Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry Joerg, but again - just your opinion! If it was so obvious there
would not *be* numerous discussions keeping you busy about this! Note
that I may actually agree with your opinion about the intent of the GPL,
but that would be just *my* opinion!
I'd say this has gone on quite long enough. There *were* some nuggets
of information among Jörgs lunatic ravings, but I think it would be
best if we ended the thread. Also, who would I have to contact to get
Jörg removed from the list?
Regards,
Jan
--
Four bits at a time
www.thenybble.de
--
On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:32:34 +0200
Jan Seeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say this has gone on quite long enough. There *were* some nuggets
of information among Jörgs lunatic ravings, but I think it would be
best if we ended the thread. Also, who would I have to contact to get
Jörg removed
On Mittwoch, 9. Juli 2008, Jan Seeger wrote:
I'd say this has gone on quite long enough. There *were* some nuggets
of information among Jörgs lunatic ravings, but I think it would be
best if we ended the thread. Also, who would I have to contact to get
Jörg removed from the list?
why remove
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:58:52 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Neil, Alan, Daniel, Sebastian, Stroller,... are all guilty of not just
ignoring him.
Mea culpa :(
Yes, before anyone comments, I know that's not English :P
--
Neil Bothwick
Cross a tagline and a tribble? You get a full HD...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 21:13:23 +0100
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 18:58:52 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Neil, Alan, Daniel, Sebastian, Stroller,... are all guilty of not
just ignoring him.
Mea culpa :(
Yes, before anyone comments, I know that's not
Arttu V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/7/08, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
Jörg, there are indeed four asterisks/clauses to count. But which
clause represents the original GPL-incompatible advertising clause?
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg, you have a certain opinion... and that is all it is! Other
people, some of them Debian maintainers have a different one. This is a
common situation, and it is allowed - in fact desirable in many situations.
If said opinions are believed to
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 17:46]:
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please finally stop your FUD!
The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish
any packages that could create problems.
I *never* stated that CDDL is
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just stating that that OpenSolaris hardly counts, because the whole
thing is under CDDL.
Which btw allows SUN or any other to restrict access to any improvement
they make.
Please finally stop your childish FUD now!
Your claim is an obvious
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08.07.08 12:19]:
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just stating that that OpenSolaris hardly counts, because the whole
thing is under CDDL.
Which btw allows SUN or any other to restrict access to any improvement
they make.
Please
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:17:41 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
You are not allowed to report other opinions if they are known to
be be wrong.
Of course you are, as long as you are reporting that the person holds
the opinion without endorsing it, you may even be doing it to show how
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 17:22:39 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
There are license violations in other packages from Debian where
I _could_ sue Debian.
Have you pointed these out to the Debian devs? What was their response?
Has your lawyer contacted them? You are not American, legal action
doesn't
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's right, Alan made no comment as to the correctness or otherwise of
the opinion. He only stated that this opinion was held and that was the
reason for the use of cdrkit, both statements are factually correct.
The problem is that this includes an
Am Dienstag 08 Juli 2008 10:26:40 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Arttu V. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/7/08, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
Jörg, there are indeed four asterisks/clauses to count. But which
clause
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg, you have a certain opinion... and that is all it is! Other
people, some of them Debian maintainers have a different one. This is a
common situation, and it is allowed - in fact desirable in many situations.
If said
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know what defamation and slander is?
If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there was no
problem.
It therefore seems to be important to prevent underlying messages...
Do you understand opinion? This is the heart of
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 11:17]:
Short answer: in a democracy, your freedom ends where you may start to
influence the freedom of others.
No, that's anarchy you describing, in democracy the majority decides
were your personal freedom ends.
Long answer:
If
2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Also note that these people from Debian (whose claims have been repeated) have
ZERO credibiltiy. In September 2006, when they started cdrkit, they claimed
that there were exactly two problems:
Claim 1:The CDDL is not a free license
2008/7/5, Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
This is a really bad idea.
/usr/include/scg/ is a planned directory that is known to be unique.
cdrkit does not deliver anything that is even approximately useful as a
replacement for libscg.
Installing the
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion
and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to
publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it!
There is a difference between repeating and
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you know what defamation and slander is?
If people did not believe in unproven and untrue claims, there
was no problem. It therefore seems to be important to
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion
and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to
publish it unless you are able to definitely prove it!
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I should not feed trolls but
Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and
they don't owe you an explanation.
Solaris (the only distribution where
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:11:59 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I should not feed trolls but
...otherwise, you'd starve to death.
Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped
cdrtools. It is their right
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:07:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the
opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain,
usually reasonable, constraints.
