[opensuse-factory] Fwd: [opensuse-multimedia] wodim/cdrecord
I thought I'd forward this to the factory list in the hope of the wodim developer seeing it. The sender of this mail has the complete opposite experience with wodim to myself and at least one other user. Dave P -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [opensuse-multimedia] wodim/cdrecord Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:11:43 -0500 From: Steven Sroka <sroka.steven@gmail.com> To: opensuse-multimedia@opensuse.org Hi, I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but I've been seeing this everywhere and its quite old. I've copied the relevent lines from: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=447910 "you are not using cdrecord but a bastardizd variant that does not really support to write DVDs." This issue still exists because opensuse still provides wodim/cdrecord. I actually ran into this because wodim/cdrecord kept ruining my DVD's. -- Steven Sroka -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-multimedia+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-multimedia+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought I'd forward this to the factory list in the hope of the wodim developer seeing it. The sender of this mail has the complete opposite experience with wodim to myself and at least one other user.
I am not sure on whether you know that there is nothing like a "wodim developer". There are aprox. 100 well known similar bugs in the bundle called "cdrkit" that have been reported many years ago. There was no attempt to fix even the easy to fix ones past May 5th 2007. Since May 5th 2007 there have been typo fixes in the man pages but nothing more, so we need to asume that wodim is dead since nearly 4 years. Given the fact, that wodim is based on original software from September 2004, it seems to be obvious to drop this dead piece of software. There has been a discussion with Suse that resulted in the commitment from Suse (made in September 2009) to include the original software by default. What is the current state of this commitment? Does Suse deliver the original software by default?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [opensuse-multimedia] wodim/cdrecord Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:11:43 -0500 From: Steven Sroka <sroka.steven@gmail.com> To: opensuse-multimedia@opensuse.org
Hi,
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but I've been seeing this everywhere and its quite old.
I've copied the relevent lines from: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=447910
"you are not using cdrecord but a bastardizd variant that does not really support to write DVDs."
This issue still exists because opensuse still provides wodim/cdrecord. I actually ran into this because wodim/cdrecord kept ruining my DVD's.
-- Steven Sroka
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 Feb 01, 11 12:25:44 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
There has been a discussion with Suse that resulted in the commitment from Suse (made in September 2009) to include the original software by default.
My "commitment" was to place cdrecord in the same project as wodim. I have also pointed out that inclusion in shipped SUSE products has additional prerequisites and is nothing that I could "commit" to.
What is the current state of this commitment? Unchanged. I am still happy that we got that far.
Does Suse deliver the original software by default? Unchanged Yes and No. Yes, through the Build-Service mirrors. No, not on the shipped Products.
cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote:
Does Suse deliver the original software by default? Unchanged Yes and No. Yes, through the Build-Service mirrors. No, not on the shipped Products.
So what is the reason for shipping software with many known defects and with an unsettled license/legality status as a default? 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 Tuesday February 1 2011 13:36:00 Joerg Schilling wrote:
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote:
Does Suse deliver the original software by default?
Unchanged Yes and No. Yes, through the Build-Service mirrors. No, not on the shipped Products.
So what is the reason for shipping software with many known defects and with an unsettled license/legality status as a default?
That cdrecord upstream seems to be pretty "dense", to say it politely, cause he refuses to settle some "is that license compatible or not" legalese crap by simply dual licensing his software and instead prefers to troll the web over this issue. So it wont happen before cdrecord is dual licensed or the legal issues are resolved - which probably means never quite sadly. Kidding aside: what exactly is the reason that prevents you from dual licensing cdrecord and thereby resolving the whole issue (which no one else can do) besides "I don't want cause I don't want"? regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Stephan Kleine <bitdealer@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday February 1 2011 13:36:00 Joerg Schilling wrote:
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote:
Does Suse deliver the original software by default?
Unchanged Yes and No. Yes, through the Build-Service mirrors. No, not on the shipped Products.
So what is the reason for shipping software with many known defects and with an unsettled license/legality status as a default?
That cdrecord upstream seems to be pretty "dense", to say it politely, cause he refuses to settle some "is that license compatible or not" legalese crap by simply dual licensing his software and instead prefers to troll the web over this issue.
Sorry, but you seem to be insufficiently informed about the legal background. There is a single person who claims that there is a "legal problem" with the original software, but that person did never send any legal proof for his claim. There never has been any legal proof at all for his claim made by any trustworthiy lawyer. On the other side, the license state has been checked by the Sun legal department and later by the Oracle legal department and both say that there is no problem with the original software. Even Eben Moglen did send me a private mail that confirms that there is no problem with the original software. Conclusion: you ask for a fix to a non-existent problem.
So it wont happen before cdrecord is dual licensed or the legal issues are resolved - which probably means never quite sadly.
Kidding aside: what exactly is the reason that prevents you from dual licensing cdrecord and thereby resolving the whole issue (which no one else can do) besides "I don't want cause I don't want"?
It is not needed as there is no problem that needs to be fixed. What we however need, is some sort of defense against attacks against OpenSource projects that are only based on libel and slander..... I hope you know that you need to ignore pointless claims and I hope that you know also that you yourself may become an accomplice if you repeat such pointless claims. So please be reasonable and believe what lawyers say instead of believing the claims from laymen. 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 Feb 01, 11 16:34:03 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Stephan Kleine <bitdealer@gmail.com> wrote:
simply dual licensing his software and instead prefers to troll the web over this issue.
A dual CDDL / GPL license would indeed be extremly helpful also from my point of view.
Sorry, but you seem to be insufficiently informed about the legal background. There is a single person who claims that there is a "legal problem" with the original software, but that person did never send any legal proof for his claim.
We would not need to discuss this age old issue, if we had a dual license in place to just confirm that there is no problem. Currently, we are unsure, if you want your CDDL-licensed work to be linkable with GPL-licensed work. If you want to give this discussion a happy-ending you can say "let's go dual". This may seem redundant to you, but not to everybody else.
Conclusion: you ask for a fix to a non-existent problem. The uncertainty is the well-existing problem. It needs fixing, please help us with that one.
Trusting in "hints" to external review authorities may or may not be sufficient for everybody. I cannot say, we have not tried. A courtesy from the copyright-owner would be a much stronger token.
What we however need, is some sort of defense against attacks against OpenSource projects that are only based on libel and slander.....
This one is unclear to me. I fail to see how a license could protect against being badmouthed. thanks, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote: Why do dou restart a discussion that has already been resolved in September 2009?
On Feb 01, 11 16:34:03 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Stephan Kleine <bitdealer@gmail.com> wrote:
simply dual licensing his software and instead prefers to troll the web over this issue.
A dual CDDL / GPL license would indeed be extremly helpful also from my point of view.
There is no need to make the code dual licensed as the current situation is perfectly legal. Making the code dual licensed would however result in problems that could be avoided.
Sorry, but you seem to be insufficiently informed about the legal background. There is a single person who claims that there is a "legal problem" with the original software, but that person did never send any legal proof for his claim.
We would not need to discuss this age old issue, if we had a dual license in place to just confirm that there is no problem. Currently, we are unsure, if you want your CDDL-licensed work to be linkable with GPL-licensed work. If you want to give this discussion a happy-ending you can say "let's go dual". This may seem redundant to you, but not to everybody else.
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries and the FSF did not send any legal warning for the existence of OpenSolaris. Please try to be reasonable and do not believe unproven claimes from laymen.
Conclusion: you ask for a fix to a non-existent problem. The uncertainty is the well-existing problem. It needs fixing, please help us with that one.
