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

[Johann Peter Dirichlet]

2010/1/27 kludge <drkludge at rat-patrol.org>:
> On 01/27/2010 09:49 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:
>> Am Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:17:01 -0500
>> schrieb pyther <pyther at pyther.net>:
>>
>>> Look at the high-profile case of cdrtools vs cdrkit, though; it is
>>> huge. You stated that sun spent 3 months looking into it. If for some
>>> odd reason someone decide to sue the arch project there is a big risk
>>> for Aaron and the maintainer of the package. At the very least they
>>> would likely have to consult a lawyer and possibly show up in court.
>>> This becomes a big time commitment and financial burden as the
>>> donations from this project are fairly minimal (at least compared to
>>> the hiring of a lawyer).
>>>
>>> Lets face it, everyone on this project is unpaid and has a real life.
>>> It seems as if a few of the main devs have decided they don't want to
>>> take the "risk."
>>
>> I doubt that someone will go directly to court. If someone sees
>> licensing issues he most likely will first ask the Arch devs to remove
>> cdrtools from the repos. If this will be the case, they can just remove
>> it and revert to cdrkit. This won't cost anything.
>>
>> If there really was such a legal issue I bet no other distribution
>> would have cdrtools in its repos or many other distributions would have
>> been sued already. So why should Arch Linux after many years the first
>> distro to be sued?
>>
>> And as I've already written I can't find the CDDL in the cdrtools
>> source package. I can only find the GPLv2. So cdrecord and mkisofs are
>> both licensed under the GPLv2.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Heiko
>>
>
> here's a proposal for the future of this discussion:
>
> 1) Joerg is no longer allowed to participate in the the discourse unless
> directly questioned.
>
> 2) Allan: ditto.
>
> 3) All other participants work toward creating a formal proposal and
> then debating and resolving reservations about that proposal, each in turn.
>
> 4) Aaron, as overlord, set a sunset clause on the discussion period, act
> as moderator (or delegate if he's sick of this shit), and maintain final
> approval/veto over the proposal that emerges.
>
> Anyone?
>
> -kludge
>

I agree! :) except the first and second clauses.

Just completing my reasoning...

In my opinion, the problem is not the fork attitude, but the bad
quality of fork. An example:

OpenBSD is a fork from NetBSD, it was a history of strong "ego combat"
too, but it is a good quality fork, a so good fork that many operating
systems (BSDs and Linux, also some others) and even software
maintainers look at it as an example of stability and security.

That is not the case for cdrkit. It has a lower quality than the
original software. In fact, I lost some DVD discs with wodim :( but it
is just with me (many people say that cdrkit is buggy, many people say
that is good).

Shilly is a very energic person, and sometimes it reinforces their own
opinions in a little polite way sometimes. It makes this comments
sound
But, talking outspoken, to hell with this frakkin' licensing way! That
is not the problem here.

cdrkit is a badly maintained software, cdrtools is far well updated
and maintained, and both are free softwares. So, dump or AUR cdrkit,
and if some day someone would complain with cdrtools, simply put
cdrkit back (or create a fork of it again :D)