Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am aware of what the strings are used for. Can you point out the section of the license that says that copyright must be conveyed as a char string in the binary? I only see that it should be kept in the source file, which it is. Can you please demonstrate copyright breach, instead of continuing to repeat your wishes? It is interesting to see that Debian people on one side publish unsubstancial claims against my software and on the other side ignore explanations. You are mot allowed to remove Copyright notices that are part of the work. I recommend you to read the related law: http://transpatent.com/gesetze/urhg.html In special UrhG §13: § 13 Anerkennung der Urheberschaft Der Urheber hat das Recht auf Anerkennung seiner Urheberschaft am Werk. Er kann bestimmen, ob das Werk mit einer Urheberbezeichnung zu versehen und welche XX Bezeichnung zu verwenden ist. X and read the GPL (note that GPL §2 (c is also ignored by Debian..). And please do not try to have an endless discussion, I don't have the time to have endless discussions. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
#include hallo.h * Joerg Schilling [Tue, Dec 19 2006, 11:15:58AM]: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am aware of what the strings are used for. Can you point out the section of the license that says that copyright must be conveyed as a char string in the binary? I only see that it should be kept in the source file, which it is. Can you please demonstrate copyright breach, instead of continuing to repeat your wishes? It is interesting to see that Debian people on one side publish unsubstancial claims against my software and on the other side ignore explanations. You are mot allowed to remove Copyright notices that are part of the work. I recommend you to read the related law: http://transpatent.com/gesetze/urhg.html In special UrhG §13: § 13 Anerkennung der Urheberschaft Der Urheber hat das Recht auf Anerkennung seiner Urheberschaft am Werk. Er kann bestimmen, ob das Werk mit einer Urheberbezeichnung zu versehen und welche XX Bezeichnung zu verwenden ist. X Yes, and? Of course there is the §13 which describes the skeleton of the law. And if you continue reading, you will find things like § 31 Einräumung von Nutzungsrechten When you have understood it, I suggest you reread your license where you gave a lot of permissions including modification and distribution of modified works. and read the GPL (note that GPL §2 (c is also ignored by Debian..). §2c is not ignored. You continue telling this myth while you deliberately ignore the word interactive therein or while you try to find some perverse definition for that term. In common sense, interactive stands for a real-time dialogue with the user which is not (or hardly) the case here. And please do not try to have an endless discussion, I don't have the time to have endless discussions. There would be no discussion if you would listen to other arguments at least once. Instead you present the same myths (aka rebutted pseudo-arguments) again and again. If you want to stop, you can do it at any time. Eduard. -- weaselTM aber /me wollte ins bett. nacht cw80 hehe, morgen channel, nacht weasel ;)
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
#include hallo.h * Eduard Bloch [Tue, Dec 19 2006, 11:44:02AM]: I recommend you to read the related law: http://transpatent.com/gesetze/urhg.html In special UrhG §13: § 13 Anerkennung der Urheberschaft Der Urheber hat das Recht auf Anerkennung seiner Urheberschaft am Werk. Er kann bestimmen, ob das Werk mit einer Urheberbezeichnung zu versehen und welche XX Bezeichnung zu verwenden ist. X Yes, and? Of course there is the §13 which describes the skeleton of the law. And if you continue reading, you will find things like § 31 Einräumung von Nutzungsrechten When you have understood it, I suggest you reread your license where you gave a lot of permissions including modification and distribution of modified works. Oh, and before you start bitching again that we have removed your Urheberbezeichnung (copyright holder notice) from binaries, please answer the question about the compiler and compiler flags definition in the license FIRST. Simply because it is obvious that hidden static data arrays are not appropriate medium to deliver such notices. Almost all are even removed by gcc (the regular compiler) automaticaly when normal optimisation (-O2) is enabled since they are not used in the program code. For the appropriate channels of delivery, we have not removed your copyright notices and therefore your accusations of a contract breach are simply void. Eduard. -- Stilblüten aus Schreiben von Versicherungsnehmern: Als ich an die Kreuzung kam, erhob sich ein Zaun, um meine freie Sicht zu hindern.
