On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Dan Hollis wrote: > joerg is calling you a thief...
Thanks for notifying me. He should reconsider this, because the only theft in this whole mess wasn't what I did. cdrecord is a GPLed software, and contains contributions from people other than him, and those people did not sign a copyright signover of any kind. So by running his own proprietary fork of it, he is violating the GPL on parts of the code (including a couple of mostly oneliner patches by me, and I'm sure that I for one do *not* agree with any of my code being used in proprietary software.). Let's look at his other accusations: > This is not an independant fork of cdrtools! It sort of is. It's intended to be a free fork closely following the development of cdrtools, which happens to be a great piece of software for writing CDs. It's just too bad there are no plans to add DVD support in a legal version thereof, so it's time for someone else to do it. You can claim it's not really independant because it doesn't contain all that many changes to the cdrtools code, and you'd be somewhat right - I just added DVD support and "fixed up" [IMO -- see below] the build system. If it ever becomes necessary, it can become a truly independant fork, though. I just hope it won't get that far. > It is rather an _unmaintained_ snapshot It is true that I haven't released many updates lately. This is mostly because I'm busy with other work, and because the current version works perfectly for me. I will release a newer version once I either have some spare time, or once I find a serious problem in the current version. > that uses an add on which > most likely has been created by reverse engineering cdrecord-ProDVD. For the record, it hasn't been. I believe proprietary software is evil, therefore I don't download it. > Give me a better explanagtion why the hell the "patch" this beast is > related on appeard about a week after I announced my first test binary > and about two weeks after I put the binary on the server. Coincidence. I happened to buy a DVD writer than, and wanted it to work. If you don't believe me, I can scan the invoice. > In addition note that the "author" removed the tested and working > make file system and replaced it by some piece of junk that works > on Linux only by accident - it does not work on other OS! Actually, I adapted the code to follow GNU coding standards. The old make file system might have worked, but (purely IMO, of course -- you can run flamewars about make file systems just as much as about indenting with tabs vs. indenting with spaces, vi vs. emacs or kde vs. gnome) is extremely nonstandard, bad code, not usable (what? I have to edit Makefiles in subdirectories to pick a cddb server?) and not really maintainable (partially because it's nonstandard). And it actually works on FreeBSD and OpenBSD (and probably NetBSD because it's not that different, but I didn't try), and someone reported he has it working on MacOS X. Not all that unportable, is it? Maybe it doesn't work on some proprietary OSes - to be honest, I don't care (they should just use a free OS, or at least a compiler that works, like gcc) and if someone does care, he can send me a patch, and if it doesn't break anything, chances are I'll apply it. > It seems that this person did try to write own autoconf code from what > he did understand. Unfortunately it seems that he did not understand > much :-( Actually I think my autoconf code is much nicer than cdrtools'. Compare, for example, the align.h stuff. (46 lines in configure.in as opposed to exec'ing 674 lines of C code to generate a header). > Look at the web page and judge yourself. The first thing that comes into > mind is the 'pay' button. Actually the sole reason I placed it there is to show people you can ask users to contribute without violating the GPL. If people find it offensive, I'll just remove it -- there, done. > Writing portable code like cdrecord and make it work with all drives on > the market is a hard job. The person who claims that he is the author > of this project is somebody who is falsely taking all the credit but > does not put own effort in development. Actually I never claimed all the credit. The readme file, the website, and dvdrecord --version all give credit to cdrtools/cdrecord. I rightfully claim the credit for releasing a free version that can write to DVDs and that uses a standard build system. I hope everything is clear now so I can get back to coding. LLaP bero -- This message is provided to you under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
