.....

libcdio has two legal problems:

1) It claims to be under GPL but it is called from LGPL code. Most people believe that this is not permitted.

2) libcdio is based on code that is available under

- GPLv2 _only_

- CDDL

The related code was never made available under a different license. The "Autor" of libcdio first claimed that the code is "GPLv2 or any later" now he claims it is GPLv3. He did however never ask the real author of the related code for permission to do this license change and he now as a result of his violations would definitely not get this permission.

...

Please stop spreading this nonsense.

It is you who spreads nonsense :-(

Please stop this!

1) This is permitted, though it turns the complete package into GPL. This is also why libcdio has moved from gst-plugins-good to gst-plugins-ugly. Note that LGPL gives permission to change the license to ordinary GPL in section 3. 2) I found some bugreport on launchpad with that claim from you, but besides that, I can't find any information. The bugreport says you should take it up with the FSF, but somehow I can't find any reference about that. If linking GPL and CDDL code together isn't a problem for you and your lawyers, then I don't know why 1) would be a problem for you either. As for your claims, there's still an open question for you: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/011082.htm...

Am Wed, 26 May 2010 13:35:55 +0200 schrieb Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling):

Well, the license of the original software has been verified by Sun lawyers. People who are interested in more information may ask e.g. Simon Phipps and everybody can easily check that Solaris ships with halfway recent original software. I am sure that Solaris will switch soon to cdrtools-3.0 once it has been published next week.

Just to make clear how picky license violations are handled with Solaris, check that "libcdio" has been removed from Solaris distributions in 2007 because of the license violations in libcdio that have been found by Sun lawyers in the Sun legal department. Do you know of a single Linux distro that dropped libcdio because of the obvious licence violations in libcdio?

Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project.

Jörg

Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years? It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the licensing. If a distributor, if many distributors tell you that they have a problem with your licensing, and you want them to ship your package instead of cdrkit, then change your license so that every doubt is removed. Or pay a lawyer, who will publish his assessment, to prove that there are no legal issues with your licenses. Otherwise keep your licenses, accept that the distributors don't ship your cdrtools in their official repositories and stop arguing and discussing. It's just up to you, not to any distributors or lawyers. It's really annoying, to always read the same. I doubt, btw., that arguing persistently with the distributors and package maintainers will win them over and encourage them to include your software to their official repositories. If you have a problem with Debian and/or the cdrkit developers, discuss it with them directly, but not on mailing lists or forums which are not related to both. Or go to court and sue them. Then you will get the proof, which licensing model and which software fork is legal and which is not. And this proof will automatically be made public. As I said before, it's just up to you. It's your software, you want it to be included into the distributions' official repositories. So build and license it in a way, that the distributors and package maintainers don't have any doubt, or proof - not claim - them publicly that there are no legal issues with your licenses. And, btw., there is a cdrtools package in AUR. So every Arch user who wants to use it, can easily build and install it. Heiko

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Joerg Schilling < Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

Heiko Baums wrote:

...

...

Why does e.g. Debian still ship libcdio? Every unbiased person should have no problem to understand that what Debian did was just a slander campaign against an OpenSource project.

Jörg

Jörg, why don't you just change the license of your cdrtools to a licensing scheme - either change every part of it to the GPL, set it under a dual license or whatever - which is indisputable and doubtless instead of arguing with the distributors all the time over years?

It's really annoying to always read your nonsense regarding the licensing.

The problem seems to be only that people believe the liensing nonsense FUD spread by Debian.

Distributors who did ask their lawyers did either never change to the broken and illegal cod from Debian (Sun) or do again ship cdrtools (Suse).

I still don't understand why you ask mee to introduce a "solution" for a non-existent problem.

Jörg

-- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ * * *Korean Guide: Korean start -> Trucha bug -> Korean extra -> The basics -> Update* *Other Languages: Dutch* * * *Latest update: April 24th 2010 -- Images have not been made by us, please don't credit us for them!*

URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

How does any of this relate to the initial thread question whatsoever? Turning a simple question about burning an iso from CLI into an ongoing debate that was just on the Arch ML not a few months ago is rather annoying. I am sure I am not the only one that would like to see this debate taken elsewhere, and please let the thread die.

Heiko Baums wrote:

You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit.

You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues.

At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion?

And if the problem wouldn't exist, then the distributors incl. the Arch developers wouldn't have any doubts and would switch from cdrkit to cdrtools. As long as there are doubts about your claims and the licenses, there is a problem.

