Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

2009/7/31 Joerg Schilling :

...

Sun is of course distributing the original software only. Even Debian agreed on distributing the original software again as soon as possible, see:

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html

I emailed Joerg Jaspert to ask about the "Debian agreed on distributing the original cdrtools as soon as possible" part of that link and he doesn't agrees with that text (sorry, I didn't ask permission to copy&paste the answer, if someone is really interested I could ask for it). Since I don't know who the "neutral observer" is I can't ask him. I suggest you clarify this with him. But don't expect Debian to distribute cdrtools anytime soon...

This seems to be very important: Please send a copy of this mail! If your claim was correct, then Jörg Jaspert would be going to intentionally break a contract......and we would need his reply in order to be able to understand his interests. There are witnesses for the contract, so in case that Jörg Jaspert would really try to deny the contract, it would be easy to verify the truth. Fact is that cdrkit was made to be in conflict with the Copyright law by Eduard Bloch and for this reason, cdrkit cannot be legally distributed. I am currently giving Debian the possibility to cure this in case they again distribute the legal original software. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Sid Boyce wrote:

...

http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-legal-list@redhat.com/msg00506.html

The details in msg00506 sums it up nicely. The CDDL ruled out using code under that license being used in Linux - by intention - it's code owned by Sun.

If you like to spread FUD, this is your decision. It is not related to reality - sorry. The person you are quoting here is no laywer and even otherwise completely uninformed about legal principles in general and the specific case in special. I tend to believe that he does not spread FUD by _intention_, but he unfortunately spreads FUD. It is bad to see that you confuse legal and technical points that do not belong to each other. You do the same thing as the non-cooperative package maintainer that initiated the disput did. This is something that will not help us to advance from the attacks that have been initated by an OSS hostile person (Eduard Bloch). What is Suse interested in? - Does suse like to distribute unmaintained software that is full of bugs? - Or does suse care about it's users and thus is interested in the well maintained and legal original software? 2~A -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Robert Kaiser wrote:

I'm merely a bystander viewing this discussion from the sidelines, but calling someone from Fedora legal "completely uninformed about legal principles" without even addressing his findings is not helping your reputation here or anywhere else.

I judge not on claimed "personal attributes" but on what people tell me. Unfortunately, this person verified that he really _is_ uninformed and this matches the fact that he did previously admit to me that he is no lawyer. I did discuss the claims from Eduard Bloch with a German lawyer and I have a US lawyer on the same floor (a few rooms besides) in my department in the company. My company sends me to legal training courses on a regular base and for this reason, I am able to judge on whether a person tries to tell me rubbish or whether there is a serious legal background in claims. If you like to understand the difference, I recommend you to read this: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf to learn how decent legal arguments look like.... I know that none of the claims from Eduard Bloch is related to reality. If we like to overcome the current situation (that was caused by Eduard Bloch and only because he was unhappy abouf the fact that I rejected a patch for mkisofs because of the extremely poor quality of the patch and the fact that it was full of new bugs), we need to stop talking about things that have been proven to be wrong. Let us talk about facts instead.....

Also, you're spreading enough FUD on cdrkit that it doesn't shed a good light on you from a neutral perspective if you accuse others of the same.

I inform people about the reality. If you believe I am wrong, you are free to verify this using facts. Fact is that the person who initiated "cdrkit" did spread only lies about the original software and as long as these lies are still floating around, there is a need to correct them.

Free and Open Source Software is about enabling choice, options and free innovation, strong ownership and hard ruling on code philosophically collides with that heavily, while embracing forks and different ideas or strains of thought are completely in line with it. Accusing other projects of misdeed, thumbing them down, and calling them out will never get you anywhere in the open source community. Being open on collaboration and constructive in solving issues is the only way to get things done to include your way.

Thank you for verifying that Suse currently has a credibility problem that arises from the fact that Suse forces their users to use a non-legal and buggy fork but does not at least at the same time allow them to easily use the well maintained original software. Free and Open Source Software allows you to create a fork, but you still have to follow the rules of the law. The problem with the fork "cdrkit" is that is ignores the rules of the law. Freedom is also the freedom of the choice. If there was the freedom of the choice, nobody would ever have used cdrkit. If you like to start a fork, you need to maintain it. In order to maintain a fork, you need related technical skills and a lot of enthusiasm. Both is missing with the people that are behind the fork and this is the reason why many users are unhappy with the fork. As a general hint: Please let us avoid to start a discussion that is based on unproven claims but let the discussion be based on facts. If suse is interested in making their users happy and in getting a good reputation, it would be time for suse to start distributing binary packages for the original 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Greg KH wrote:

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 05:30:46PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

Thank you for verifying that Suse currently has a credibility problem that arises from the fact that Suse forces their users to use a non-legal and buggy fork but does not at least at the same time allow them to easily use the well maintained original software. Free and Open Source Software allows you to create a fork, but you still have to follow the rules of the law. The problem with the fork "cdrkit" is that is ignores the rules of the law.

