[arch-general] An old, tiresome discussion: cdrtools vs cdrkit

[Allan McRae]

On 28/01/10 00:12, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 27/01/10 22:40, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org>   wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/01/10 20:02, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>>>> There was nothing but a social attack from a hostile person. Please show me a
>>>>> report from a single lawyer that proves that there is a legal problem with the
>>>>> original software.
>>>>
>>>> Please provide a report from a single laywer showing that there is not.
>>>
>>> In the legal system I live and in case you live in the USA for you too, _you_
>>> would first need to prove that there is a legal problem with the original
>>> software.
>>
>> Nice avoidance yet again of the request to provide some legal backing to
>> your assertion that it is legal to distribute cdrtools.
>
> You still did not prove that it is illegal. I sit back and relax unless you can
> prove your claims.

Yes you can...  and equally so can we and not package cdrtools unless 
you can prove yours.  Even if you can prove your claim, we still can 
relax and do nothing.  Although, as I said before, the technical merits 
of your project warrant it replacing cdrkit if this is ever resolved. 
Unfortunately, that will likely never be the case given the conclusions 
that can be drawn from all "evidence" that has been presented out so far.

>> In the legal system I live in, if you have a suspicion that doing
>> something is illegal, then you do not do it.  If someone tells you that
>> it is fine with no evidence of legal backing for that assertion and you
>> decide to take their advise, you are legally responsible for your decision.
>
> Well, it seems that you decided to use a model that is highly vulnerable for
> FUD and you are even in conflict with your own statements:
>
> Did you remove cdrkit from Arch Linux?

No, because the only reference I can see to cdrkit being an illegal fork 
is in comments made by you.  In my searching, I could not find an actual 
reason given why you think that is the case.  That is extreme FUD.

FUD from a single source I can ignore.  FUD debated by multiple sources 
might actually have a basis... And this has been debated in multiple 
places. That is the concern here.

Allan