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061217 18:19]: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a partial-true information. Please look in the relevant commentaries for e.g. §13 UrhG (that is a german law). The law states that one has to acknoledge who created a work, and the commentaries say that this does (unless the contract say otherwise) does not give the creator of any work the right to specify e.g. fontsize or how it is presented in detail (with limits to faulty advertisment etc of course), but only the right to specify whether you want to be named or not. As far as I can see, your name has not been removed, so the actions were in accordance with §13 UrhG. I hope you realised that your behaviour does allow anyone who is part of the cdrkit team to take legal action against you (Feststellungsklage), and also that you are at least at the border of being criminal because of slender (Verleumdung). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to either remove your project from the server or to undo the deletion of the copyright information. Please supply either an interdiff or a useable svn command tha shows that your copyright claims have been abused. svn diff -r1:2 /path/ would be fine. I am not sure what you mean.. If you did read the previous text yu did find this: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/?rev=591sc=1 Is this what you like? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to either remove your project from the server or to undo the deletion of the copyright information. Please supply either an interdiff or a useable svn command tha shows that your copyright claims have been abused. svn diff -r1:2 /path/ would be fine. I am not sure what you mean.. If you did read the previous text yu did find this: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/?rev=591sc=1 Is this what you like? this link shows all changed files, but not the actual differences to older revisions. For the record: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn?op=comp[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/y9ld8g bye, - michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: Recently, Copyright notices have been removed from many files in the svn without permission from the Authors. This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to either remove your project from the server or to undo the deletion of the copyright information. Please supply either an interdiff or a useable svn command tha shows that your copyright claims have been abused. svn diff -r1:2 /path/ would be fine. I am not sure what you mean.. If you did read the previous text yu did find this: This one time, at band camp, Michael Ablassmeier said: this link shows all changed files, but not the actual differences to older revisions. For the record: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn?op=comp[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/y9ld8g So, if this is in fact the problem that Joerg is talking about, there is no problem. No copyright notices have been removed. Some conditionally #defined static char's have been removed, but the copyright notices are intact. Unless someone can demonstrate copyrights have been removed, I suggest we just close this and move on. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn?op=comp[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/y9ld8g So, if this is in fact the problem that Joerg is talking about, there is no problem. No copyright notices have been removed. Some conditionally #defined static char's have been removed, but the copyright notices are intact. Unless someone can demonstrate copyrights have been removed, Could you please first inform yourself about what the code does? Please only continue this discussion if you understand the background. As I did already write several times, Copyright information has been removed that is intended to be compiled into the resulting binaries. I do not allow users to remove this kind of information. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: Stephen Gran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn?op=comp[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tinyurl.com/y9ld8g So, if this is in fact the problem that Joerg is talking about, there is no problem. No copyright notices have been removed. Some conditionally #defined static char's have been removed, but the copyright notices are intact. Unless someone can demonstrate copyrights have been removed, Could you please first inform yourself about what the code does? I am aware of what the strings are used for. Can you point out the section of the license that says that copyright must be conveyed as a char string in the binary? I only see that it should be kept in the source file, which it is. Can you please demonstrate copyright breach, instead of continuing to repeat your wishes? -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
On Sat, 16 Dec 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: Are you going to tell me that Debian has no way to deal with malicious or unwilling maintainers? Note that this is the only reason for the cdrtools dispute from Debian. The mechanism is as I've described it previously. The current problem is related to this piece of text from you: Indeed, specifically the latter part. Consider rereading it. Maintainers, of course, should not capriciously close bugs or tag or block them nonsensically, and should attempt to explain why they are closing bugs or altering states wherever possible, but regardless of ^ whatever inequities the maintainer has committed, using the control ^^^ interface to argue with them will only result in your exclusion from it. ^^^ In any event, you have been warned. HAND. Don Armstrong -- I'd never hurt another living thing. But if I did... It would be you. -- Chris Bishop http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Developers can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Users can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Have I forgotten someone? You had the chance to ask me for the permission to remove this code. Instead, you decided to ignore the Copyright and removed Copyright related code without permission. You are not in the situation that allows you to discuss this topic, you simply don't have the right to remove Copyright notes. If you don't like to continue your Copyright violation, you need to undo this deletion. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