What _specific_ legal issues are there concerning the package that SuSE ships?

The same that have been send in December 2006 to the people who introduced the the problems, see e.g.: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html#violations The people who ware repsonsible for the problems have been informed in a more detailled way but they did strictly reject to make the code legal again. Suse is not responsible for the problem itself and suse cannot fix it as the relevent people do not like to fix the problem. The easiest way to deal with the problem is to distriribute the legal original software from: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ http://cdrecord.berlios.de and suse will at the same time get all known bugs fixed and a lot of new features. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Greg KH wrote:

...

...

What _specific_ legal issues are there concerning the package that SuSE ships?

The same that have been send in December 2006 to the people who introduced the the problems, see e.g.:

http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html#violations

If those are the specific things you are claiming, I will respectively disagree that there is any violations here.

You are not the Copyright holder - I am! As you are not the Copyright hilder, your personal belief is not important..... There are of course Copyright violations and as you cannot influence them, it does not make sense to give you more information on the specifics of the Copyright violations. These informations have been given to the people who are reponsible for the Copyright violation. You are just the downstream of a hostile upstream that created the fork. If you (suse) however continue to distribute the code although you have been informed about the problem, you may be sued because of the Copyright violation. I am disappointed to see that you try to deny the fact of a copyright violation without giving _any_ information on what your "decision" was based. Anyway, if you are showig good will with fixing the current problem by starting to distribute the legal original software again, I may give you some time to recover from the mistake of switching to the illegal fork. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Greg KH wrote:

On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 07:33:06PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

Anyway, if you are showig good will with fixing the current problem by starting to distribute the legal original software again, I may give you some time to recover from the mistake of switching to the illegal fork.

I'm sorry, but I do not think that is going to happen anytime soon.

best of luck,

Thank you for giving me the OK for mentioning Suse as OSS hostile company on my web pages. Be prepared for being sued because of the copyright violations. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Joerg Schilling wrote:

Thank you for giving me the OK for mentioning Suse as OSS hostile company on my web pages.

If anyone is hostile to OSS here then it's the someone claiming absolute copyright over some code that he at the same time claims to be open, which is a contradiction in itself.

Be prepared for being sued because of the copyright violations.

I'm looking forward to follow your suing of Novell/openSUSE, RedHat/Fedora and probably Canonical/ubuntu/Debian at the same time. It's probably going to be ugly, and I would have preferred us to show the good sides of the open source communities but it looks at least someone here puts his own pride over the goal to help others. Still, I'm only an interested user and fan of both openSUSE as well as truly open licenses that allow free code exchange and forking for everyone, who is following this discussion from the sidelines. Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

"jdd (kim2)" wrote:

could it be possible to calm down?

AFAIK nobody speak for openSUSE yet here. I made a call to the board to come and see this thread, but on August, I don't know if it's reasonable

I would be happy, even if we had a discussion on technical issues only. There are _many_ technical issues with the fork that all go away if you upgrade to recent original software. This would of course require some people to first calm down. I am prepared for a fact based discussion and I am happy to discuss technical problems based on facts if there are others who are also interested in a fact based discussion - thank you! 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

...

could it be possible to calm down? I would be happy, even if we had a discussion on technical issues only. There are _many_ technical issues with the fork that all go away if you upgrade to recent original software. This would of course require some

"jdd (kim2)" wrote: people to first calm down. I am prepared for a fact based discussion and I am happy to discuss technical problems based on facts if there are others who are also interested in a fact based discussion - thank you!

You could setup a OpenSUSE Build Service (OBS) account and build for the most populart distributions. Right now factory is open to having packages submitted. You follow the rules and behave in a proper manner and the package could be put into factory.

There is already a binary package created by a suse user, I believe his name is Hennning Paul. I currently cannot fint it :-( Please note that I am the author and I spend my on making cdrtools bug-free and higly portable. This takes a lot of time. The spcific communities for specific platforms need to take care of creating binaries. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

...

Please note that I am the author and I spend my on making cdrtools bug-free and higly portable. This takes a lot of time. The spcific communities for specific platforms need to take care of creating binaries.