Sorry, you missunderstand this at an important point:
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not
created at all. The command i used was
./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install
Is this intended to be a joke or do you really like to ask me why it did not do
2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not
created at all. The command i used was
./Gmake INS_BASE=/home/billie/cdrtools-test/ install
Is this intended to be a joke or do
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
If you repeat the opinion of other people, you make it _your_ opinion
and if your opinion may harm other people, you are not allowed to
publish it unless you are able to
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is no approval process for free licenses within Debian:
Please note however, that the Debian project decides on particular
packages rather than licenses in abstract, and the lists are general
explanations. It is possible to have a package
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry to see that you try to write FUD:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/FORK?op=filerev=0sc=0
of course verifies my claim.
They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced it
with a build system that
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 13:14]:
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I should not feed trolls but
Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
It is their right to choose which packets they want to distribute and
they
Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:07:44 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
There is a difference between repeating and reporting. Reporting the
opinions of others is legal in most Western countries, with certain,
usually reasonable, constraints.
Sorry, you
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/7, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Out of curiosity I tried a manual install and /usr/include/scg/ was not
created at all. The command i used was
./Gmake
Mike Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you,
or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been
tested in court yet. Unless and until that happens, the
whole debate is pure theory. Debian is clearly not willing
to take
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 13:14]:
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I should not feed trolls but
Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream binary distro dropped cdrtools.
It is their right to choose
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced
it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not
included in the source.
Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 17:28]:
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [07.07.08 13:14]:
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know I should not feed trolls but
Here is a fact for you: Every mainstream
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please finally stop your FUD!
The CDDL definitely is a free license and Sun will definitely not publish
any packages that could create problems.
I *never* stated that CDDL is unfree. What I stated a couple of days
ago, is that in *my
Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 17:30:06 schwätzte Joerg Schilling:
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they
replaced it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it
is not included in the source.
Of course the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They claimed that the official build system was not legal but they replaced
it with a build system that definitely is not legal because it is not
included in the source.
Of course the files needed to build cdrkit are in the source
Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 17:45:37 flamete Joerg Schilling:
Back to my statement: iirc the Debian people refused to establish a
whole new build chain to circumvent the problem, that they saw when
distributing cdrtools.
The original build system in cdrtools is not GPL but it is included in the
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Mike Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The reality, regardless of what Debian, or the FSF, or you,
or any lawyers say, is that the licensing issue has not been
tested in court yet. Unless and until that happens, the
whole debate is pure theory. Debian is clearly not
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please point to a cmake with a 3 clause BSDl!
http://www.cmake.org
Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz,
for example.
Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
The fact that cmake may
On 7/7/08, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
Jörg, there are indeed four asterisks/clauses to count. But which
clause represents the original GPL-incompatible advertising clause?
IANAL, but I cannot see that clause in
Heyho,
Click on License. It's also in the file Copyright.txt in
cmake-2.4.8.tar.gz, for example.
Let me quote _this_ file to verify that there is a 4 clause BSDL.
The fact that cmake may have been changed a few weeks ago does not matter.
At the time when Bloch and Co. did replace the
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heyho,
...
a lot of new FUD
you. Feel free to prove us wrong.
I am sorry, but I cannot see any sense in talking to a person who uses
majestatis pluralis for his claims.
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
Am Montag 07 Juli 2008 21:04:15 schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heyho,
...
a lot of new FUD
you. Feel free to prove us wrong.
I am sorry, but I cannot see any sense in talking to a person who uses
majestatis pluralis for his claims.
I does not make much
Daniel Iliev wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:16:33 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
I am the author and I tell you that there is no problem. I am the
only person who could sue you and I can't if I did tell you before
that there is no problem.
You may tell whatever you
Sebastian Günther schrieb:
* KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [05.07.08 13:24]:
Hi,
after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge
cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and kino.
Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.
!!! Cannot write to
Mick schrieb:
On Saturday 05 July 2008, Sebastian Günther wrote:
P.S.: I don't use kino so just try a
# emerge -pvt kino
afterwards, to look what it tries to pull in.
I don't have cdrkit on my systems and it does not seem to have a dependency
for kino:
# emerge -pvt kino
These
On Saturday 05 July 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
grep virtual/cdrtools
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/**/virtuals
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:virtual/cdr
tools app-cdr/cdrkit
That was what i am looking for, thanks! Why they did choose cdrkit in
Alan McKinnon schrieb:
On Saturday 05 July 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
grep virtual/cdrtools
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/**/virtuals
/media/system/repositories/portage/profiles/base/virtuals:virtual/cdr
tools app-cdr/cdrkit
That was what i am looking for, thanks! Why they
* KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06.07.08 10:33]:
the link under license is leading to nowhere. On the project page I have
not been able to find a license, too (fast overview).
Where can I find the license?
All licenses can be found under:
/usr/portage/licenses/
And emerge -s cdrtools shows you
On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, KH wrote:
you are right. But it looks like kino depends on app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools.
And this depends on cdrkit until you remove the broken symlink. cdrkit
seems to steal the cdrtools dependencies from other programs.