If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized laywer but please to not follow the slander from Debian. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Am Wed, 26 May 2010 15:48:29 +0200 schrieb Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling):

Heiko Baums wrote:

...

You keep arguing, you always persist on having cdrtools added to the repos in favor of cdrkit.

You always claim, that cdrkit has legal issues.

At the same time you claim that you believe the slander from Debian. Is there any hope to have a reasonable discussion?

I don't claim anything. I just tell you, that you claim that Debian doesn't tell the truth and don't prove this as you have been asked for many times. Just publish at least one of the assessments of the several lawyers you always mention and everything could be well. If they don't want their statements to be publish in a mailing list, just send them privately to the devs and/or package maintainers so that they can read them and form an opinion about them. And there we have one of the annoying discussions. If Debian tells the truth or slenders anyone, is only related to Debian and not to other distributions. So you should discuss this with Debian directly and not on other forums and mailing lists.

If you have doubts, I recommend you to ask an independent specialized laywer but please to not follow the slander from Debian.

I'm not really interested in it. For me cdrkit is working more or less, even if I believe you, that cdrtools would be technically better. And it's not my job to care about licenses as I'm just a normal user and not a dev. And as a normal user who is not concerned in these licensing stuff, I'm pretty annoyed about this permanently repeating endless and useless discussion. Heiko

Mauro Santos wrote:

"Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably

Good point! Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first). Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%. Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat. I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On 05/26/2010 04:59 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Mauro Santos wrote:

...

"Because I say so" is not a valid backup for your claims, Earth used to be flat and the center of the universe because the "experts" of that time "said so". This behavior gets people mad at you and invariably

Good point!

Since more than 3000 years men know that Earth is a spehere (from watching ships that appear on the horizon with their sails first).

Since aprox. 2200 years men know the diameter of Earth with an error of 8%.

Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat.

I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools.

Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat. The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication. On top of that, if they have referenced some other work to backup their claims, the references must be accessible to anyone wishing to review the claims. To be of any value, the work being referenced must have been itself peer reviewed and accepted as accurate. Your references are only available to the ones that wrote it and to you. This unavailability, even upon insistent request, makes those references irrelevant and unacceptable to backup your claims. This is how everyone else does things, somehow it seems that you don't want these rules to apply to you. If the debian people are just spreading FUD as you say they are, then _prove_ them wrong once and for all with hard evidence regarding the legal matters, then let people make up their own minds instead of wanting people to believe something because you say so. -- Mauro Santos

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 8:32 PM, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

at the possibility of playing devils advocate, i don't see anything outrageous by Jeorg's claims... even after reading the full 40+ messages twice and the "yay" thread started afterwards.

Sorry to inform you that you did not read enough.

seriously, nobody is going to sue us for using the cdrtools package... who? the guy that more or less owns it and is trying to get us to use it?  doubtful.

this seems like a bunch of political/personal nonsense, with a fair amount of personal jabs and condescending attitudes toward Jeorg. mind, i am entering this conflict without prior knowledge or bias.  i did not even know there was a difference between wodim and cdrtools/cdrecord... as Jeorg pointed out this is a _problem_.  his software's reputation is most assuredly suffering from this misinformation.

If you think I had any bias towards Joerg before reading this mailing list, well, you are wrong. Any judgments I might have is based on what he posted here. I don't see why other people should be biased either, Arch ML was spammed well enough on this topic that any reader can make his own opinion.

if Arch was truly worries about legal issues (which seems to be a complete moot point from my experience here), surely this package:

http://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/i686/libdvdcss/

would not even be REMOTELY close to an OFFICIAL repo!  am i right?  i don't know ANY other distro that includes it.

in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools.

It's not the only issue. What we need is a Arch developer that is : 1) willing to package cdrtools despite the license doubts 2) willing to work with Joerg as upstream (see http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-May/013557.html) That possibility was never completely excluded. But by endlessly trolling on our Mailing List and not showing much co-operation, Joerg is making more enemies than friends among Arch community and developers. IMO he would do himself a big favor by staying quiet. Since his software is technically superior, and is not completely unknown, people should recognize that and start using it by themselves. If a Arch user reports recording troubles with wodim, it's likely that another Arch user will recommend him to try out cdrecord, which is documented in Arch wiki and available in AUR. The good reputation of the software is built by the community, not the words of wisdom of the software's author.

on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why not?).  why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways?  i've been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO)