I understand that, but think of the advantage of tracking and fixing all bugs for linux in one place. Also the OBS, is great for local use as well. I have my own local OBS, just for the devs on my machines. It is OSS and one is able to modify the code accordingly. Packman, now has an OBS and from what I gather, they are moving everything to being build within it.

It would be nice if there was a single point for discussing and fixing Linux bugs like the bugs in the drivers and e.g. hald.

There are a lot of advantages in using it. But as you said, you are the author and you use what is best for you. But this is an option to get more compliance with what you are striving to achive. Sometimes the way of least resistence is best.

I do not prefer a specific platform except for maybe Solaris because this is the development platform, but this is because Solaris has the best debug tools and because the SCSI interface is the closes to what I need. Note that I did write the first known SCSI pass through implementation in 1986 and I did it on SunOS. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thursday 06 August 2009 13:30:00 Andreas Jaeger wrote:

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 23:50:35 Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:

...

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

"jdd (kim2)" wrote:

...

could it be possible to calm down?

I would be happy, even if we had a discussion on technical issues only. There are _many_ technical issues with the fork that all go away if you upgrade to recent original software. This would of course require some people to first calm down. I am prepared for a fact based discussion and I am happy to discuss technical problems based on facts if there are others who are also interested in a fact based discussion - thank you!

You could setup a OpenSUSE Build Service (OBS) account and build for the most populart distributions. Right now factory is open to having packages submitted. You follow the rules and behave in a proper manner and the package could be put into factory.

There is already a binary package created by a suse user, I believe his name is Hennning Paul. I currently cannot fint it :-(

Yes, indeed. And if Henning (?) likes to submit the package to openSUSE:Factory, I'm sure that the distribution team does a review of the package and will check it in if no problems are found. Unfortunately we're after the feature freeze for 11.2, so I'm not sure whether they'll make an exception and take it.

Whether it then replaces the current packages, is a separate decision,I doubt that the timing for 11.2 is good. But open source is about choice, so if everybody is happy with the "new" package and there's a good and friendly cooperation between distribution, packager and upstream project, I expect we can discuss removing the other one for 11.3,

Just to make this explicit: A review contains also a legal review - and that includes checking the license and whether there are license incompatibilities, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

On Thursday 06 August 2009 14:30:10 Joerg Schilling wrote:

Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

...

Whether it then replaces the current packages, is a separate decision,I doubt that the timing for 11.2 is good. But open source is about choice, so if everybody is happy with the "new" package and there's a good and friendly cooperation between distribution, packager and upstream project, I expect we can discuss removing the other one for 11.3,

Just to make this explicit: A review contains also a legal review - and that includes checking the license and whether there are license incompatibilities,

This license review has already been done by the Sun legal department.

Every project has to do its on review. What others uncover and what decisions they make, is a good input into the review but still somebody has to review it. Btw. Sun is not distributing a Linux distribution, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, aj@{novell.com,opensuse.org} Twitter: jaegerandi | Identica: jaegerandi SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

...

Just to make this explicit: A review contains also a legal review - and that includes checking the license and whether there are license incompatibilities,

This license review has already been done by the Sun legal department.

Every project has to do its on review. What others uncover and what decisions they make, is a good input into the review but still somebody has to review it.

Well, Sun payed real lawyers to review the license and this currently is the only public review that has been done by lawyers. As the Sun lawyers are known to be _very_ picky about license problems (linux distributions distribute many questionable projects that are denied by Sun because of license problems), this is the best statement you currently get.

Btw. Sun is not distributing a Linux distribution,

This is irrelevent for the project, Sun has an OSS distribution and Sun rejects to distribute questionable software (see above). 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Sid Boyce wrote:

Just as Sun does what Sun chooses for Sun's projects, do you accept that Linux does likewise? Is there any justifiable reason why Linux should follow Sun's lead?

If you did read my last mail you did know...... Sun did let lawyers do a review. This did not happen with any Linux distro yet. It is a pitty that Linux distributions did follow the false claims from a laymen like Eduard Bloch without asking lawyers. If lawyers had been asked by Linux distros before, the deffamation campain from Mr. Bloch had no chance..... 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

Sun did let lawyers do a review. This did not happen with any Linux distro yet.

I'm surprised to hear that only Sun has lawyers working for them, and no Linux distros have. I take it that the truth of all your messages can be measured by that statement.