Trusting in "hints" to external review authorities may or may not be sufficient for everybody. I cannot say, we have not tried. A courtesy from the copyright-owner would be a much stronger token.
I do not understand you..... What do you expect more than the confirmation from the copyright holder that there have been _varios_ legal reviews that all resulted in: "no problem" and the confirmation from the copyright holder that there is no problem? Also check: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility http://www.osscc.net/de/licenses.html#compatibility http://www.osscc.net/en/gpl.html http://www.osscc.net/de/gpl.html and the papers from various international lawyers and even a professor of law who is at both the Freie Universität Berlin and the university of San Francisco, see the links from that pages. Suse earns money with my software, so if there still is any doubt, Suse could do the same as Sun and Oracle did: pay a specialized lawyer for a review. It is really strange to see that all lawyers I am talking about this topic confirm my statements while you as a laymen seem to have doubts. I do not only speak with German lawyers, but also with US lawyers - one of them is sitting a few offices besides me......so I have ehough time for an in-depth discussion. If you still insist in claiming to see a problem, I get the impression that there is FUD against my project.
What we however need, is some sort of defense against attacks against OpenSource projects that are only based on libel and slander.....
This one is unclear to me. I fail to see how a license could protect against being badmouthed.
Not a license could protect but reasonably acting people. We have a _social_ problem that has been introduced by a person acting hostile against OSS and that is a laymen in law. You need to understand that you have been a victim ov attacks od that person. 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 02/01/2011 07:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries and the FSF did not send any legal warning for the existence of OpenSolaris. Please try to be reasonable and do not believe unproven claimes from laymen.
I've just consulted the fedora licensing table and they are also of the opinion that CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/01/2011 07:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries and the FSF did not send any legal warning for the existence of OpenSolaris. Please try to be reasonable and do not believe unproven claimes from laymen.
I've just consulted the fedora licensing table and they are also of the opinion that CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3.
Redhat is a company that likes to bash the CDDL. The statement you describe has not been written by lawyers but by laymen - I recommend not to belive it. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2011 10:41 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/01/2011 07:06 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries and the FSF did not send any legal warning for the existence of OpenSolaris. Please try to be reasonable and do not believe unproven claimes from laymen.
I've just consulted the fedora licensing table and they are also of the opinion that CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 and GPLv3.
Redhat is a company that likes to bash the CDDL. The statement you describe has not been written by lawyers but by laymen - I recommend not to belive it.
Well this comes from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0 This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason. Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term “intellectual property”. What is your opinion? Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
Well this comes from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0
This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term ?intellectual property?. What is your opinion?
We need top call this FUD as: - it is trying to down the CDDL - it is a completeny unconfirmed and unproven claim - it is in conflict to what any lawyer did say so far about this issue - it is in conflict to other claims from the FSF 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@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
Well this comes from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0
This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term ?intellectual property?. What is your opinion?
We need top call this FUD as:
- it is trying to down the CDDL
- it is a completeny unconfirmed and unproven claim
- it is in conflict to what any lawyer did say so far about this issue
- it is in conflict to other claims from the FSF
I forgot to mention that I have a private mail from Eben Moglen that confirms that the statement you quote is based on a wrong theory to explain why GPL and BSDl are compatible. Moglen promised me to ask Stallman to correct this false claim but this was an effort to no avail. 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 02/01/2011 11:10 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
Well this comes from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL), version 1.0
This is a free software license. It has a copyleft with a scope that's similar to the one in the Mozilla Public License, which makes it incompatible with the GNU GPL. This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason.
Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term ?intellectual property?. What is your opinion?
We need top call this FUD as:
- it is trying to down the CDDL
- it is a completeny unconfirmed and unproven claim
- it is in conflict to what any lawyer did say so far about this issue
- it is in conflict to other claims from the FSF
I forgot to mention that I have a private mail from Eben Moglen that confirms that the statement you quote is based on a wrong theory to explain why GPL and BSDl are compatible. Moglen promised me to ask Stallman to correct this false claim but this was an effort to no avail.
Jörg
As I see it this is a case that has no resolution, we have the CDDL on one side and the GPL on the other and the FSF in the middle and the users are the ones who suffer. There can be no resolution without compromise and compromise needs negotiation. I don't see any hope for compromise just blame and it's blame that starts wars and a war is something that causes suffering for the innocent. Generally the uncompromising, if they survive the war end up as very lonely people. End of story. Dave Plater -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:06:53 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries
But cdrecord is exactly the other way round so at least that case doesn't apply. I remain to have the feeling that you don't want to dual license cdrecord because it could be seen as a weakness. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Philipp Thomas <Philipp.Thomas2@gmx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:06:53 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries
But cdrecord is exactly the other way round so at least that case doesn't apply.
I am sorry but it seems that you are not informed on how cdrtools work. 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 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:06:53 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Making the code dual licensed would however result in problems that could be avoided.
Oh, now you got me interested. Where do you perceive problems in a dual license? Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 01, 11 18:06:53 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote:
Why do dou restart a discussion that has already been resolved in September 2009?
Sorry, I had no intend to annoy you. Most of this was a private conversation at that time, I simply wanted to say 'me too' when Stephan Kleine mentioned dual.
There is no need to make the code dual licensed as the current situation is perfectly legal. Making the code dual licensed would however result in problems that could be avoided.
I am not talking legal. I'd like you to acknowledge that we have an issue with public perception and uncertainty. People shun your code for that reason.
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries
No, they see the problem.
Please try to be reasonable and do not believe unproven claimes from laymen.
This is no anonymous layman. This is a quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html "This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason."
Also check: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility
Please use references that do not point to yourself. That could be misunderstood as cheating.
Suse earns money with my software, so if there still is any doubt, Suse could do the same as Sun and Oracle did: pay a specialized lawyer for a review.
Guess what we did. If you want to make people link your code with GPL code, please explicitly say so in your license. Otherwise people will read the FSF websites and fear incompatibility.
If you still insist in claiming to see a problem, I get the impression that there is FUD against my project.
I apologize for stirring this old FUD. I don't think I created it. I believe I just made another futile attempt to address it.
I fail to see how a license could protect against being badmouthed. Not a license could protect but reasonably acting people.
We have a _social_ problem that has been introduced by a person acting hostile against OSS and that is a laymen in law. You need to understand that you have been a victim ov attacks od that person.
I am unsure who exactly you are referring to. Please don't say its Stallman. cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Juergen Weigert <jw@suse.de> wrote:
Why do dou restart a discussion that has already been resolved in September 2009?
Sorry, I had no intend to annoy you. Most of this was a private conversation at that time, I simply wanted to say 'me too' when Stephan Kleine mentioned dual.
Well, looking further on your last mail causes the impression that you may like to revert previous agreements. Is this true? If so, what is the reason?
There is no need to make the code dual licensed as the current situation is perfectly legal. Making the code dual licensed would however result in problems that could be avoided.
I am not talking legal. I'd like you to acknowledge that we have an issue with public perception and uncertainty. People shun your code for that reason.
What issue? There is a social issue with Debian that attacks OSS projects _because_ they use the GPL. Please do not follow these attacks without asking a lawyer.
Even the FSF tells averybody that there is no problem with linking GPLd software against CDDL libraries
No, they see the problem.
They spread self contradicting claims. If you did ask a lawyer, he could explain that to you. They cannot at the same time tell people that there is no problem with using e.g. GNU tar on Solaris, where it (as a GPLd program) uses CDDLd libraries and try to forbid other GPLd programs (e.g. mkisofs) to do the same. The FSF cannot be seen as a neutal observer on OSS, the FSF has corporate interests in promoting their own products.