#include hallo.h * Joerg Schilling [Sun, Dec 17 2006, 12:29:11PM]: Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Developers can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Users can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Have I forgotten someone? You had the chance to ask me for the permission to remove this code. remove, code, big words but based on which facts? Supported by which arguments? Several people told you other things, quickly rebutting your pseudo-arguments. If you are unable or refuse to perceive or understand such simple facts, well, that is not our fault. And you demonstrate very well that you do not perceive or understand them by deliberately omiting relevant parts in your citation and repeat your old (rebutted) stuff instead. But usually simple repetition does not make things more true. Eduard. -- hds- moin hds- hab irgednwie ein problem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to either remove your project from the server or to undo the deletion of the copyright information. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
This one time, at band camp, Joerg Schilling said: You do not need to understand the background. You just need to remember that you are not allowed to remove Copyright information. This is a week sence I did inform you about the Copyright violation. Note that today, you have to either remove your project from the server or to undo the deletion of the copyright information. Please supply either an interdiff or a useable svn command tha shows that your copyright claims have been abused. svn diff -r1:2 /path/ would be fine. Thanks, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did already explain recisely what the problem is. I've read the logs, and I still have no idea what you're talking about. What information do you need? Let me spell it out the process even more clearly: 1) Send mail explaining precisely what the problem is. I already did this. 2) If the maintainer disagrees, appeal to the tech ctte to override the maintainer. The maintainer does not seem to be interested in the problem. If you believe you've done #1 then your only recourse is #2. At no point does this involve reopening bugs. Are you going to tell me that Debian has no way to deal with malicious or unwilling maintainers? Note that this is the only reason for the cdrtools dispute from Debian. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html for a recent post ex cathedra. The current problem is related to this piece of text from you: Maintainers, of course, should not capriciously close bugs or tag or block them nonsensically, and should attempt to explain why they are closing bugs or altering states wherever possible, but regardless of whatever inequities the maintainer has committed, using the control interface to argue with them will only result in your exclusion from it. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Joerg Schilling] I did give an example: use what(1) on a binary compiled from the source before and after the change to see the difference. If you did look at the SVN, if you did have a look at the most recent changes. it would be easy to understand what happened. We have removed a lot of _duplicate_ copyright notices from source files, as a cleanup. We have not removed copyright information from source files; it is still there, just not repeated 2 or 3 times per file, as it was in some cases before. This is wrong: You did remove _code_ that is intended to keep Copyright/version information in binaries. The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. I am not aware of a single case in the past 25 years where someone did try to remove this kind of information. Users typically look for copyright notices in documentation and other materials that come with a package. (I note that the manpage we got Do not reason from your behavior on others. And speaking of my local Linux system, let me check for copyright notices in SCCS strings. The only user binaries aside from yours that embed copyright notices in that way are: iputils ping, netkit telnet, tcsh, aumix, vixie cron, gprof, lsof, util-linux pg, xdaliclock, and the ncftp suite. That is 11 packages (counting yours) out of over 1200 installed packages -- about 1%. By number of binaries it's on the order of 25 out of 2600 -- again, 1%. Noce to see that wou admit that nobody tries to remove this information in case it is present! Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. Until this bug, I had no clue about that what(1) existed. It does also only exist on a very few unix-derivatives. (some commercial ones and some of the bsd's) I also asked around me where there is some people who have been into unix for many many years. None of them could answer me on a question about what what(1) is used for. So - no. what(1) is not a tool people use to find copyright-information (or anything else) /Sune random user -- Do you know how may I boot the TCP/IP microprocessor on the ATI floppy disk? First of all from the options inside Word 97 you neither should rename a login, nor can insert a software. pgpuafMClQgCp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Sune Vuorela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. Until this bug, I had no clue about that what(1) existed. It does also only exist on a very few unix-derivatives. (some commercial ones and some of the bsd's) It is not my fault if you don't know enough about the POSIX standard. What is present on every commercial UNIX system and it is present on OpenSolaris. And if you did look a bit around you did find this: http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man1/what.1.html Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