I am bewildered to see that you again try to insinuate claims that I did never say..... If any Linux distro did ask any lawyer before, the deffamation campaign from Mr. Bloch did not happen. The current situation is a result from _not_ asking lawyers. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kleine wrote:

I'm sorry, but that's getting ridiculous from pretty much all sides and all those "I'm right and you suck!" claims aren't exactly helpful.

@Schily: As far as I understand the whole problem is the license so why don't you dual license it under CDDL as well as some GPL? Someone on fedora-legal asked the same but didn't get an answer (or I failed to find it).

Could you please stop this? You are trying to claim that there is a license problem in the original software although it has been verified that there is no such 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/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Stephan Kleine wrote:

...

Could you please stop this?

You are trying to claim that there is a license problem in the original software although it has been verified that there is no such problem.

I'm not trying to claim anything here but saying that:

1. The whole mess is about the license.

This is definitely wrong! A OSS hostile downstream package maintainer started a _private_ deffamation campaign in May 2004 and has unfortunately been successful with turning his private campain into a global deffamation campain. The reason why he could be successful is that the Linux distributors that followed his lies did never ask a lawyer. If they did, they did of course know that there was nothing but lies...

2. You, as the author, are the only one who could dual license it to stop such discussions once and for all.

I already asked you to stop your claims! What you are doing is called slander. There is no need to dual license the code as there is no license problem.

4. You ignored the main content of the mail and concentrated again on that legal "is it true or not" discussion instead of simply answering if dual licensing would be an option for you.

So, once again: Would dual licensing it under CDDL & GPL be an option for you? If not, why?

You ignore the reality, so please go away if you are unable to have a fact based discussion. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Bryen M Yunashko wrote:

On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 20:17 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

...

2. You, as the author, are the only one who could dual license it to stop such discussions once and for all.

I already asked you to stop your claims!

What you are doing is called slander.

There is no need to dual license the code as there is no license problem.

I have stood by silently while watching this poor thread go down in flames. When Luis originated this thread, I do not believe it was his intention to turn this into a political debate but merely to discuss the technical merits of switching from cdrkit to cdrtools. That technical discussion has not occurred sufficiently because of sidetracking and strange accusations.

Joerg, there is nothing stated in Stephan Kleine's statement above that can be interpreted as slanderous. You have the right to decide whether to add a second license or not. That is not slanderous, that is recognition of the fact that you own copyright to cdrtools.

I am not sure why you don't get this, but he is definitely slanderous. He is asking to "solve a problem" that has already been verified to not exist.

Maybe there is a significant language barrier that you keep re-reading and mis-interpreting things as slanderous. If you feel a statement

I have no idea where your problem is located. I would be happy if we could go back to a fact based discussion. A -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Bryen M Yunashko wrote:

Slander is defined as "a malicious, false, and defamatory statement."

This is what he did. Note that I am not interested on a discussion that is based on slander. I will not answer to related mails anymore. I am however happy to answer mail that s based on facts. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Andreas Jaeger wrote:

...

There is no need to dual license the code as there is no license problem.

Jörg,

Tom Galloway said that dual licensing would help Fedora. I know you do not agree with him but let's just take this as Fedora's position.

Mr. Galloway is no lawyer and he verified that he does not even remotely understand the background of the case. Please don't let us talk about people who are not willing to have a fact based discussion.

So, dual licensing would make Fedora happy. Why is it for you so important that you insist that there is no legal problem instead of dual licensing the code to make them happy?

The CDDL has been aproved as a free license by the OSI and even the GPL has been aproved by the OSI after the FSF admitted that it has to be interpreted in a way that maked it compliant to: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php Redhat is happyly distributing star which is under CDDL, so it is obvious that even redhat is accepting that the CDDL is a free license. The Sun legal department did make a full in depth legal review with cdrtools and could not find any problems. On March 6th 2009 at CeBIT Debian agreed (with the help from Simon Phipps from Sun) to start redistributing the original cdrtools again as soon as possible. Please let us ignore people like Mr. Galloway who are not interested on fact based discussions.

We've even seen Microsoft release kernel code under the GPL to make the Linux kernel developers happy - and to achieve their goal of better interoperability and performance.

So, if your goal is to get as many as possible users for your great software, then I do not understand why you move away the roadblock that others have with it. What hinders you?