Please try to be reasonable and do not believe unproven claimes from laymen.
This is no anonymous layman. This is a quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html "This means a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the CDDL for this reason."
Sorry, but this _is_ the claim from an anonymous laymen. The web page is unsigned, so it is anonymous. In addition, it lacks a legal background. If you did ever talk to a lawyer about a legal problem, you would know that you always get explanataions from the lawyer on _why_ he believes that his decision is correct. The text from the FSF quoted by you however is full of unproven claims and it is in conflict with all other known papers from laywers - and it is self contradicting.
Also check: http://www.osscc.net/en/licenses.html#compatibility
Please use references that do not point to yourself. That could be misunderstood as cheating.
Please _read_ references before you claim things like this. The pointer I send you gives many quotes to trustworthy and independent lawyers that in depth explain why the claims from the FSF are not valid. So please go back and read the text and the quotes......
Suse earns money with my software, so if there still is any doubt, Suse could do the same as Sun and Oracle did: pay a specialized lawyer for a review.
Guess what we did. If you want to make people link your code with GPL code, please explicitly say so in your license. Otherwise people will read the FSF websites and fear incompatibility.
Well as far as I can tell, Suse did never ask a lawyer or the lawyer did give an OK. If Suse did and iff the laywer really did see a problem, it would be obvious for Suse to aproach me and to try to discuss the statements from that lawyer with me. This did never happen, so it is extremely unlikely that there was a problem reported by a lawyer. You however mention the real problem: the false claims from the FSF really cause fear uncertainty and doubt (just look at this discussion). But you as Suse have the ability to disabuse people and you should know that I am happy to help you with this.
If you still insist in claiming to see a problem, I get the impression that there is FUD against my project.
I apologize for stirring this old FUD. I don't think I created it. I believe I just made another futile attempt to address it.
Well, you just mentioned that there is FUD from the FSF.... let us together work against that FUD. In real life, when people see a "Fruit Shop" that only sells/promotes apples and if the same "Fruit Shop" tries to belittle other fruit like oranges, everybody would understand that this shop has corporate interests and thus would distrust the claims from that shop...... Here we have a shop that only promotes the GPL and belittles other licenses. Why people don't see that the FSF just has corporate interests to promote the GPL and that statements on other licenses from the same shop cannot be seen as being trustworthy?
We have a _social_ problem that has been introduced by a person acting hostile against OSS and that is a laymen in law. You need to understand that you have been a victim ov attacks od that person.
I am unsure who exactly you are referring to. Please don't say its Stallman.
The social problem was introduced by "Eduard Bloch" and it has been massively supported by "Jörg Jaspert". Stallman just has been unhelpful in Autumn 2009 when Eben Moglen asked him to correct the false claims on GPL and CDDL compatibility on the FSF web site. 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 Wednesday 02 February 2011 12:33:50 Joerg Schilling wrote:
The social problem was introduced by "Eduard Bloch" and it has been massively supported by "Jörg Jaspert". Stallman just has been unhelpful in Autumn 2009 when Eben Moglen asked him to correct the false claims on GPL and CDDL compatibility on the FSF web site.
Are you just randomly making shit up now? Is it possible you have told so many lies and falsehoods that you no longer remember which mailing list you just trolled? The people on this list should read this Arch ml thread where Jörg goes on to accuse Eben Moglen of lieing. This guy is a class A troll, and this will be the last thing I post to this thread. http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general@archlinux.org/msg10973.html And now then, here is where Eben Moglen _explicitly_ states that the CDDL and the GPL v2 are incompatible unless express permission was granted by Jörg (which he refused to do). "while CDDL Section 3.6 permits combination with code under other licenses, it nonetheless requires that "the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the [combined program]." Since it is impossible to observe certain requirements of the CDDL while simultaneously respecting the GPL's prohibition of additional restrictions (GPLv2 Section 6), the CDDL Section 3.6 permission is insufficient to allow the combination." And here is the full communication so you can see the context. Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:24:23 -0500 From: Eben Moglen In September 2008, I was asked by Mark Shuttleworth if I could help Canonical discuss with Jörg the measures necessary to include cdrtools in Ubuntu. I spoke to Jörg by phone at first to explain my role, and then by email. I reminded him in doing so that I had agreed with him about the acceptability of combining GPL'd code with a C-library under CDDL in order to make the Debian/GNU/OpenSolaris stack called Nexenta. (I believe this part of our conversation is the source of Jörg's mistaken statement that I somehow indicated that cdrtools is non-infringing, although the issue of the "system library exception" in GPLv2 is completely distinct from the problem presented by the CDDL-licensed libraries libscg and libschilly combined with GPL'd mkisofs in cdrtools.) 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." Jörg disputed our analysis. He argued to us: (1) that the binary mkisofs is not derivative of the CDDL-licensed libraries because it merely links to them; and alternatively that (2) CDDL Section 3.6 ("Larger Works") permits the combination. He claimed to have German legal advice confirming him on point (1), but without regard to his German legal analysis, which differs from that of our German lawyers, the argument is incorrect as a matter of law, at least in the United States, and GPL'd mkisofs (whose copyright is at stake) is a US work to which US copyright law applies under the Berne Convention. As to his point (2), while CDDL Section 3.6 permits combination with code under other licenses, it nonetheless requires that "the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the [combined program]." Since it is impossible to observe certain requirements of the CDDL while simultaneously respecting the GPL's prohibition of additional restrictions (GPLv2 Section 6), the CDDL Section 3.6 permission is insufficient to allow the combination. Hence the permission we advised him to grant. Though Jörg continued to argue that he didn't *need* to grant the permission, he never explained why, in the face of opposing legal analysis on behalf of the copyright holders of mkisofs he didn't *want* to grant a harmless permission that would allow his work to be included in Canonical's Ubuntu distributions. After weeks of discussion and many hours of my time and the time of my associate Aaron Williamson, Mark Shuttleworth decided there was no point in further fruitless negotiation and I agreed. SFLC was not paid for its work by any party. -- “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” - Christopher Hitchens -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Graham Anderson <graham.anderson@gmail.com> wrote:
The people on this list should read this Arch ml thread where Jörg goes on to accuse Eben Moglen of lieing. This guy is a class A troll, and this will be the last thing I post to this thread.
http://www.mail-archive.com/arch-general@archlinux.org/msg10973.html
And now then, here is where Eben Moglen _explicitly_ states that the CDDL and the GPL v2 are incompatible unless express permission was granted by Jörg (which he refused to do).
"while CDDL Section 3.6 permits combination with code under other licenses, it nonetheless requires that "the requirements of this License are fulfilled for the [combined program]." Since it is impossible to observe certain requirements of the CDDL while simultaneously respecting the GPL's prohibition of additional restrictions (GPLv2 Section 6), the CDDL Section 3.6 permission is insufficient to allow the combination."
And here is the full communication so you can see the context.