20 people asked this before you on this very same mailing list. Why do you think you are so special that he would listen to you ? And if you had read this : http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2010-February/010989.htm... You would know there is not even a need for a dual license or a license change, just a simple clause : <<< After speaking to Jörg we began our review of the complete source of cdrtools, and soon verified that GPL compliance on mkisofs was broken. We told Jörg that as far as we could see he was the only copyright holder on the CDDL'd libraries, which he confirmed. In that case, I pointed out, he could give all the permission necessary to solve the problem, without any license changes: he simply needed to give permission as the relevant copyright holder on the CDDL's libraries for combination with mkisofs and distribution of the binary and source under the terms of GPL, without any additional restrictions. We drafted for him the thirty-nine words needed: "You are permitted to link or otherwise combine this library with the program mkisofs, which is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the terms of the GPL."

...

...

C Anthony Risinger wrote:

in the spirit of open licenses, mildly incompatible or not, include the best tool for the job = cdrtools.

on a final note, Jeorg, it would be extremely beneficial if you could cite a hard resource regarding the legalities involved here, as you seem to have a resource. or maybe just dual license cdrtools (why not?). why was the license changed to CDDL exclusive anyways? i've

From the lesson I learned in 2001 from suing GPL violaters, I learned that it is useless to use a license that tries to enforce many non-helpful restrictions on the software. As a result, the main contributors of the cdrtools

As mentioned many times before and as you can read on the website.... The GPL is full of claims that cannot be enforced in court, see: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf This was written by Lawrence Rosen, the legal advisor of the OpenSource initiative (Opensource.org) in 2004, but I did know this already in 2001 when I tried to be the first person on earth to fight _for_ the GPL and against GPL violations in court. It tourned out that this is impossible. Note that Harald Welte definitely does not base his court cases on the GPL but on the German legal vehicle "preliminary injunction" where he forbids to sell produced hardware that needs to be payed to the producer (e.g. in China) but cannot create revenues from selling, based on the preliminary injunction. Any similar case that would solely be based on software would get lost unless the objector has an incapable lawyer. As mentioned before, in 2001 Moglen first spread wrong claims in the public while I was underway suing two GPL violating companies. So Moglen is already known as an unreliable legal sources since a long time before Debian started to attack cdrtools. project did discuss this and decided to switch to a more liberal license in the near future. We just could not fully agree on the BSD license. Then in December 2004, Sun and I created the CDDL which turned out to be a license that just tries to enforce as many restrictions as can enforced in court and thus seems to be the right compromise between BSD and GPL. As Debian stedted to attack cdrtools in May 2004 and as Debian massively boosted these attacks in late 2005 (including wrong claims about legal problems), I decided to switch towads the CDDL on May 15th 2006. As you see, the license change was a _result_ of the attacks from Debian but definitely not the cause.

been in lengthy license discussion over on Phoronix, and i must admit, the more i get into software as a living [6+ yrs now], the less i like the GPLv* (notice nobody moves TO the GPL, they only move AWAY... this, CouchDB [apache], etc... GPL is too purist IMO)

I personally know some projects that did go back from GPLv3 because the GPLv3 claims more restrictions than the GPLv2 and you are correct, I personally don't know about a project that moved from another license towards the GPL. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Attila wrote:

Sorry to say but until there is no decision from a law court i see this only as a interpersonal problem and therefore i prefer to discuss about technical things. Perhaps this is because i'm a former OS/2 user but what i really don't understand is the support for software which is a fork of old software and which

In case there was no decision from a court, there is only one halfway reliable method to deal with the problem: Check the claims of both parties and try to understand whether they are able to prove their claims with legal theories. Debian spreads claims that are in obvious conflict with the GPL license text and Debian uses a GPl interpretation that would make the GPL a definitely non-free license acording to the OpenSource definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Moglen sent me trustworthy legal theories in private at the time when he confirmed that there is no legal problem with the original software. Moglen did never send a legal theory since he has a "change of views" with Stallman and started to claim that there is a problem. Moglen has been asked several time to send a legal theory for his reversed view but besides from general unfriendlyness, he did never send _any_ legal explanation that could confirm that there is a problem. We for this reason need to stay with his first statements that have been proved with trustworthy legal theories and that confirm that there is no problem. Other lawyers are also confirming that there is no legal problem with the original software and these lawyers also confirm their claims with useful legal theories. So this seems to be a simple decision between pointless attacks and useful legal theories. BTW: Debian started to claim that there is a problem, so it is the duty of Debian to confirm that there is a problem. They did however never confirm any of their claims.

don't support the same count of platforms as the original. Aside of this juristic discussions from laypersons i can't recognize for what the world need cdrkit.