I am not sure whether you understand the ideas of OpenSource correctly. You (suse) are a distributor and you get the code from people like me who are the authors of the code. As mentioned before, the license change from GPL to CDDL has been done because there are too many people who intentionally misinterpret the GPL. Where have you been when this happened? If you are interested in GPLd code, you could have helped me against the attacks from Mr. Bloch. You missed your chance and now you need to accept the results as you are not the author of the code..... BTW: You can only have _one_ single interpretation of the GPL and you need to use the same interpretation for all software, so if you _really_ believe the claims from Mr. Bloch, you need to admit that _no_ Linux distribution can be legally distributed and that the GPL is a non-free license that is in conflict with http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php If you ask me to dual license cdrtools, you pretend that the GPL is a non-free license and that you cannot legally distribute suse linux. Is this what you like? In case you need help on how to interpret the GPL correctly, please read this: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf Lawrence Rosen is the lawyer of the OSI and he explains in a legally correct way, word by word, which claims from the GPL cannot stand in court and what really is in the GPL. Don't make the mistake to believe the false claims from the FSF that you can read on the "GPL FAQ" from the FSF. It is _not_ based on the content of the GPL and it was not written by a lawyer, so Eben Moglen confirmed to me that this "GPL FAQ" is wrong. As mentioned before, I am happy to have a fact based discussion..... 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

"jdd (kim2)" wrote:

Joerg Schilling a écrit :

...

The CDDL has been aproved as a free license by the OSI

So, if I understand well, you say that your application can be included in openSUSE with the present licence without problem?

So far, so good.

openSUSE board or Project Director should then ask the Novell lawyers they opinion (if it's already done, give a link to the result), then we will see.

I personally have in theory no problems with letting lawyers check things as long as their decisions are not based on false claims. The cdrtools code has already been successfully reviewd in depth by the Sun legal department. There is a problem when we try to match your demand with reality. The software that was created by the cdrtools project is used by many other projects, but this is (at least for three projects) done in a non-legal way. It is unfortunately obvious that suse usually does not go the way you propose while integrating software. - Why did suse belive in the pointles claims from Mr. Bloch against the cdrtools but never make a legal review on cdrkit? Any legal verification would have immediately revealed that believing in the Arguments from Mr. Bloch would make all Linux distros illegal and made the GPL a non-free license. - Why does suse distribute the GNU vcdimager that is in obvious conflict with the Copyright law? GNU vcdimager is based on a Reed Solomon coder implementation that _never_ has been published under GPL and the author of the code did never give his permission to put this code under GPL. GNU vcdimager however claims that the code is under GPL. We offered several different ways to the vcdimager author on how to make his software legal. He rejected all of them. Conclusion: vcdimager is undistributable but suse happily distributes it. - libcdio is also based on code from cdrtools. The code it is based on, was published under "GPLv2 _only_". The libcdio author first changed the license from "GPLv2 _only_" to "GPLv2 or any later" without the permission from the original author. Hhe later even changed the license to "GPLv3 or any later" without having the permission to do so. - there is another problem with libcdio: libcdio is under GPLv2 but it is usually called by LGPL code (e.g. from LGPL libraries the GNOME project). It is commonly agreed that calling GPL code from non-GPL code is most likely not permitted. This is a problem that was detected by the Sun legal department and because of this problem, Sun did ummediately stop to distribute libcdio and we did write a replacement library for GNUME that is based on an enhanced version of cdda2wav.

This is the most important part.

Ten you claim wodim infringe your licence. I beg you made a sue to the author? so we have to wait the jugement and act then accordingly.

I don't see any other interest of the discussion. I'm not a lawyer, you are not, and even if you where only a juge can say what is true (and this is to be done in an international manner). All the rest is mere opinion.

thanks for your great work, anyway.

If you like equal treatment, you should vote for the following: - Either Suse believes in the reults from the legal check from Sun and starts distributing the original cdrtools as soon as possible.... - .... or suse _immediately_ stops distributing VCDimager, libcdio and cdrkit. We then start a legal review with cdrtools and do not forward to the other projects before we agree on the results for 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 07/08/09 07:56, jdd (kim2) wrote:

Joerg Schilling a écrit :

...

The CDDL has been aproved as a free license by the OSI

So, if I understand well, you say that your application can be included in openSUSE with the present licence without problem?

So far, so good.

openSUSE board or Project Director should then ask the Novell lawyers they opinion (if it's already done, give a link to the result), then we will see.

This is the most important part.

Ten you claim wodim infringe your licence. I beg you made a sue to the author? so we have to wait the jugement and act then accordingly.

I don't see any other interest of the discussion. I'm not a lawyer, you are not, and even if you where only a juge can say what is true (and this is to be done in an international manner). All the rest is mere opinion.

thanks for your great work, anyway.

jdd

My FINAL FINAL words on this topic!!!!! For something that is still so mired in controversy after many years of rancour, progressing from a threat to not support Linux to the current legal threat, I can see no further point in burning any more "mental shoe leather" (Trademarked by Sid Boyce) on it. The fact that it just doesn't pass muster should be accepted and we move on. Back to the real world and my grub problem. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Specialist, Cricket Coach Microsoft Windows Free Zone - Linux used for all Computing Tasks -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

...