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:24:23 -0500 From: Eben Moglen
In September 2008, I was asked by Mark Shuttleworth if I could help Canonical discuss with Jörg the measures necessary to include cdrtools
Please stop trolling! Moglen is not telling the truth and this can be proven by disclosing the personal mail with him! I did never have a phone call with Moglen. This is an easy way to identify the lies. What really happened is the following: In Summer 2008, I had a personal discussion with Mark Shuttleworth at OSCON in Oregon and Shuttleworth promised to help in the cdrtools case. He told me that he knows the Sun lawyers and that he would be able to get statements from them on why they are sure that there is no problem and get permission to disclose the results from the license review done inside Sun. Shuttleworth then asked whether Moglen would also be a possibility. I replied to Shuttleworth in 2008, that I already know Moglen as a person that gives legally correct statements only in private and at the same time claims the converse in the public. For this reason we agreed on that if Moglen would be asked, Moglen needs to write down a legally correct reasoning in case that he would come to conclusion that there is a problem. In August 2008, Shuttleworth had a phone call with Moglen and in September 2008, Moglen and I did have a conversation about cdrtools. At the end of that conversation, Moglen confirmed that there is no legal problem with cdrtools, that he does not need any further information and that he will write down a paper that confirms this state and that could be published. As Moglen alsi confirmed that the web pages from the FSF were wrong, I asked him kindly whether he could be ask Stallman to correct the claims from the web pages and Moglen confirmed to do this. A month later (after talking to Stallman) Moglen suddenly claimed that there is a problem with cdrtools and that I would need to sign a contract. He did this while sending self-contradicting claims and he did never explain why he did change his mind. As I had a contract with Shuttleworth that Moglen would need to give an in depth explanation in case he would see a problem, I asked Moglen to do his job and to send the required explanataion. Moglen refused to do this repeatedly, then stopped working on it completely. It is obvious that Moglen did not finish his job, as he did not write down a legally provable explanation. I still have his private explanation on why there is no problem. It seems that Moglan cannot be used as a helpful person as he did not do his job and as he later published false claims of what happened in the past. Anyway, while Moglen _was_ sending explanations (in private to me) he was fully aligned with the statemens of the other lawyers I know and with the Sun legal department. 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
Le 02/02/2011 15:48, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
What really happened is the following:
Joerg, I'm sure you are perfectly honest and convinced of your right. I know you make a superb job. However you are visibly the victim of FUD, this is too often the case in the open source community. Fact is I like your software and I like openSUSE. I'm very glad to see your cdrecord available from the openSUSE OBS. Just this is already a victory. You may understand than, on this mailing list, nobody is able to give a valid advice on the subject (that is an advice anybody will accept). Your explanations are too hard reading for many people here, and you waste your time for no result. I try to make this licence problem more understandable (I had already such a complex discussion on the Linux Documentation Project -LDP discuss list). http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Accepted_licences is just a very small step in that direction. Feel free to answer to me privately if I can help you, but it's counterproductive to continue here and now. thanks jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 12:56:48 schrieb Juergen Weigert:
On Feb 01, 11 12:25:44 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
There has been a discussion with Suse that resulted in the commitment from Suse (made in September 2009) to include the original software by default.
My "commitment" was to place cdrecord in the same project as wodim. I have also pointed out that inclusion in shipped SUSE products has additional prerequisites and is nothing that I could "commit" to.
What is the current state of this commitment?
Unchanged. I am still happy that we got that far.
Does Suse deliver the original software by default?
Unchanged Yes and No. Yes, through the Build-Service mirrors. No, not on the shipped Products.
cheers, JW-
What would be your home project so people could push it further through their own home projects? Searching for cdrecord on webpin and software.os.o/search doesn't turn up your project. Cheers, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2011 01:25 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought I'd forward this to the factory list in the hope of the wodim developer seeing it. The sender of this mail has the complete opposite experience with wodim to myself and at least one other user.
I am not sure on whether you know that there is nothing like a "wodim developer".
There are aprox. 100 well known similar bugs in the bundle called "cdrkit" that have been reported many years ago. There was no attempt to fix even the easy to fix ones past May 5th 2007.
Since May 5th 2007 there have been typo fixes in the man pages but nothing more, so we need to asume that wodim is dead since nearly 4 years. Given the fact, that wodim is based on original software from September 2004, it seems to be obvious to drop this dead piece of software.
There has been a discussion with Suse that resulted in the commitment from Suse (made in September 2009) to include the original software by default.
What is the current state of this commitment?
Does Suse deliver the original software by default?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [opensuse-multimedia] wodim/cdrecord Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:11:43 -0500 From: Steven Sroka <sroka.steven@gmail.com> To: opensuse-multimedia@opensuse.org
Hi,
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but I've been seeing this everywhere and its quite old.
I've copied the relevent lines from: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=447910
"you are not using cdrecord but a bastardizd variant that does not really support to write DVDs."
This issue still exists because opensuse still provides wodim/cdrecord. I actually ran into this because wodim/cdrecord kept ruining my DVD's.
-- Steven Sroka
Jörg
I followed the thread on the factory list and I for one and I think I can speak for jdd as well are happy with your wodim. I was attempting to bring this to your attention to see if you can shed any light on this problem. Dave P. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
I followed the thread on the factory list and I for one and I think I can speak for jdd as well are happy with your wodim. I was attempting to bring this to your attention to see if you can shed any light on this problem.
wodim uses more than 95% of code written by me but it is not "my wodim" and I am also not responsible for the bugs in wodim. These bugs have been added by Debian. I personally know nobody who uses wodim for real work and who is happy with it. 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 02/01/2011 03:07 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
I followed the thread on the factory list and I for one and I think I can speak for jdd as well are happy with your wodim. I was attempting to bring this to your attention to see if you can shed any light on this problem.
wodim uses more than 95% of code written by me but it is not "my wodim" and I am also not responsible for the bugs in wodim. These bugs have been added by Debian. I personally know nobody who uses wodim for real work and who is happy with it.
Jörg
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs. Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Hi; On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/01/2011 03:07 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
I followed the thread on the factory list and I for one and I think I can speak for jdd as well are happy with your wodim. I was attempting to bring this to your attention to see if you can shed any light on this problem.
wodim uses more than 95% of code written by me but it is not "my wodim" and I am also not responsible for the bugs in wodim. These bugs have been added by Debian. I personally know nobody who uses wodim for real work and who is happy with it.
Jörg
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
See ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/ Regards, ismail -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:03:24PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
On 02/01/2011 03:07 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
I followed the thread on the factory list and I for one and I think I can speak for jdd as well are happy with your wodim. I was attempting to bring this to your attention to see if you can shed any light on this problem.
wodim uses more than 95% of code written by me but it is not "my wodim" and I am also not responsible for the bugs in wodim. These bugs have been added by Debian. I personally know nobody who uses wodim for real work and who is happy with it.
Jörg
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
There is Base:System/cdrecord. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 01, 11 15:14:34 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:03:24PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
There is Base:System/cdrecord.
The latest 'and greatest' is in home:hennichodernich cdrtools Not yet submitted to Base:System cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2011 04:22 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Feb 01, 11 15:14:34 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:03:24PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
There is Base:System/cdrecord.