#include hallo.h * Joerg Schilling [Sat, Dec 16 2006, 03:43:54PM]: Sune Vuorela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Saturday 16 December 2006 12:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: The removed text is needed in order to allow people to check the original version information and Copyright for all relevent files using the what(1) command. Until this bug, I had no clue about that what(1) existed. It does also only exist on a very few unix-derivatives. (some commercial ones and some of the bsd's) It is not my fault if you don't know enough about the POSIX standard. It is not our fault if you think that everything mentioned somewhere in the POSIX/IEEE context defines the law and order for everyone. What is present on every commercial UNIX system and it is present on OpenSolaris. And if you did look a bit around you did find this: http://www.die.net/doc/linux/man/man1/what.1.html As I wrote to you already, there is a clone but hardly anyone knows about it. Is that really hard to understand? Maybe in simple facts: Developers can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Users can retrieve the copyright information in cdrkit easily. Have I forgotten someone? And why do you think that manpage talks about DEVELOPMENT, describing a tool for easier retrieval of various strings for DEVELOPERS? Developers can read the source if they need the copyright information. And if they really need to get it from binaries they can use strings to get it, a well known tool instead of some obscure what(1) tool distributed with an obsolete version management system developed 30 years ago. And why do you think that you have more rights than others? AFAICS you have added sccsid strings to various mkisofs/*.c files, but you do not mention all authors, actually nobody but yourself and sometimes James Pearson. This way you create a good demonstration of the insignificance of such hidden strings and the bug report has been closed correctly. EOD. Eduard. -- stockholm Overfiend: why dont you flame him? you are good at that. Overfiend I have too much else to do. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stop abusing the Debian Bug tracking system! First and foremost, the maintainer(s) of a Debian Package are wholy responsible for determining the state of bugs assigned to their packages in the BTS unless overridden by the tech-ctte. If they did act in a responsible way, they would not remove copyright information and they would definitely not close a bug that has not been dealt with yet. Note that in former times, when claims against my software have been in the BTS that have been proven to be incorrect, the bug was still not closed. So it seems that some people at Debian abuse the BTS to act against certain people. Continuing to reopen bugs after they have been closed by the relevant maintainer will result in an exclusion from utilizing the BTS control interface. So please exclude Joerg Jaspert from the BTS who did close the bug many times although he knows that there are unhandled issues. If you believe the bug is being closed in error, then you should respond to the bug explaining precisely why there's a bug and what should be done to fix it, *without* reopening the bug. If you are unable to convince the maintainer(s) then your only recourse is to attempt to convince the tech-ctte to override the maintainer(s). I did already explain recisely what the problem is. What information do you need? As a final note, the Debian BTS is for reporting issues in Debian packages, not unpackaged or versions not distributed by Debian. Those issues should be brought up with the people responsible for the packages using whatever mechanism they utilize, not the BTS. This looks like a cheap excuse. Please note that we are talking about a Copyright violation on svn.debian.org Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
[Joerg Schilling] I did give an example: use what(1) on a binary compiled from the source before and after the change to see the difference. If you did look at the SVN, if you did have a look at the most recent changes. it would be easy to understand what happened. We have removed a lot of _duplicate_ copyright notices from source files, as a cleanup. We have not removed copyright information from source files; it is still there, just not repeated 2 or 3 times per file, as it was in some cases before. Copyright information is also printed when you run the command wodim -version. Yes, that means it is embedded in the binary, as you can verify with the strings and grep commands. I note that other commands such as 'mkisofs' do not print copyright notices with the -version option - that is probably worth fixing, as some users may look for this information. Users typically look for copyright notices in documentation and other materials that come with a package. (I note that the manpage we got from you includes a copyright notice, but not in the printed text.[*]) They might try running the program with -version or --version; this is the command-line equivalent to the GUI convention of an About box. And, since this is GPL software, users are of course free to get the source code and look there for copyright information. Which, I repeat, is all still present. [*] Believe it or not, this was already on my todo list. I recently _added_ copyright notices to another of your manpages, whilst cleaning it up, but I haven't yet found the time to do the same cleanup job for wodim.1. As for SCCS and what(1), free software users are not in the habit of checking SCCS strings for copyright information. I daresay a vast majority of free software users have never heard of SCCS strings or the what(1) command. I happen to know about it because I've been around Unix for a long time, but even I don't have it installed on my local Linux system. And speaking of my local Linux system, let me check for copyright notices in SCCS strings. The only user binaries aside from yours that embed copyright notices in that way are: iputils ping, netkit telnet, tcsh, aumix, vixie cron, gprof, lsof, util-linux pg, xdaliclock, and the ncftp suite. That is 11 packages (counting yours) out of over 1200 installed packages -- about 1%. By number of binaries it's on the order of 25 out of 2600 -- again, 1%. Hope this helps to clarify things, Peter signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, Joerg Schilling wrote: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First and foremost, the maintainer(s) of a Debian Package are wholy responsible for determining the state of bugs assigned to their packages in the BTS unless overridden by the tech-ctte. If they did act in a responsible