Re: Wodim trouble
2009/11/3 Conrad Meyer ceme...@u.washington.edu In this case, upstream (wodim) is a fork of Joerg Schilling's project. Wodim was forked from cdrecord because Joerg is crazy. Joerg likes to call wodim the broken fork and cdrecord the original software. He visited all the booths of linux distributions at Chemnitzer Linux Tage and started some trouble. The ML and BZ of the Linuxdistros, which are using wodim is the outlet of Jörgs furious anger about the fork and the debian maintainer who is the upstream coder of wodim! There was already a 'wodim vs. cdrecord' discussion at fedora-legal-list. I have a big respect for Jörg, not for him as person, but for his attainments! -- Josephine Fine Tannhäuser 2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com wrote: Looks like another thread going the wrong way. I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program (maybe growisofs). Well, people like you who try to use the fork know that it is just having too many bugs for being useful. Please note that growisofs is not the solution for a wider problem: growisofs of course needs mkisofs and redhat does not ship a working mkisofs bug the broken genisoimage. Growisofs is also known to have problems with some DVD drives where cdrecord has no problem. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote: The person from the GNOME project just verified that he attacks people who are helpful. He does not seem to be important. The person being Olav Vitters, one of the GNOME bugmasters, and that was at my request, after you polluted the GNOME Bugzilla with rants about your inadequately licensed software. Pur-lease. Everybody can check the GNOME bugtracking system himself and verify that I have been banned for explaining the _technical_ background of a reported bug and for giving instructions on how to work around the problem. It is obvious that Olav Vitters (and ayou??) made a social attack against an author of OpenSource software. You are not very convincing... Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
King InuYasha wrote: The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it? We did, many times. He refuses to acknowledge there's any problem at all and insists that mixing the CDDL and the GPL is legal (despite the FSF and many others clearly saying it's not), citing some Sun lawyers (who clearly have an agenda to push the CDDL). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Julian Sikorski beleg...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote: On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was there another reason ? Last I checked, only mkisofs is affected by that and the rest of cdrecord is pure CDDL. If we patched mkisofs away, would it be shippable ? ... opensuse are shipping cdrecord, maybe it would be worth checking what they changed, if at all? There is no legal problem with the original software, there is only a social problem caused by a hostile downstream (a Debian packager). See http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html for an overview. Let me give you some background on the legal situation: There are some people who claim that there is a legal problem with the original software but none of the persons who spread this claim (including people from redhat) did ever make a valid legal statement that could confirm a problem. As there are no valid legal arguments _against_ the situation in cdrtoools, there is obviously no way to discuss things and we need to rate the claims against cdrtools as libel. I even tried to discuss the social problem with some people from redhat but I was only given FUD instead of arguments. In return, I repeatedly asked for legal arguments that could be discussed, to no avail. So redhat also proves the same and it is obvious that there are no valid legal arguments that could confirm a problem with the original softare. Note that the GPL was designed to be compatible with all independently developed libraries under any license. This is a decision that was made in the late 1980s and I know the background of this diiscussion as I did take part in it. The GPL would have been completely unuaable if it was not made legally compatible with any independent library under any license. Even Eben Moglen confirmed that there is absolutely no problem with letting GPLd programs use CDDLs libs as this is of course no more then mere aggregation, and permitted by the GPL. On the other side, there is Sun. Sun is the biggest Donator of OSS and Sun definitely runs a legal review on _every_ piece of OSS that is going to make it into Sun's Solaris distribution. This is needed because Sun also is the biggest target for atacks and legal cases and Sun for this reason is extremely careful with distributing OSS. I can confirm that Sun lawyers are also very effective with detecting legal problems as they did themself find that libcdio creates a legal problem in GNOME. Sun immediately stopped shipping libcdio and we did create a replacement library that calls cdda2wav in order to avoid legal problems and in order to give better audio results. Sun did make a legal review on cdrtools im May 2006 already, but in order to be very sure, I asked Sun legal to repeat the legal review on cdrtools last autumn. After doing the review, Sun legal confirmed again that there is no problem with the original software. It seems that the people who claim legal problems do not like to get