The latest 'and greatest' is in home:hennichodernich cdrtools
Not yet submitted to Base:System
cheers, JW-
Ok that's one less package to look after, is this package the one I have in use? rpm -qi wodim Name : wodim Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 1.1.9 Vendor: openSUSE Release : 8.2 Build Date: Tue 06 Jul 2010 12:12:24 AM SAST Install Date: Fri 10 Sep 2010 04:04:26 PM SAST Build Host: build33 Group : Productivity/Multimedia/CD/Record Source RPM: wodim-1.1.9-8.2.src.rpm Size : 1264838 License: GPLv2 ; GPLv2+ Signature : RSA/8, Tue 06 Jul 2010 12:12:56 AM SAST, Key ID b88b2fd43dbdc284 Packager : http://bugs.opensuse.org URL : http://cdrkit.org/ Summary : Tool for Writing CDRs I'm about to update to factory after I've finished with maintenance of various packages but I've quickly linked both packages to home:plater.to taste later. Thanks Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Feb 01, 11 16:53:17 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Ok that's one less package to look after, is this package the one I have in use? rpm -qi wodim
[...] rpm -qi does not tell you the Project, where the package comes from. Please try rpm -q --qf '%{disturl}\n' PACKAGE cheers, JW- -- o \ Juergen Weigert paint it green! __/ _=======.=======_ <V> | jw@suse.de back to ascii! __/ _---|____________\/ \ | 0911 74053-508 __/ (____/ /\ (/) | _____________________________/ _/ \_ vim:set sw=2 wm=8 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) SuSE. Supporting Linux since 1992. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2011 05:16 PM, Juergen Weigert wrote:
On Feb 01, 11 16:53:17 +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
Ok that's one less package to look after, is this package the one I have in use? rpm -qi wodim
[...]
rpm -qi does not tell you the Project, where the package comes from. Please try rpm -q --qf '%{disturl}\n' PACKAGE
cheers, JW-
Thanks for the knowledge. rpm -q --qf '%{disturl}\n' wodim obs://build.opensuse.org/openSUSE:11.3/standard/91572f9febf248891ed94d4b01b524c6-wodim This is another useful tool to add to my arsenal. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 15:22:23 schrieb Juergen Weigert:
On Feb 01, 11 15:14:34 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:03:24PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
There is Base:System/cdrecord.
The latest 'and greatest' is in home:hennichodernich cdrtools
Not yet submitted to Base:System
cheers, JW-
Couldn't that user make a submit request to openSUSE:Factory to get Novell legal to review it? Cheers, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:55:06PM +0100, Karsten König wrote:
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 15:22:23 schrieb Juergen Weigert:
On Feb 01, 11 15:14:34 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:03:24PM +0200, Dave Plater wrote:
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
There is Base:System/cdrecord.
The latest 'and greatest' is in home:hennichodernich cdrtools
Not yet submitted to Base:System
cheers, JW-
Couldn't that user make a submit request to openSUSE:Factory to get Novell legal to review it?
No, but any Base:System maintainer could potentially. As we are not "allowed" by Joerg to patch cdrecord to the way Linux does things like device handling and permissions, I see it not fit for the openSUSE distribution however. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
No, but any Base:System maintainer could potentially.
As we are not "allowed" by Joerg to patch cdrecord to the way Linux does things like device handling and permissions, I see it not fit for the openSUSE distribution however.
Looks you are missinformed with respect to more than one issue. 1) there is no need to modify the code as it already correctly honors linux device handling and permissions 2) if you believe that there is a problem, contact me in order to avoid to introduce a bug. If your really report a problem, this would of course be immediately fixed in the original. One of the major problem of the Debian fork is that the people who initiated it miss basic skills in Linux knowledge and thus introduced many bugs in device handling. 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
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 17:43:40 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
No, but any Base:System maintainer could potentially.
As we are not "allowed" by Joerg to patch cdrecord to the way Linux does things like device handling and permissions, I see it not fit for the openSUSE distribution however.
Oh, I didn't knew this, CDDL beeing an OSI approved licence this sounds wierd to me.
Looks you are missinformed with respect to more than one issue.
1) there is no need to modify the code as it already correctly honors linux device handling and permissions
2) if you believe that there is a problem, contact me in order to avoid to introduce a bug. If your really report a problem, this would of course be immediately fixed in the original.
One of the major problem of the Debian fork is that the people who initiated it miss basic skills in Linux knowledge and thus introduced many bugs in device handling.
This sounds similar to the way Mozilla tries handling downstream patching, they enforce this stance over their copyright though, what in the CDDL makes it impossible to ship downstream patched binaries? I guess they would have to be licenced under the CDDL as well, beside that why is it forbidden? And why shouldn't we be allowed to introduce bugs? This sounds opposite of what free software is about. If this is a copyright issue this could be handled similar to debian iceweasel, just fork off every release, change the name and other strings on which you own the copyright and apply our patches. The plan is of course not to introduce any bugs ;-) Cheers, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Karsten König <remur@gmx.net> wrote:
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 17:43:40 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
No, but any Base:System maintainer could potentially.
As we are not "allowed" by Joerg to patch cdrecord to the way Linux does things like device handling and permissions, I see it not fit for the openSUSE distribution however.
Oh, I didn't knew this, CDDL beeing an OSI approved licence this sounds wierd to me.
it is a wierd claim.....
Looks you are missinformed with respect to more than one issue.
1) there is no need to modify the code as it already correctly honors linux device handling and permissions
2) if you believe that there is a problem, contact me in order to avoid to introduce a bug. If your really report a problem, this would of course be immediately fixed in the original.
One of the major problem of the Debian fork is that the people who initiated it miss basic skills in Linux knowledge and thus introduced many bugs in device handling.
This sounds similar to the way Mozilla tries handling downstream patching, they enforce this stance over their copyright though, what in the CDDL makes it impossible to ship downstream patched binaries? I guess they would have to be licenced under the CDDL as well, beside that why is it forbidden?
Naming is not part of software licening. If you like to call the beast cdrtools,cdrecord,..... you need to ensure that the quality of what you deliver is worth giving the official name for it.
And why shouldn't we be allowed to introduce bugs? This sounds opposite of what free software is about. If this is a copyright issue this could be handled similar to debian iceweasel, just fork off every release, change the name and other strings on which you own the copyright and apply our patches.
The plan is of course not to introduce any bugs ;-)
You may not be informed about the history of Linux distros and their way of dealing with aparent problems. Many Linux distros unfortunately do not go the way that is obvious for OSS but rather introduce bugs. In previous times, I did not need to restrict the use of the original names, but starting from around 2004, there have been several Linux distros that intentionally introduced bugs into my software resulting in an extremely high amount of support mail for me. Suse has been one of those Linux distros, that introduced bugs. BTW: no other OS but Linux did cause similar 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
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 18:21:44 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Karsten König <remur@gmx.net> wrote:
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 17:43:40 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
No, but any Base:System maintainer could potentially.
As we are not "allowed" by Joerg to patch cdrecord to the way Linux does things like device handling and permissions, I see it not fit for the openSUSE distribution however.
Oh, I didn't knew this, CDDL beeing an OSI approved licence this sounds wierd to me.
it is a wierd claim.....
Looks you are missinformed with respect to more than one issue.
1) there is no need to modify the code as it already correctly honors linux
device handling and permissions
2) if you believe that there is a problem, contact me in order to avoid to
introduce a bug. If your really report a problem, this would of course be immediately fixed in the original.
One of the major problem of the Debian fork is that the people who initiated it miss basic skills in Linux knowledge and thus introduced many bugs in device handling.
This sounds similar to the way Mozilla tries handling downstream patching, they enforce this stance over their copyright though, what in the CDDL makes it impossible to ship downstream patched binaries? I guess they would have to be licenced under the CDDL as well, beside that why is it forbidden?
Naming is not part of software licening. If you like to call the beast cdrtools,cdrecord,..... you need to ensure that the quality of what you deliver is worth giving the official name for it.
And why shouldn't we be allowed to introduce bugs? This sounds opposite of what free software is about. If this is a copyright issue this could be handled similar to debian iceweasel, just fork off every release, change the name and other strings on which you own the copyright and apply our patches.
The plan is of course not to introduce any bugs ;-)
You may not be informed about the history of Linux distros and their way of dealing with aparent problems. Many Linux distros unfortunately do not go the way that is obvious for OSS but rather introduce bugs.
I was under the impression, especially lately that it is mainly avoided to fix stuff downstream but to get upstreams help on the issue and make a proper fix because supporting the stuff downstream is of course alot harder.
In previous times, I did not need to restrict the use of the original names, but starting from around 2004, there have been several Linux distros that intentionally introduced bugs into my software resulting in an extremely high amount of support mail for me.