*rolleyes* it is not 'stealing' but 'virtuals'. You
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably for the same reason Debian felt obliged to do the same -
licensing issues. It is widely acknowledged that cdrtools is the
superior code over cdrkit but large sections of the OSS community feel
that cdrtools' license puts tham at risk,
KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://gentoo-portage.com/app-cdr/cdrtools
the link under license is leading to nowhere. On the project page I have
not been able to find a license, too (fast overview).
Where can I find the license?
e.g. here: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
Jörg
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the issue is not the licenses itself, but the mixing of the
licenses in one project.
Your problem is not to understand the difference between project
and distribution.
I recommend _you_ to read the license indormation that comes with cdrtools
Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, KH wrote:
you are right. But it looks like kino depends on app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools.
And this depends on cdrkit until you remove the broken symlink. cdrkit
seems to steal the cdrtools dependencies from other programs.
On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sonntag, 6. Juli 2008, KH wrote:
you are right. But it looks like kino depends on app-cdr/dvd+rw-tools.
And this depends on cdrkit until you remove the broken symlink. cdrkit
seems to
On Sunday 06 July 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably for the same reason Debian felt obliged to do the same -
licensing issues. It is widely acknowledged that cdrtools is the
superior code over cdrkit but large sections of the OSS community
feel
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default. I
answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point of view
of the maintainer (who is not me). I said nothing about what I think in
the matter, and I won't as it is in no
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06.07.08 12:44]:
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the issue is not the licenses itself, but the mixing of the
licenses in one project.
Your problem is not to understand the difference between project
and distribution.
Sorry, wrong
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [06.07.08 12:44]:
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And the issue is not the licenses itself, but the mixing of the
licenses in one project.
Your problem is not to understand the
On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 06:21:42PM +0200, Penguin Lover Joerg Schilling
squawked:
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default. I
answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point of view
of the maintainer (who
Willie Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a response like the one you just gave. It was very clear from his
original post that he answered the OP's question with (I paraphrase
here)
Joerg is a coding God. But the maintainer in gentoo for the
cdrtools package thinks that there is a license
On Sunday 06 July 2008, Sebastian Günther wrote:
I won't read anything related to cdrtools anymore. I won't install
it, nor recommend anyone to use it.
That is indeed your right, but please do so in the full knowledge that
cdrtools is vastly superior to anything else out there for any OS. No
On Sunday 06 July 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default.
I answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point
of view of the maintainer (who is not me). I said nothing about
what I
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 06 July 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The OP asked a question about why a virtual has a certain default.
I answered with the obvious answer which has to do with the point
of view of the maintainer
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Easy. In the abstract: person X performed action Y with regard to
cdrtools for reason Z. I felt it important to understand Z in order to
fully understand Y.
Do you know what defamation and slander is?
If people did
Hi,
after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge
cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and
kino. Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.
!!! Cannot write to '/usr/include/scsilib/scg'.
!!! Please check permissions and directories
* KH ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [05.07.08 13:24]:
Hi,
after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge
cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and kino.
Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.
!!! Cannot write to '/usr/include/scsilib/scg'.
On Saturday 05 July 2008, Sebastian Günther wrote:
P.S.: I don't use kino so just try a
# emerge -pvt kino
afterwards, to look what it tries to pull in.
I don't have cdrkit on my systems and it does not seem to have a dependency
for kino:
# emerge -pvt kino
These are the packages that
KH schrieb:
Hi,
after reading some emails from the list I have been trying to unmerge
cdrkit and to emerge cdrtools. I aslo hat to unmerge dvd+rw-tools and
kino. Anyway I am still not able to emerge cdrtools.
!!! Cannot write to '/usr/include/scsilib/scg'.
!!! Please check permissions and
On Samstag, 5. Juli 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
i could not find out why.
k
Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
On Samstag, 5. Juli 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
i
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
/usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to usr/include/scsilib/usal has not
been removed with cdrkit and is now broken and
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
/usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to usr/include/scsilib/usal has not
been removed with
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
/usr/include/scsilib/scg symlink to
On Samstag, 5. Juli 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Installing the includefiles from libscg into /usr/include/scsilib/scg makes
them unusable as there is no software that is aware of this location.
wrong. It is easy to tell software which needs/wants that headers the right
directory. If there
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling schrieb:
Daniel Pielmeier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So you successfully unmerged cdrkit, dvd+rw-tools and kino. The
installation of cdrtools fails because of a broken symlink. I guess the
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:14:17 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred. However
i could not find out
Neil Bothwick schrieb:
On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:14:17 +0200, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
I find it a bit sad that cdrkit is the preferred cd burning application
because it satisfies the cdrtools virtual first. This means when you
have neither cdrkit nor cdrtools installed cdrkit is preferred.
83 matches
Mail list logo