...

On 8/7/2009 at 13:47, Joerg Schilling wrote: Sid Boyce wrote:

...

My FINAL FINAL words on this topic!!!!! For something that is still so mired in controversy after many years of

So you like to tell us theat the world is not ready for OSS and that cases like this one where a single person (Mr. Bloch) attacks OSS projects and Linux distros blindly follow his pointless claims may happen again every day?

They DO happen. Just look at the pointless claims SCO <--> Novell. And THEY did the thing YOU should do to: bring it to a court. That is the ONLY place that can finally decide if you're right or not. Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Robert Kaiser wrote:

Still, I'm only an interested user and fan of both openSUSE as well as truly open licenses that allow free code exchange and forking for everyone, who is following this discussion from the sidelines.

You still do not understand what you are talking about. You of course still have to follow legal rules if you fork software and the problem is that Eduard Bloch ignored these rules when he modified the code. The important thing you need to know is that you need to honor the rights of the copyright holder. OpenSOurce Software cannot be based on hate and wodim is based on hate. The fact that more than one Linux distributor is in conflict with the copyright law does not cause thinge to become legal. If this is a technical list, then people could just admit that they don't have the skills to discuss legal problems. It is bad to see that laymen from suse tried to tell me that they know better. If this is a technical list, then it could be a good idea to discuss technical issues only. As "cdrkit" has more than 100 well documented bugs, there is much to discuss. The users of the suse distribution are annoyed that suse ships a fork full of bugs instead of the original software. Has suse really no interest to satisfy their customers? What is the reason for being unfriendly to a very active OSS author? 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Philipp Thomas wrote:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:01:40 +0200, you wrote:

...

What is the reason for being unfriendly to a very active OSS author?

Maybe because of that active OSS author being extremely good at alienating people?

Seconded - he is behaving like a skunk here, like he did all his more than 10 or 15 years of "open source existence" everywhere he appeared. Viele Gruesse Eberhard Moenkeberg (emoenke@gwdg.de, em@kki.org) -- Eberhard Moenkeberg Arbeitsgruppe IT-Infrastruktur E-Mail: emoenke@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1551 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gesellschaft fuer wissenschaftliche Datenverarbeitung mbH Goettingen (GWDG) Am Fassberg 11, 37077 Goettingen URL: http://www.gwdg.de E-Mail: gwdg@gwdg.de Tel.: +49 (0)551 201-1510 Fax: +49 (0)551 201-2150 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Neumair Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Dipl.-Kfm. Markus Hoppe Sitz der Gesellschaft: Goettingen Registergericht: Goettingen Handelsregister-Nr. B 598 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

Ok, technical: I've searched bugzilla.novell.com for open bugs against "wodim cdrecord cdrkit mkisofs genisoimage" as the most prominent examples (I think).

There is one open bug: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507337

I don't argue against cdrkit probably has more bugs but apparently openSUSE users don't have massive issues with it.

The last time I checked the suse bugtracker, I found that suse did close obvious and unfixed bugs. It seems that looking at the novell bugtracking system does not help. But it is interesting that bug 507337 is the most annoying problem with the fork that I have been presented at the Sun day in easter 2007 in St. Petersburg. A friend did show me the problem and we did fetch the original software and he was immediately able to talk to his drive.

...

What is the reason for being unfriendly to a very active OSS author?

You wanted to speak technical so don't get us started on friendliness.

If you like to have a technical discussion, please check the various related bug tracking systems that are run in a more serious way. If you sum up all bugs reported to Debian, Ubuntu and Redhat and if you also look at the GUIs that are affected by the bugs from the fork, you will find out that there are more than 100 serious bugs in the fork. These bugs exisist for a very long time and nobody is interested in fixing them. Given the fact that many of the bugs could be fixed easily, we need to conclude that the fork is completely unmaintained since more than two years. For an overview of the bugs in the fork, please reas this: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html#problems 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Vladimir Nadvornik wrote:

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 23:17:57 Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

But it is interesting that bug 507337 is the most annoying problem with the fork that I have been presented at the Sun day in easter 2007 in St. Petersburg. A friend did show me the problem and we did fetch the original software and he was immediately able to talk to his drive.