Sounds abit paranoid, I don't think any distribution had/has any intentions on breaking cdrecord and it's siblings to hurt your name or the brand.
Suse has been one of those Linux distros, that introduced bugs.
BTW: no other OS but Linux did cause similar problems......
This might be related to the rather large amount of desktop systems with a cd burner using linux instead of comparable offerings shipping cdrtools or one of it's derivates. You haven't awnsered how you can prohibit releasing derivate works of the current cdrecords suite? Is it only based on copyright so replacing that would be enough? That would also mark ourself as the proper bugtarget to avoid spamming you with bugreports. Cheers, Karsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:21:44 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Suse has been one of those Linux distros, that introduced bugs.
Oh, it's paranoia time again. And why do you think we patched cdrecord? Could it be that discussing with you is at least as hard and frustrating as discussions with Ulrich Drepper about glibc bugs? Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Philipp Thomas <Philipp.Thomas2@gmx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:21:44 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Suse has been one of those Linux distros, that introduced bugs.
Oh, it's paranoia time again. And why do you think we patched cdrecord? Could it be that discussing with you is at least as hard and frustrating as discussions with Ulrich Drepper about glibc bugs?
There are unfortunately a lot of uninformed people who inrtroduce bugs instead of asking the author for help. 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/01/2011 03:52 PM, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:21:44 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Suse has been one of those Linux distros, that introduced bugs.
Oh, it's paranoia time again. And why do you think we patched cdrecord? Could it be that discussing with you is at least as hard and frustrating as discussions with Ulrich Drepper about glibc bugs?
Don't bother. These conversations are always cyclical and never get anywhere. Everyone is stupid except for Joerg. - -Jeff - -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1Ic0EACgkQLPWxlyuTD7J4GQCfVYrc6SWWeCFgr3A3/EaX2Vsg ZBcAniQPSm/nB+IRRFJZXPD3+TnilW60 =F0jb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2011 03:52 PM, Philipp Thomas wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:21:44 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Suse has been one of those Linux distros, that introduced bugs.
Oh, it's paranoia time again. And why do you think we patched cdrecord? Could it be that discussing with you is at least as hard and frustrating as discussions with Ulrich Drepper about glibc bugs?
Don't bother. These conversations are always cyclical and never get anywhere. Everyone is stupid except for Joerg.
Well, it is easy to understand who is stupid..... there are e.g. people who claim that they need to patch cdrtools in order to make it work on Linux. They repeat their claims even though there are many people who confirm that the original software works as is. They repeat their claims but do not give any prove for their claims. So du you really like to believe these people? 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
Le 01/02/2011 17:43, Joerg Schilling a écrit :
1) there is no need to modify the code as it already correctly honors linux device handling and permissions
fact is the OBS version of the joerg cdrecord works perfectly without tweeking anything manually, so why don't use it more?? jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag 01 Februar 2011, 15:22:23 schrieb Juergen Weigert:
On Feb 01, 11 15:14:34 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
There is Base:System/cdrecord.
The latest 'and greatest' is in home:hennichodernich cdrtools
Not yet submitted to Base:System
Because I decided not to submit every alpha to Base:System, but only those with bugfixes or new features. regards Henning -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Henning Paul <hnch@gmx.net> wrote:
Am Dienstag 01 Februar 2011, 15:22:23 schrieb Juergen Weigert:
On Feb 01, 11 15:14:34 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:
There is Base:System/cdrecord.
The latest 'and greatest' is in home:hennichodernich cdrtools
Not yet submitted to Base:System
Because I decided not to submit every alpha to Base:System, but only those with bugfixes or new features.
This is the correct way of dealing with new releases. The last release has been announced to be a first step in a localization procedure and it does neither fix bugs nor does it introduce visible new features. 3.01a01 did however introduces fixes and new features. 3.01a02 is intended as a release for testers that could report problems that might have been introduced while converting the code to use gettext(). 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
Le 01/02/2011 15:03, Dave Plater a écrit :
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=cdrecord&baseproject=ALL&lang=fr&exclude_filter=home%3A&exclude_debug=true dans l'obs, il vaut souvent mieux chercher pour "all". ici il est dispo pour factory, mais tourne très bien sur la 11.03 jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
2011/2/1 Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com>:
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
Remember there is a third alternative: http://libburnia-project.org/ with its cdrecord compatible command line program, cdrskin. Somehow it's developed in X11:xfce. But it's in the main repo and upstream recently released version 1.0.0. No idea how it compares, but... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Cristian Morales Vega <cmorve69@yahoo.es> wrote:
2011/2/1 Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com>:
It works for me but this could possibly explain why the other user has a problem. Where can I find a 100% Joerg Schilling tarball? I can at least put a package in multimedia:libs.
Remember there is a third alternative: http://libburnia-project.org/ with its cdrecord compatible command line program, cdrskin.
Somehow it's developed in X11:xfce. But it's in the main repo and upstream recently released version 1.0.0. No idea how it compares, but...
It misses many of the important features from cdrecord, cdda2wav and mkisofs. The cdrtools project is maintained since February 1996, this is 15 years, do not expect a very young project to support more than basic 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
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:38:53 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
The cdrtools project is maintained since February 1996, this is 15 years, do not expect a very young project to support more than basic features.
When will you allow us to do what Marcus wrote, i.e. patch cdrecord to adapt it to the way linux handles devices and permissions? Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Philipp Thomas <Philipp.Thomas2@gmx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:38:53 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
The cdrtools project is maintained since February 1996, this is 15 years, do not expect a very young project to support more than basic features.
When will you allow us to do what Marcus wrote, i.e. patch cdrecord to adapt it to the way linux handles devices and permissions?
Cdrtools _correctly_ honors Linux constraints, why do you believe that there is a need for a change? 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 Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:47:15 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Cdrtools _correctly_ honors Linux constraints, why do you believe that there is a need for a change?
Ask Marcus, he's the one who said that it's needed in this thread. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Philipp Thomas <Philipp.Thomas2@gmx.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:47:15 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Cdrtools _correctly_ honors Linux constraints, why do you believe that there is a need for a change?
Ask Marcus, he's the one who said that it's needed in this thread.
I do not need to ask anyone as I know that cdrtools works correctly out of the box on Linux and that it honors all constraints. People who claim otherwise need to prove their claims..... 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
Am Dienstag 01 Februar 2011 schrieb Philipp Thomas:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:47:15 +0100,
Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Cdrtools _correctly_ honors Linux constraints, why do you believe that there is a need for a change?
Ask Marcus, he's the one who said that it's needed in this thread.
Philipp No nobody has to be asking anyone. openSUSE has wodim. So what? Noone is forced to use Joerg's "original" and "laywer proved" software. He did and does a great deal with introducing and maintaining "his" software. But: Joerg: you can do nothing against missusing "your" software.
please calm down, check your mailfilters and please stop this thread. wodim-user:hans-peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Le 01/02/2011 22:18, Hans-Peter Holler a écrit :
openSUSE has wodim. So what?
wodim is unable to write Blu-Ray disks... and original cdrecord *is* available. If the same problem arise in cdrecord and Mozilla, why do we use mozilla? this licence problem is quite boring. openSUSE Artwork uses CC BY NC SA, this is a non free licence, I guess and then...? jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2011 11:56 PM, jdd wrote:
Le 01/02/2011 22:18, Hans-Peter Holler a écrit :
openSUSE has wodim. So what?
wodim is unable to write Blu-Ray disks...
and original cdrecord *is* available. If the same problem arise in cdrecord and Mozilla, why do we use mozilla?
this licence problem is quite boring. openSUSE Artwork uses CC BY NC SA, this is a non free licence, I guess and then...?
jdd
Most probably because of this copied from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Mozilla Public License (MPL) This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason. However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license. The MPL allows dual licensing whereas the CDDL is uncompromising. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
Most probably because of this copied from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Mozilla Public License (MPL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.