way, they would not remove copyright information and they would definitely not close a bug that has not been dealt with yet. Note that in former times, when claims against my software have been in the BTS that have been proven to be incorrect, the bug was still not closed. The validity or non-validity of the bug report has nothing to do with who has the power to close bugs and keep them closed, or who has the power to open bugs and keep them open. Continuing to reopen bugs after they have been closed by the relevant maintainer will result in an exclusion from utilizing the BTS control interface. So please exclude Joerg Jaspert from the BTS who did close the bug many times although he knows that there are unhandled issues. Joerg *is* the maintainer of the package. As such, he is not in the wrong here, even if there is an actual bug in the package. I did already explain recisely what the problem is. I've read the logs, and I still have no idea what you're talking about. What information do you need? Let me spell it out the process even more clearly: 1) Send mail explaining precisely what the problem is. 2) If the maintainer disagrees, appeal to the tech ctte to override the maintainer. If you believe you've done #1 then your only recourse is #2. At no point does this involve reopening bugs. As a final note, the Debian BTS is for reporting issues in Debian packages, not unpackaged or versions not distributed by Debian. Those issues should be brought up with the people responsible for the packages using whatever mechanism they utilize, not the BTS. This looks like a cheap excuse. Please note that we are talking about a Copyright violation on svn.debian.org I'm entirely aware of that. Because it's not a bug in a package released by Debian, the appropriate approach is to e-mail the people responsible and request politely that they resolve the issue, ideally explaining exactly which changes to which files you believe to be problematic. You clearly have the e-mail addresses of all of the people associated with the package. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/12/msg00303.html for a recent post ex cathedra. Don Armstrong -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402456: Serious Copyright violation in cdrkit
#include hallo.h *Joerg Schilling [Sun, Dec 10 2006, 10:38:15PM]: First, sccsids are unused code. They have been removed for technical reasons, and because no usual user and no regular program seem to use them (see below). And they are disturbing the QA work by triggering compiler warnings. But what should I teach you? You know that perfectly well, the '#ifndef lint' cludge indicates a workaround for that problem already. They can be readded easily (but then with a special flag to tell GCC to be quiet about unused code). Whether we should do that is not my decission. Stop abusing the Debian Bug tracking system! There is a serious Copyright violation in the current SVN for cdrkit caused by the fact that Copyright notices have been removed without permission from the Authors. So you accuse us of breaking the law while we have not done it [1]. Even IF someone could follow your special logics and think that not adding stuff to unused machine code is some violation... uhm, we are not distributing object code yet, are you blind? Why do you open invalid bug reports in the Debian BTS? Maybe to give them more Google hits and get more publicity for your propaganda? The notices in question that have been removed make sure that the binaries compiled from the sources still carry the Copyright notices. The GPL tells to add copyright notices to the source, and the law (UrhG) tells to add copyright holder information on visible places. Source headers and documentation are such places. Binary code internals are not such places. Why not? Because they are not visible for normal people. Sccsids are aliens in the GNU world. Nobody looks for them in the binary code. Uhm... compare it to use the invisible tint in the books in the real world. There is no regular system tool to extract them. AFAICS there is only one free clone of this proprietary SCCS system that one has to explicitely install (and it is not called sccs anyway). Hardly anyone would use it to retrieve copyright information. Uhm... so the magic light needed to see your invisible tint is available in the hands of few secret service people, and few hobbyists that created a clone of that light without permission. And compilers could legally throw such stuff away so this method of information distribution is not really reliable. But program documentation and source code headers are, and that is what GPL talks about. And what we care about. There is no additional choice of compiler restriction in the GPL. If want to make the choice of compiler and compiler flags to be a part of your license, then the license is non-free. Do you want to say it is non-free? But why should I teach you? You and your fellows distribute SchilliX. I looked at it and the first non-standard binary coming to my mind (wget) had no sccsid strings inside. How comes? You are violating a license even by your standards? And there are more of that kind. And on regular GNU systems ONLY FEW binaries in /usr/bin/* provide such information. And the most verbose/penetrant ones are those from you or where your code is involved (cdrdao). Are you going to say that every distributor is violating the license of 99.9% (guessed number) of copyright holders around? Or let's look at your cdrtools source. Many mkisofs' files have scssid but there is no indication about all copyright holders. Even on those not written by you. So you are violating Eric's license in write.c? And in udf.c you added yourself and only yourself to the sccsid string but the the headers primarily says 'Written by Ben Rudiak-Gould (2001)'. If the sccssid mean as much as you claim, does your sccsid string mean that you hide Ben's copyright? Sorry Joerg, your own actions are so self-contradictory that nobody can take your claims seriously. Eduard. [1] Einst hast du mich auf die gleiche Weise der üblen Nachrede beschuldigt. Soll der Boomerang jetzt zurückkehren? -- miro ich bin ja auch ein sehr ueberzeugter windoze nutzer miro ja windoze ist toll! miro samba ist scheisse miro ich versteh nicht warum ihr das nicht begreift...