This was probably bug http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=510231 or something similar. Wodim run by user is indeed unable to open a device with permissions root, root, 660.

The fact that cdrecord with suid is able to use such device could be even considered a security bug.

Cdrecord is carefully audited and you definitely _need_ root permissions if you like to offer the features that cdrecord offers. Linux did _always_ require root privileges for such programs. It is a lot more risky if you use software that has been influenced by people who fail to understand the background. Eduard Bloch is such a person.... And BTW: wodim has problems with dealing with e.g. SATA drives regardless on whether you are root. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Vladimir Nadvornik wrote:

...

...

The fact that cdrecord with suid is able to use such device could be even considered a security bug.

Cdrecord is carefully audited and you definitely _need_ root permissions if you like to offer the features that cdrecord offers. Linux did _always_ require root privileges for such programs.

What changes in Linux are required to support cdrecord without root permissions correctly?

As cdrecord on Solaris works without being root since January 2006 and for this reason, it is well documented what you need to do: - create a specific exec atribute for cdrecord and other commands from cdrtools that contain the needed special fine grained privileges. - For cdrecord on Solaris, this is: PRIV_FILE_DAC_READ, PRIV_PROC_LOCK_MEMORY, PRIV_PROC_PRIOCNTL, PRIV_NET_PRIVADDR, PRIV_SYS_DEVICES, - For cdda2wav on Solaris, this is: PRIV_FILE_DAC_READ, PRIV_PROC_PRIOCNTL, PRIV_NET_PRIVADDR, PRIV_SYS_DEVICES, - For readcd on Solaris, this is: PRIV_FILE_DAC_READ, PRIV_NET_PRIVADDR, PRIV_SYS_DEVICES, For Linux, PRIV_SYS_DEVICES would need to be translated into what is apropriate in order to permit sending _any_ SCSI command. Since 2004, Solaris comes with a complete fine grained privileges environment. Although Linux did start at a similar time, the implementation still seems to be only 70% ready. Solaris implements kernel and user space support, Linux implements kernel support but only a very rudimentary user space support. It may be that there are other possibilities to make Linux usable (e.g. by using specific filesystem features that look like mandatory acces control features), but these features (and many other important basic features) are treated as "optional" by most Linux disistros (the exception seems to be a single turkish distro).

I know about mlock and realtime priority. Anything else? The list of filtered scsi commands seems to be complete so there should not be a problem.

See above, your asumptions about SCSI are incorrect and not having the needed privileges is one reason for aprox. 10-20% of the documented wodim bugs.

...

It is a lot more risky if you use software that has been influenced by people who fail to understand the background. Eduard Bloch is such a person....

And BTW: wodim has problems with dealing with e.g. SATA drives regardless on whether you are root.

Could you please explain the techical background here?

As there is no clean concept for SCSI generic pass through on Linux, it is hard to implement workarounds for the constantly "drifting" user interfaces from the Linux kernel. libscg implements a stable interface to the users of this lib but this unly works because I am using a very conservative design approach. People who don't understand the problems with the Linux kernel/user interface tend to implement solutions that work only for today but fail a short time later. This is what happens with wodim. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Patrick Shanahan wrote:

And with the "Open Source Spirit" and your great knowledge, you *are* stepping up and volunteering to help correct these issues :^

We graciously accept your kind gesture, but please stop with the threats.

You seem to completely missunderstand the source of the threath, it is Eduard Bloch. 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Joerg Schilling wrote:

The important thing you need to know is that you need to honor the rights of the copyright holder.

IANAL, but from all I know you can use GPLed code in any way you want as long as you honor the license itself, but the copyright holder has no say in what GPLed changes you can do to GPLed software.

If this is a technical list, then people could just admit that they don't have the skills to discuss legal problems.

You are the one that gives us all the legal arguments here that of course nobody of us can legally judge. We only know what you claim that lawyers say and what a e.g. representative of Fedora Legel, who surely has consulted lawyers there has said and what others who have consulted lawyers say. Of course, as you you, the saying goes "2 lawyers, 3 opinions".

Has suse really no interest to satisfy their customers?

Sure they have an interest in that, and their "customers" want fully free software that can be freely forked as anyone wishes. Apparently, cdrecord doesn't allow that, so it's out of the question unless the license is changed to one that allows this.

What is the reason for being unfriendly to a very active OSS author?