However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license.
The MPL allows dual licensing whereas the CDDL is uncompromising.
If you continue to stay uninformed, it seems to be impossible to have a license related discussion with you. Please try to find someone who helps you to understand things.... 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 02/02/2011 12:26 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
Most probably because of this copied from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Mozilla Public License (MPL)
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge you not to use the MPL for this reason.
However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the program has a GPL-compatible license.
The MPL allows dual licensing whereas the CDDL is uncompromising.
If you continue to stay uninformed, it seems to be impossible to have a license related discussion with you.
Please try to find someone who helps you to understand things....
Jörg
I wasn't going to reply but anyway what is your opinion of this pasted from http://www.fsf.org/licensing Welcome to the FSF Compliance Lab and the home of the GNU General Public License! The Compliance Lab has been an informal activity of the FSF since 1992 and was formalized in December 2001. We handle all licensing-related issues for FSF. We serve the free software community by providing the public with a "knowledge infrastructure" surrounding the GNU GPL and free software licensing, and enforcing the license on FSF-copyrighted software. Are they also talking out the backs of their heads? Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am 01.02.2011 22:56, schrieb jdd:
and original cdrecord *is* available. If the same problem arise in cdrecord and Mozilla, why do we use mozilla?
It's not the same problem or at least partly the same problem. Mozilla has no licensing issues since they tri-license the whole source code MPL/GPL/LGPL. What's a bit similar in the end is that Mozilla enforces distributors to comply to some rules if they want to use the Mozilla trademarks (branding/names/etc) for the product. But it seems that collaboration with Mozilla works smoother as in the case of cdrecord. Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/02/2011 12:26 AM, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
Am 01.02.2011 22:56, schrieb jdd:
and original cdrecord *is* available. If the same problem arise in cdrecord and Mozilla, why do we use mozilla?
It's not the same problem or at least partly the same problem. Mozilla has no licensing issues since they tri-license the whole source code MPL/GPL/LGPL. What's a bit similar in the end is that Mozilla enforces distributors to comply to some rules if they want to use the Mozilla trademarks (branding/names/etc) for the product. But it seems that collaboration with Mozilla works smoother as in the case of cdrecord.
Wolfgang
As I told someone else on this thread, if there's no compromise there's no negotiation and if there's no negotiation there's no solution. It's a pity that there seems to be no hope of cdrtools ever being in a major opensource linux distribution. Anyway mozilla's an organisation not one man farting against thunder. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Wolfgang Rosenauer <wolfgang@rosenauer.org> wrote:
Am 01.02.2011 22:56, schrieb jdd:
and original cdrecord *is* available. If the same problem arise in cdrecord and Mozilla, why do we use mozilla?
It's not the same problem or at least partly the same problem. Mozilla has no licensing issues since they tri-license the whole source code MPL/GPL/LGPL. What's a bit similar in the end is that Mozilla enforces distributors to comply to some rules if they want to use the Mozilla trademarks (branding/names/etc) for the product.
There is no license problem in cdrtools. If you believe there is one, you need to prove this or we need to call you a person that is not interested in following the truth. If you like to use the cdrtools brand names, you need to distribute a product that is of aproproate quality with respect to cdrtools. I see no difference to Mozilla.
But it seems that collaboration with Mozilla works smoother as in the case of cdrecord.
You did never try to collaborate so you are obviously unable to judge in such a case. Given the fact that all people who tried to collaborate with me are satisfied, it seems that you like to spread FUD. Please stay with facts..... Also please keep in mind that I have been a very strong supporter of the GPL in the past. I changed my mind after I tried to sue GPL violators based on the GPL to no avail long before Harald Welte did sue GPL violators based on hardware costs. I learned that the GPL is something to avoid after I have been attacked by Debian for using the GPL. Please to not weep because I now try to avoid things that cause 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
Jörg, Am 01.02.2011 23:42, schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Wolfgang Rosenauer <wolfgang@rosenauer.org> wrote:
It's not the same problem or at least partly the same problem. Mozilla has no licensing issues since they tri-license the whole source code MPL/GPL/LGPL. What's a bit similar in the end is that Mozilla enforces distributors to comply to some rules if they want to use the Mozilla trademarks (branding/names/etc) for the product.
There is no license problem in cdrtools. If you believe there is one, you need to prove this or we need to call you a person that is not interested in following the truth.
Why do you think I believe so? I wrote only about the Mozilla case. I am no lawyer and I don't judge about that.
If you like to use the cdrtools brand names, you need to distribute a product that is of aproproate quality with respect to cdrtools.
I see no difference to Mozilla.
There are small differences but no need to discuss with me about that.
But it seems that collaboration with Mozilla works smoother as in the case of cdrecord.
You did never try to collaborate so you are obviously unable to judge in such a case.
Correct. I wrote "it seems". Actually I don't have to collaborate with you. I do with Mozilla and so I know one side of the comparison at least. And the fact is that we have Firefox in openSUSE's main repo but not cdrtools. So "it seems" seemed to be appropriate. Please refrain from argueing with me personally about the "why" since I'm not interested. Not needed to send anymore mails my way.
Given the fact that all people who tried to collaborate with me are satisfied, it seems that you like to spread FUD. Please stay with facts.....
I did not want to spread FUD and actually I didn't. I wrote my mail as neutral as possible. I just pointed out why it was compared with Mozilla and why it's not exactly the same situation. There is the different licensing where I didn't comment about if there is any issue in cdrtools licensing since I simply cannot tell. So please stop attacking me. Thanks, Wolfgang -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Le 01/02/2011 23:26, Wolfgang Rosenauer a écrit :
Am 01.02.2011 22:56, schrieb jdd:
and original cdrecord *is* available. If the same problem arise in cdrecord and Mozilla, why do we use mozilla?
It's not the same problem or at least partly the same problem. Mozilla has no licensing issues since they tri-license the whole source code MPL/GPL/LGPL.
ok jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Philipp Thomas schrieb:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 16:38:53 +0100, Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
The cdrtools project is maintained since February 1996, this is 15 years, do not expect a very young project to support more than basic features.
When will you allow us to do what Marcus wrote, i.e. patch cdrecord to adapt it to the way linux handles devices and permissions?
Given that, as well as some claimed legal unclarities with it, and OTOH the claimed (by Jörg) legal unclarities of wodim, I personally start to think that we should exclude both wodim and cdrecord from being shipped in any default Linux distro. ;-) Robert Kaiser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:08:32 +0100 Robert Kaiser <KaiRo@KaiRo.at> wrote:
Given that, as well as some claimed legal unclarities with it, and OTOH the claimed (by Jörg) legal unclarities of wodim, I personally start to think that we should exclude both wodim and cdrecord from being shipped in any default Linux distro. ;-)
There's a small difference: only Jörg claims that there is no license problem with cdrtools and only Jörg claims that there is a license problem with wodim. And of course the lawyers he talked to also are of Jörgs opinion. The lawyers I talked to are not. fortunately, growisofs works well for my DVD[+-]R{,W}s and DVD-RAM does not need any burning tools. -- Stefan Seyfried "Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body!" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Stefan Seyfried <stefan.seyfried@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:08:32 +0100 Robert Kaiser <KaiRo@KaiRo.at> wrote:
Given that, as well as some claimed legal unclarities with it, and OTOH the claimed (by Jörg) legal unclarities of wodim, I personally start to think that we should exclude both wodim and cdrecord from being shipped in any default Linux distro. ;-)
There's a small difference: only Jörg claims that there is no license problem with cdrtools and only Jörg claims that there is a license problem with wodim.