The world does not need any dead and buggy software regardless of it's name and regardless of it's initiator. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 06:56, Allan McRae wrote:

[it is rude not to change subject lines when going off-topic...]

On 27/05/10 20:13, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

Blah, blah, blah <paraphrased>

Seriously, stop it.   50+ messages that are entirely off-topic for the original question. I agree. Joerg, you waste the time of every reader of this list. I've never muted as many threads as I have when you start acting like a spoiled child on these lists. It's been discussed to death, please go elsewhere.

Hi, Joerg does has few odd things maybe because he is wrong or we are wrong but either way; we shouldn't be rude to him.he is the reason we have working cd/dvd burning support on Linux. AFAIK, he is working on cdrtools since 1995, much before I was knew what OSS was. he gave us his full source code & efforts for benefit for community much like other free software devs. lets give him credit for that. Also the truth is one person cannot be responsible for 50+threads. other people are replying to as well, so should be Joerg be blamed alone? if you want to ban, he should not be only one. Regarding licensing, I don't understand much( I am no lawyer) but from users perspective things are pretty good in Arch. default package is cdrkit which should be good enough for most users. if anyone faces any problem, he can always get original cdrtools from AUR. the real problem is with other big distros but that discussion is outside the scope of this mailing list. @Joerg schily I would suggest you spend your time more productively. if you feel/believe cdrkit fork is in conflict with the Copyright law & cannot be distributed legally. Please feel free to take legal action. your current strategy is clearing not working. if you can't take legal action due to some reason, its best to accept the current situation and move on with doing better things which are good use of your sharp mind. Wishing you success with whatever you choose to do. Regards, Gaurish Sharma www.gaurishsharma.com

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Attila wrote:

At Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010 16:25 Gaurish Sharma wrote:

...

 Also the truth is one person cannot be responsible for 50+threads. other people are replying to as well, so should be Joerg be blamed alone? if you want to ban, he should not be only one.

+100 and if you ban someone than you have to ban me because i'm the startpoint of this underthread ... a little cue in this case would be helpfull.-)

To be clear: On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

I'm going to give this the rest of the day to simmer down, then I'm going to start moderating/banning accounts

Notice that "accounts" is the plural, not the singular.

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Nilesh Govindarajan wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Attila wrote:

...

At Donnerstag, 27. Mai 2010 16:25 Gaurish Sharma wrote:

...

 Also the truth is one person cannot be responsible for 50+threads. other people are replying to as well, so should be Joerg be blamed alone? if you want to ban, he should not be only one.

+100 and if you ban someone than you have to ban me because i'm the startpoint of this underthread ... a little cue in this case would be helpfull.-)

To be clear:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Aaron Griffin wrote:

...

I'm going to give this the rest of the day to simmer down, then I'm going to start moderating/banning accounts

Notice that "accounts" is the plural, not the singular.

Err. I don't think you should do that unless they become a pure nuisance. I am facing a similar situation with Squidoo. Because of someone else on my subnet (I have static ip), spamming on their site (or may be due to a virus, its a common scene here), they have banned the whole subnet. And now even after several request they won't whitelist me. You may end up banning some for none of their mistake.

Moderating an account merely puts emails from that account on hold until approved by a moderator.

Mauro Santos wrote:

...

Later, some "religuous" crowd came up and claimed that Earth is flat.

I encourage you to just ignore those people who claim that Earth is flat and that there is a supposed legal problem with cdrtools.

Sure I can ignore people who say that Earth is flat.

The other people did backup their claims of Earth being round by publishing their reasoning and methods of determining Earth's radius, it has been peer reviewed and agreed upon that those claims are without fault given the knowledge available at the time of publication.

You hit the point: There is _zero_ prove from Debian for their claims. Even Eben Moglen (in his mail that has been verified to be otherwise based on lies as he e.g. claims that there was a phone call that did never happen) did not give _any_ legal theory for his claims. Guess why... ... And there is a detailed explanation from me, Lawrence Rosen and other people who confirm each statement with valid legal theories. As long as there people that even believe things claimed by Debian to be in the GPL that are not, we seem to have a serious social problem with FUD and trolling. Jörg -- EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin js@cs.tu-berlin.de (uni) joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Damjan Georgievski wrote:

 - it will put to an END to any possible misinterpretations and uncertainties - now and in the future

he certainly is not interested in ending these pointless battles :)