The reason is that this author neglects basic principles of FOSS, like the freedom to change and fork the software according to the license without the need to ask any one so-called "copyright holder". The very foundation of FOSS is that no single entity "owns" the software. Follow it, and you'll get more appreciation. Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 17:30:46 Joerg Schilling wrote:

I did discuss the claims from Eduard Bloch with a German lawyer and I have a US lawyer on the same floor (a few rooms besides) in my department in the company. My company sends me to legal training courses on a regular base and for this reason, I am able to judge on whether a person tries to tell me rubbish or whether there is a serious legal background in claims. If you like to understand the difference, I recommend you to read this:

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

to learn how decent legal arguments look like....

*You* are not a lawyer. Please stop linking this document. This document is U.S. legal _opinion_ only and frivolous to the discussion at hand. You have stated in other communications that the majority of European union law is based upon French and German Law. Your naivety in this regard should be a warning to everyone following this thread. In other significant realms of the European union, jurisprudence and the application of law is based upon Roman law and common law. It would be common practise in such legal systems to mediate such a dispute as you have mentioned as a civil matter. Subsequently, your claims of illegality may likely be baseless in many European countries and as such you may well find your claims unfounded elsewhere. It is my stern opinion, that if you truly believe you have a legal matter to resolve with regards to the software you mention in this threaded communication; you should directly employ the services of a qualified legal solicitor and direct them to to attempt a resolution of any such dispute through proper channels. This is not the correct communication channel to discuss any perceived legal matter with regards to software used by the openSUSE project. You should direct your communications that pertain to legal matters to the openSUSE elected board [1]. You can send direct queries to the openSUSE board mailing list or contact the board members directly [1] if you wish a greater degree of privacy. openSUSE is a community project whose members have indicated they wish to abide by the project's guiding principles [2]. If you feel that use of certain software contradicts these principle then you should take steps to try and resolve the matter. Please be respectful of the choice of our community, we love open software and we hope others enjoy our great selection of free and open software. This email is not on behalf of, requested by, or for any openSUSE member, or any openSUSE board member. This email reply is my personal opinion. It is thoroughly considered and you would be well advised to take heed and regard it as such. Have a lot of fun... [1] http://en.opensuse.org/Board [2] http://en.opensuse.org/Guiding_Principles -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Hi, the following is just my personal opinion but I feel like I have to answer (hopefully the last time). I'd vote to stick with cdrkit for the forseeable future (to stay on topic). Why: It may have bugs (more than cdrtools) most likely. I don't argue against it. But there is no reason to change to a software package where the upstream author is not willing to accept any opinions besides his own (which he proved once again more often). Almost everyone expressing his own opinion which doesn't match the author's will be "slandered" to "slander" or similar things. (Now sue me for saying that or insult me as you usually do but be warned I don't care). So I prefer to use cdrkit as long as its legal status allows and I think the copyright owner of the original software would have to prove on court that it may be illegal. These are the facts I see with the topic and as the author wants to have a facts based discussion... So Jörg, please be respectful as you always expect it from others and accept my opinion. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Friday 07 Aug 2009 09:13:56 Joerg Schilling wrote:

Graham Anderson wrote:

...

On Wednesday 05 August 2009 17:30:46 Joerg Schilling wrote:

...

I did discuss the claims from Eduard Bloch with a German lawyer and

I have a US lawyer on the same floor (a few rooms besides) in my department in the company. My company sends me to legal training courses on a regular base and for this reason, I am able to judge on whether a person tries to tell me rubbish or whether there is a serious legal background in claims. If you like to understand the difference, I recommend you to read this:

http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf

to learn how decent legal arguments look like....

*You* are not a lawyer. Please stop linking this document. This document is U.S. legal _opinion_ only and frivolous to the discussion at hand.

.... lots of FUD removed.

Please stop your FUD and your disrespect.

Your mail did not contain any valid legal argument and as far as I am informed, this is not a mailing list that is dedicated for playing bullshit bingo.

Andreas Jaeger yesterday mentioned Microsoft that did honor the license decision from the linux kernel people. Why can't suse do the same and honor my license decision?

Please be respectful!

Jörg You got a mouth on you don't you ?

A little respect from you for the thoughts writings and ideas from other people would not go amiss You may be the author of some CD software (that has for a long time tried to force Linux to change to suit you this does NOT give you the right to carry on the way you are , Maybe if you had been a little more Linux Friendly in the first place things would now be a little different and if that idiot outside in his silly little BMW does not go away it IS going to be protruding from somewhere he rather it not be , Pete . Pete

Larry Stotler wrote:

This is not a law debate list. I asked him to point me to a FAQ that explained why cdrecord is so much better than wodim and was ignored.

Whyt do you like to prove with showing us that you ignore such documentation? 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 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org