Please do not spread lies..... The Sun legal department (and later the Oracle legal department under different constraints) did make a review on cdrtools and both see no problem with the original code. There is no other trustworthy lawyer that did ever make a license review for cdrtools, so what do you like to tell us here?
And of course the lawyers he talked to also are of Jörgs opinion. The lawyers I talked to are not.
As long as you don't name them, we need to call this FUD :-( 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
[This will be the last ever comment from me on this matter as I see from approx. ten years of experience that it's indeed as Jeff pointed out, that everybody is wrong while you are right and people are only right if the support your POV. That way there can never be an agreement which is sad.] * Joerg Schilling (Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de) [20110202 11:56]:
There is no other trustworthy lawyer that did ever make a license review for cdrtools, so what do you like to tell us here?
Given the comment you made on Eben Moglen, trustworthy in your eyes seems to apply only to a lawyer that supports your view. That way even a court ruling wouldn't help as you'd probably call it misguided if it didn't decide in your favour. EOD for me! Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Philipp Thomas <pth@suse.de> wrote:
Given the comment you made on Eben Moglen, trustworthy in your eyes seems to apply only to a lawyer that supports your view. That way even a court ruling wouldn't help as you'd probably call it misguided if it didn't decide in your favour. EOD for me!
A person who makes contradicting claimes in private and in public, like Moglen does, cannot be seen as a serious person. If you are not willing to accept this, it seems to be impossible to have an openminded discussion with you. EOD for me and have a nice day! 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 <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> [02-02-11 15:34]:
Philipp Thomas <pth@suse.de> wrote:
Given the comment you made on Eben Moglen, trustworthy in your eyes seems to apply only to a lawyer that supports your view. That way even a court ruling wouldn't help as you'd probably call it misguided if it didn't decide in your favour. EOD for me!
A person who makes contradicting claimes in private and in public, like Moglen does, cannot be seen as a serious person. If you are not willing to accept this, it seems to be impossible to have an openminded discussion with you.
EOD for me and have a nice day!
You fail miserably by the same arguments you profess. No one here has admitted the knowledge private to you as they are not privy that knowledge. How can anyone comment intelligently on private conversations you experienced with Mr. Moglen? You have dug a large hole in the openSUSE community and appear to still be excavating. You have been offered a simple solution and have failed comment upon it or even acknowledge it's existence. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Le 02/02/2011 21:44, Patrick Shanahan a écrit :
You have been offered a simple solution and have failed comment upon it or even acknowledge it's existence.
please, you said you would stop. do. or continue privately thanks jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/02/11 21:09, jdd wrote:
Le 02/02/2011 21:44, Patrick Shanahan a écrit :
You have been offered a simple solution and have failed comment upon it or even acknowledge it's existence.
please, you said you would stop. do. or continue privately
thanks jdd
Best disguise all further mention on this topic forever, call it "midow" or "that app" in future to stop it being captured by the one Linux filter that sets the house on fire every year and every time it's mentioned. Regards Sid. -- Sid Boyce ... Hamradio License G3VBV, Licensed Private Pilot Emeritus IBM/Amdahl Mainframes and Sun/Fujitsu Servers Tech Support Senior Staff 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 02/02/2011 11:46 PM, Sid Boyce wrote:
On 02/02/11 21:09, jdd wrote:
Le 02/02/2011 21:44, Patrick Shanahan a écrit :
You have been offered a simple solution and have failed comment upon it or even acknowledge it's existence.
please, you said you would stop. do. or continue privately
thanks jdd
Best disguise all further mention on this topic forever, call it "midow" or "that app" in future to stop it being captured by the one Linux filter that sets the house on fire every year and every time it's mentioned. Regards Sid. I'm fortunate enough to be unsueable, I have nothing and I'm tempted to really speak my mind about this but not on an openSUSE list. Regards Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/01/2011 02:07 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Dave Plater <davejplater@gmail.com> wrote:
I followed the thread on the factory list and I for one and I think I can speak for jdd as well are happy with your wodim. I was attempting to bring this to your attention to see if you can shed any light on this problem.
wodim uses more than 95% of code written by me but it is not "my wodim" and I am also not responsible for the bugs in wodim. These bugs have been added by Debian. I personally know nobody who uses wodim for real work and who is happy with it.
Well, I use wodim regularly without any troubles. I'm not aware about any wodim related bugs... Bye, CzP -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Le 01/02/2011 13:25, Dave Plater a écrit :
I followed the thread on the factory list and I for one and I think I can speak for jdd as well are happy with your wodim.
well I'm happy with Joerg cdrecord jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://pizzanetti.fr -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Hi, After reading the mails here, I don't think this thread will go anywhere useful, and it might just last forever as it did in the past [1]. I don't think this is useful for the opensuse-factory mailing list, especially as it's discussing some non-technical things about cdrecord/wodim where people just disagree on what's the best way forward. It probably makes sense to document the current status, and why there's disagreement, on the wiki or somewhere else, to avoid similar future threads. I'm asking for this thread to be killed, so people don't ignore opensuse-factory mail while we're approaching RC... Cheers, Vincent [1] see http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2009-07/msg00033.html / http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2009-08/msg00045.html or search in Google -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
On 02/02/2011 12:51 PM, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
After reading the mails here, I don't think this thread will go anywhere useful, and it might just last forever as it did in the past [1].
I don't think this is useful for the opensuse-factory mailing list, especially as it's discussing some non-technical things about cdrecord/wodim where people just disagree on what's the best way forward. It probably makes sense to document the current status, and why there's disagreement, on the wiki or somewhere else, to avoid similar future threads.
I'm asking for this thread to be killed, so people don't ignore opensuse-factory mail while we're approaching RC...
Cheers,
Vincent
[1] see http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2009-07/msg00033.html / http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2009-08/msg00045.html or search in Google
+1 Sorry I didn't know I was creating a monster. Dave P -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
Am Dienstag, 1. Februar 2011, 10:52:19 schrieb Dave Plater:
I thought I'd forward this to the factory list in the hope of the wodim developer seeing it. The sender of this mail has the complete opposite experience with wodim to myself and at least one other user. Dave P
and here we go again =/
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [opensuse-multimedia] wodim/cdrecord Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 23:11:43 -0500 From: Steven Sroka <sroka.steven@gmail.com> To: opensuse-multimedia@opensuse.org
Hi,
I don't know if anyone is aware of this, but I've been seeing this everywhere and its quite old.
I've copied the relevent lines from: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=447910
"you are not using cdrecord but a bastardizd variant that does not really support to write DVDs."
This issue still exists because opensuse still provides wodim/cdrecord. I actually ran into this because wodim/cdrecord kept ruining my DVD's.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org
participants (23)
-
Cristian Morales Vega -
Dave Plater -
Dave Plater -
Graham Anderson -
Hans-Peter Holler -
Henning Paul -
İsmail Dönmez -
jdd -
Jeff Mahoney -
Joerg.Schilling＠fokus.fraunhofer.de -
Juergen Weigert -
Karsten König -
Marcus Meissner -
Patrick Shanahan -
Peter Czanik -
Philipp Thomas -
Philipp Thomas -
Robert Kaiser -
Sid Boyce -
Stefan Seyfried -
Stephan Kleine -
Vincent Untz -
Wolfgang Rosenauer