into a discussion as with a fact based discussion, it would be easy to prove that they are wrong. As we have trustworthy confirmations from several sides, I propose to asume that there is no legal problem dist distributing cdrtools as long as nobody gives valid legal arguments. Note that Suse already ships cdrtools again and that even Jörg Jaspert, the FTP master from Debian in a legally binding way agreed on distributing the original cdrtools again for Debian as soon as possible. See also: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html#Sun It would be interesting to hear _arguments_ from redhat on why redhat still only ships a broken fork with legal problems instead of the working original software that has no known legal problems Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Dne 3.11.2009 05:22, Ankur Sinha napsal(a): I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program (maybe growisofs). Yes, wodim is perfect. Joerg is just spreading FUD. Matěj -- http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplatceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC Always make new mistakes -- Esther Dyson -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
W dniu 03.11.2009 11:37, Matěj Cepl pisze: Dne 3.11.2009 05:22, Ankur Sinha napsal(a): I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program (maybe growisofs). Yes, wodim is perfect. Joerg is just spreading FUD. Matěj Ok, putting the ad personam arguments aside, there are two important facts: - cdrecord is still under active development, but there might be a problem with distributability (Sun lawyers say there is not, but I guess RH would like to make their own legal review to be on the safe side) - cdrkit is in sort of maintenance mode, and it does not support UDF filesystem for DVD discs correctly, and the situation is unlikely to improve - libburn is also developed actively, but it lacks UDF support as well [1] So, while waiting for libburn to improve, we could either take over cdrkit development, or do a(nother) legal review of cdrecord. It seems that the latter should be simpler, given that it's a one-time effort. Julian [1] http://libburnia-project.org/ticket/106 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Julian Sikorski beleg...@gmail.com wrote: So, while waiting for libburn to improve, we could either take over cdrkit development, or do a(nother) legal review of cdrecord. It seems that the latter should be simpler, given that it's a one-time effort. Already done around June: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.legal/473 -- Gianluca Sforna http://morefedora.blogspot.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Joerg Schilling wrote: There are some people who claim that there is a legal problem with the original software but none of the persons who spread this claim (including people from redhat) did ever make a valid legal statement that could confirm a problem. As there are no valid legal arguments _against_ the situation in cdrtoools, there is obviously no way to discuss things and we need to rate the claims against cdrtools as libel. They are making a very concrete claim: if one piece of some program is under the GPL, the ENTIRE program, including all its libraries, MUST be under the GPL or a compatible license. This is confirmed e.g. by the FSF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs I even tried to discuss the social problem with some people from redhat but I was only given FUD instead of arguments. In return, I repeatedly asked for legal arguments that could be discussed, to no avail. So redhat also proves the same and it is obvious that there are no valid legal arguments that could confirm a problem with the original softare. That's just false. You refused to take legal arguments from Fedora's legal contact (who is responsible for communication between RH Legal and the Fedora community) on the grounds that he's not a lawyer and demanded to speak directly to the lawyers. You ignored all the arguments he brought up, no matter how valid. Note that the GPL was designed to be compatible with all independently developed libraries under any license. This is a decision that was made in the late 1980s and I know the background of this diiscussion as I did take part in it. The GPL would have been completely unuaable if it was not made legally compatible with any independent library under any license. Then I have a breaking news for you: the GPL *is* completely unusable. Nevermind all those projects who can use it just fine while honoring these terms you refuse to accept. :-/ Even Eben Moglen confirmed that there is absolutely no problem with letting GPLd programs use CDDLs libs as this is of course no more then mere aggregation, and permitted by the GPL. You are misrepresenting Eben Moglen's position. The FSF's GPL FAQ, which he helped write, clearly says If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program. So this is not mere aggregation. Sun did make a legal review on cdrtools im May 2006 already, but in order to be very sure, I asked Sun legal to repeat the legal review on cdrtools last autumn. After doing the review, Sun legal confirmed again that there is no problem with the original software. Red Hat, like pretty much any other company, cannot trust other companies' legal departments. The relevant opinion is going to be Red Hat Legal's, sorry. (And FWIW, I have no idea why Sun is coming to that conclusion which directly contradicts the FSF's opinion, see the GPL FAQ.) It seems that the people who claim legal problems do not like to get into a discussion as with a fact based discussion, it would be easy to prove that they are wrong. It is you who boycotted the fact-based discussion on ad hominem grounds (i.e. you're not a lawyer, I won't listen to you, nevermind that you aren't one either). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it? First, it is definitely wrong that the CDDL was made incompatible with the GPL. The person who brouhgt this claim into public is a former Sun Employee who was disappointed that the restrictions in the GPL made the GPL impossible for use with OpenSolaris. In fact, the GPL is incompatible to nearly all licenses around and this is definitely an intended feature from the authors of the GPL. For our discussion, it is important to know whether a possible _general_ incompatibility between two licenses could affect a _special_ situation in a collective work, so let us have a look at the GPL: The GPL forbids to mix GPL and non-GPL within _one_ _single_ work and the GPL forbids to create a derived work from a GPLd work if the derived work is not put under GPL. Let us look at the work mkisofs. This work is a _pure_ GPLd work. It does not mix GPL and non-GPL code in a single work. With mkisofs, there is also no derived work that has to be taken into account. The fact that mkisofs links against CDDLd libs does not create a derived work but ist only a permitted collective work. For a more detailed review, please have a look at this book from Lawrence Rosen: http://www.rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch06.pdf who is an independent lawyer who counsels the OpenSource initiative. The relevent parts for the mkisofs case are on page 128. People wo claim that mkisofs has a problem usually missinterpret GPL section 3, the paragraph that is past 3 c): This special exception was introduced because the GPL precursor did contain an illegal claim that forced distributors of binaries from GPLd programs to distribute the source of the GPLd program _plus_ the libc from the Operating System the binary was compiled for. As this is a claim that is in conflict with the permissions that have been given with the OS license, the GPL tried to enforce something that was impossible. In the late 1980s, the so called OS library exception was added in order to prevent distributors of binaries to be forced to do illegal things. This section is obviously absolutely not related to any special license compatibility grant. It just allows to avoid being forced to ship libc. The conclusion of all lawyers I did talk to, is that there is no legal problem with original source. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/11/3 Conrad Meyer ceme...@u.washington.edu In this case, upstream (wodim) is a fork of Joerg Schilling's project. Wodim was forked from cdrecord because Joerg is crazy. Joerg likes to call wodim the broken fork and cdrecord the original software. He visited all the booths of linux distributions at Chemnitzer Linux Tage and started some trouble. It seems that you have not been there. I have a good relationship to Linux developers and projects and I did have nice conversations with many people in Chemnitz. Note that there was even a very good relationship with Debian _before_ Eduard Bloch became packetizer for cdrtools and started his attacks. It is obvious that the problems we are still wasting out time with is just one hostile person called Eduard Bloch. I hope that the OSS community finds a way to workaround the problems he created. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
2009/11/3, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de: Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems that you have not been there. I was there and I was shocked about your behavior. -- Josephine Fine Tannhäuser 2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Mat??j Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote: Dne 3.11.2009 05:22, Ankur Sinha napsal(a): I just wanted to know if wodim is usable (i mean without wasting dvds like its doing currently for me). From the discussion, I feel it's still buggy and therefore I'm going to shift to another program (maybe growisofs). Yes, wodim is perfect. Joerg is just spreading FUD. And Earth is a disk. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Julian Sikorski beleg...@gmail.com wrote: Ok, putting the ad personam arguments aside, there are two important facts: - cdrecord is still under active development, but there might be a problem with distributability (Sun lawyers say there is not, but I guess There is no problem with distributibility as Sun would risk being sued if there legal department was wrong. I still do not understand why Companies like Redhat do not siply ask their lawyers for legal assistence. If they did, they would have better advise about cdrtools. RH would like to make their own legal review to be on the safe side) - cdrkit is in sort of maintenance mode, and it does not support UDF filesystem for DVD discs correctly, and the situation is unlikely to improve Cdrkit is unmaitained and has legal problems. Companies who distribute cdrkit ignore the legal problems and need to be aware of legal consequences. - libburn is also developed actively, but it lacks UDF support as well [1] So, while waiting for libburn to improve, we could either take over cdrkit development, or do a(nother) legal review of cdrecord. It seems that the latter should be simpler, given that it's a one-time effort. Libburn is based on a wrong asumption: libburn only works partly on Linux in non-root mode and the vast majority of other OS needs root permissions to burn. Creating a burn library (well it is non-portable) based on these constraints will result in GUI applications that are non-portable and would require root permissions on most platforms. Installing a GUI suid root is an absolute no-go as GUIs are so compley that it is hard to audit the code for security problems. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: There are some people who claim that there is a legal problem with the original software but none of the persons who spread this claim (including people from redhat) did ever make a valid legal statement that could confirm a problem. As there are no valid legal arguments _against_ the situation in cdrtoools, there is obviously no way to discuss things and we need to rate the claims against cdrtools as libel. They are making a very concrete claim: if one piece of some program is under the GPL, the ENTIRE program, including all its libraries, MUST be under the GPL or a compatible license. This is confirmed e.g. by the FSF: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs You seem to miss that the license mkisofs is using is called GPL and not GPL FAQ, so the quoting you mention do not apply. The GPL requires the entire work to be under GPL and the entire work mkisofs _is_ of course under GPL. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
2009/11/3 Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de: if there legal department was wrong. I still do not understand why Companies like Redhat do not siply ask their lawyers for legal assistence. If they did, they would have better advise about cdrtools. Just a small thing that drives me crazy. The company name is Red Hat not Redhat. People don't write your name Joergschilling, do they? Thanks. Richard. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/11/3, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de: Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems that you have not been there. I was there and I was shocked about your behavior. Fortunately, you are of limited relevance and other people did not behave hostile but friendly ;-) Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Dne 3.11.2009 02:55, King InuYasha napsal(a): The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it? You must be new here :) Concerning legal issues with cdrkit, please, take a look at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.legal/473 and of course \|||/ (o o) |ooO~~(_)~~~| | Please| | don't feed the| | TROLLS ! | '~~Ooo~~' |__|__| || || ooO Ooo -- http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplatceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC Faithful love is what people look for in a person; ... -- Proverbs 19:22 (NJB) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On 11/03/2009 03:08 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Josephine Tannhäuserjosephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/11/3, Joerg Schillingjoerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de: Josephine Tannhäuserjosephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com wrote: It seems that you have not been there. I was there and I was shocked about your behavior. Fortunately, you are of limited relevance and other people did not behave hostile but friendly ;-) Jörg Yeah, good way to expect any collaboration with that attitude. Keep up the good work. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On 11/03/2009 09:13 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote: Dne 3.11.2009 02:55, King InuYasha napsal(a): The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it? You must be new here :) Concerning legal issues with cdrkit, please, take a look at http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.legal/473 and of course \|||/ (o o) |ooO~~(_)~~~| | Please| | don't feed the| | TROLLS ! | '~~Ooo~~' |__|__| || || ooO Ooo Indeed. Specifically, the formal stance of the Fedora Project (and Red Hat Legal) is contained within my original reply to Mr. Schilling here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.legal/528 Since nothing has changed, please consider this thread closed. Continued postings will be handled under the moderation policies. Thanks, ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
2009/11/3, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de: Fortunately, you are of limited relevance and other people did not behave hostile but friendly ;-) Sorry Joerg, but Imho it isn't friendly to come to a booth, thump the table and say: Remove illegal software from fedora distribution, mature at the end of the year, or I will sue you. This isn't a friendly way. The booth-personnel and the bystanders didn't know with this action WHO you are or WHAT do you really want.. btw it's imho a little bit duffy to come with this request to a booth on an event like Chemnitzer Linux Tage. The quality of the content of your Messages sometimes extremly differs from your behavior, your way how you tell it. Perhaps it is me (as a woman) who is very sensitive in that case. Perhaps this is sometimes the reason that differs the pov of your counterpart you have the point from you are a troll. Think about it, perhaps twice! -- Josephine Fine Tannhäuser 2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: Since nothing has changed, please consider this thread closed. Continued postings will be handled under the moderation policies. So let us conclude: - Redhat continues to distribute cdrkit although there are known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that once about this fact. - Redhat still does not like to distribute the legal original software. - Redhat still ignores the demands of the users that like to have usable software. Is this what redhat understands by living OpenSource? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de said: - Redhat continues to distribute cdrkit although there are known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that once about this fact. it is Red Hat, not Redhat (and this is Fedora). You have refused to cite specific legal problems with cdrkit, so there are no known legal problems that anyone can see. The proper reporting method is bugzilla.redhat.com; can you point to where you reported them? -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On 11/03/2009 09:52 AM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de said: -Redhat continues to distribute cdrkit although there are known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that once about this fact. it is Red Hat, not Redhat (and this is Fedora). You have refused to cite specific legal problems with cdrkit, so there are no known legal problems that anyone can see. The proper reporting method is bugzilla.redhat.com; can you point to where you reported them? Guys, this is a friendly pre-warning. This thread is now covered under the hall-monitor policy. Feel free to take this discussion to fedora-legal, or preferrably, off-list. Future posts on this thread will receive a formal warning. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hall_Monitor_Policy ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: You have refused to cite specific legal problems with cdrkit, so there are no known legal problems that anyone can see. The proper reporting method is bugzilla.redhat.com; can you point to where you reported them? It seems that you did never check this as otherwise you did know the reports. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:58 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: The conclusion of all lawyers I did talk to, is that there is no legal problem with original source. There is no problem with the **source**, but the binary results most probably cannot be distributed, because they combine in a single work 2 incompatible licenses. Have you thought about using GPLv3 instead ? It may be more compatible with CDDL (needs to be run through real lawyers first of course). Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 15:43 +0100, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote: The quality of the content of your Messages sometimes extremly differs from your behavior, your way how you tell it. Perhaps it is me (as a woman) who is very sensitive in that case. Josephine, be reassured, it's definitely not you. Jörg is a known personality ... Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: You have refused to cite specific legal problems with cdrkit, so there are no known legal problems that anyone can see. The proper reporting method is bugzilla.redhat.com; can you point to where you reported them? It seems that you did never check this as otherwise you did know the reports. Jörg Just with a quick search in the Red Hat Bugzilla, only though distro section Fedora, I found this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=cdrkitproduct=Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=cdrkitproduct=FedoraListed 39 bugs. A quick look shows a disturbing amount of WONTFIX (ignoring rhbz#472924). But I also see things have still been progressing. However, what I want to know is what prompted the relicense to CDDL in the first place? From what I can see, Jörg Schilling, you are the maintainer and creator of the original software cdrtools. Also, why are you so hostile to cdrkit? The implicitly permits forking via its redistribution clause. If you wanted to be able to mix with proprietary code and non-Linux systems, the LGPL would have been just as good. While it is true that the GPL permits linking to CDDL libraries, that is only in the case if the library is a system library, which is a library that is NECESSARY for working on a particular OS. This is usually how it is justified that GPL software can be built using Visual Studio on Windows, even if I personally don't like it. The runtime library in Windows is almost certainly not GPL compatible, as was the case for many other UNIX application runtime libraries at the time. That is what they built into the GPL, not a free for all library linking exception. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 12:58 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: The conclusion of all lawyers I did talk to, is that there is no legal problem with original source. There is no problem with the **source**, but the binary results most probably cannot be distributed, because they combine in a single work 2 incompatible licenses. Mkisofs is fully under GPL and there is no single work created that combines licenses. For this reason, there is no problem with the binaries. Note that Sun of course distributes binaries and that Sun legal checked whether distributing binaries from cdrtools could cause problems. Have you thought about using GPLv3 instead ? When the first GPLv3 draft was announced, the GPLv3 looked very interisting as GPLv3 was announced to be more permissive against OSS than GPLv2 but unfortunately, the final GPLv3 is a more restrictive license than GPLv2. It may be more compatible with CDDL (needs to be run through real lawyers first of course). While the GPLv2 gives explicit compatibility for GPLd programs to use any kind of independent library (as an independent library does not create a drived work from just linking against it), GPLv3 introduced a limitation against such combinations that is not in GPLv2. BTW: I am happy to see your post as this is the first post from a Red Hat person that looks respectful and interested in a solution. I hope we can find a solution for the current problem. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: While it is true that the GPL permits linking to CDDL libraries, that is only in the case if the library is a system library, which is a library that is NECESSARY for working on a particular OS. This is usually how it is Please show me the exact place in the GPL text thatyou have in mind to prove your claim. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
GPLv2: End of Section 3, middle of the paragraph right after clause 3c. GPLv3: Explicit separate definition in Section 1. GPLv2 Quote: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. GPLv3 Quote: The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. I hope this satisfies you. On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: King InuYasha ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: While it is true that the GPL permits linking to CDDL libraries, that is only in the case if the library is a system library, which is a library that is NECESSARY for working on a particular OS. This is usually how it is Please show me the exact place in the GPL text thatyou have in mind to prove your claim. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.deemail%3ajo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Joerg Schilling wrote: Libburn is based on a wrong asumption: libburn only works partly on Linux in non-root mode Actually, burning as non-root works just fine on GNU/Linux. and the vast majority of other OS needs root permissions to burn. Those OSes are broken and need to be fixed. Installing a GUI suid root is an absolute no-go as GUIs are so compley that it is hard to audit the code for security problems. We know this very well. All the Fedora system-config-* tools are being more or less rewritten to use PolicyKit to only do the parts as root which need to run as root instead of running the whole GUI config tool as root. The same is happening with KDE's System Settings and the KAuth framework (which is based on PolicyKit on GNU/Linux). But the point is that CD/DVD/BluRay burning does not and should not require root privileges at all! Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, King InuYasha wrote: GPLv2: End of Section 3, middle of the paragraph right after clause 3c.GPLv3: Explicit separate definition in Section 1. GPLv2 Quote: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. GPLv3 Quote: The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it. I hope this satisfies you. This thread is closed. please do not post any additional comments to it. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: You seem to miss that the license mkisofs is using is called GPL and not GPL FAQ, so the quoting you mention do not apply. The FAQ is the legal interpretation of the GPL given by the FSF, who are the folks who wrote the license, so why would you trust them less than Sun's lawyers? And Eben Moglen, whom you misquoted as agreeing with your bizarre position, was actually involved in writing both the GPL itself and the FAQ. The GPL requires the entire work to be under GPL and the entire work mkisofs _is_ of course under GPL. The entire work includes any code which is linked into the same executable, statically or dynamically. A program is not complete without its required libraries, it doesn't work at all without them. This thread is closed. Do not comment on it anymore. Sincerely, Your friendly neighborhood hall monitor. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Joerg Schilling wrote: You seem to miss that the license mkisofs is using is called GPL and not GPL FAQ, so the quoting you mention do not apply. The FAQ is the legal interpretation of the GPL given by the FSF, who are the folks who wrote the license, so why would you trust them less than Sun's lawyers? And Eben Moglen, whom you misquoted as agreeing with your bizarre position, was actually involved in writing both the GPL itself and the FAQ. The GPL requires the entire work to be under GPL and the entire work mkisofs _is_ of course under GPL. The entire work includes any code which is linked into the same executable, statically or dynamically. A program is not complete without its required libraries, it doesn't work at all without them. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Libburn is based on a wrong asumption: libburn only works partly on Linux in non-root mode Actually, burning as non-root works just fine on GNU/Linux. and the vast majority of other OS needs root permissions to burn. Those OSes are broken and need to be fixed. Installing a GUI suid root is an absolute no-go as GUIs are so compley that it is hard to audit the code for security problems. We know this very well. All the Fedora system-config-* tools are being more or less rewritten to use PolicyKit to only do the parts as root which need to run as root instead of running the whole GUI config tool as root. The same is happening with KDE's System Settings and the KAuth framework (which is based on PolicyKit on GNU/Linux). But the point is that CD/DVD/BluRay burning does not and should not require root privileges at all! Kevin, please. Stop responding. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Le Lun 2 novembre 2009 11:29, Ankur Sinha a écrit : hi, I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3]. wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? You can ignore Jörg Schilling. He managed to antagonize everyone else Linux-side¹, and now complains no one wants to use his cdrecord versions. IIRC after burning bridges Linux-side he launched an OpenSolaris distro named Schillix. I think it was not a big success either for pretty much the same communication reasons. ¹ Adding « informative » messages such as « Linux device naming is stupid, my tools use better conventions, why are not you installing a sane OS like Solaris instead » (paraphrased from memory) -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On 11/02/2009 11:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Lun 2 novembre 2009 11:29, Ankur Sinha a écrit : hi, I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3]. wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? You can ignore Jörg Schilling. He managed to antagonize everyone else Linux-side¹, and now complains no one wants to use his cdrecord versions. IIRC after burning bridges Linux-side he launched an OpenSolaris distro named Schillix. I think it was not a big success either for pretty much the same communication reasons. ¹ Adding « informative » messages such as « Linux device naming is stupid, my tools use better conventions, why are not you installing a sane OS like Solaris instead » (paraphrased from memory) And the best is to ignore those comments. RR -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 12:15 +0100, Roman Rakus wrote: On 11/02/2009 11:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le Lun 2 novembre 2009 11:29, Ankur Sinha a écrit : hi, I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3]. wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? You can ignore Jörg Schilling. He managed to antagonize everyone else Linux-side¹, and now complains no one wants to use his cdrecord versions. IIRC after burning bridges Linux-side he launched an OpenSolaris distro named Schillix. I think it was not a big success either for pretty much the same communication reasons. ¹ Adding « informative » messages such as « Linux device naming is stupid, my tools use better conventions, why are not you installing a sane OS like Solaris instead » (paraphrased from memory) And the best is to ignore those comments. RR hi, Thank you for clearing that up. The comment had made me a little bit uncertain about what was going on. -- regards, Ankur -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 15:59:07 +0530, Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com wrote: hi, I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3]. wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? While that might be an exageration, I still wouldn't hold my breath waiting for fixes from the wodim guys. On the other hand trying to build Jörg's stuff isn't easy on Fedora. And might not even work as he likes to use a interface that was depreciated a while back for talking to the cd/dvd drives. Jörg seems to be watching for bug reports related to wodim and comments on them whenever someone new adds something. The whole situation is unfortunate as Jörg seems to have a good knowledge of the hardware and I think support (especially for older hardware) would be better if he worked with wodim cooperatively. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Ankur Sinha wrote: wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? It's just the usual FUD from Jörg Schilling. Ignore it. The latest commit to cdrkit upstream was 3 weeks ago. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Dne 2.11.2009 17:31, Kevin Kofler napsal: Ankur Sinha wrote: wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? It's just the usual FUD from Jörg Schilling. Ignore it. The latest commit to cdrkit upstream was 3 weeks ago. Although you are technically right, the commits for the last two years have been boring cleanups, typo fixes and warning silencers. They don't seem to be fixing any actual bugs in CD/DVD burning. The last commit that did something which looks like a technical change was indeed on 2007-05-06 ( http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/wodim/?rev=767sc=1 ). Look here for the log and read the commit messages: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/wodim/?op=logrev=0sc=0isdir=1 So wodim does not look like a well maintained project to me. Michal -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 18:16 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: Dne 2.11.2009 17:31, Kevin Kofler napsal: Ankur Sinha wrote: wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? It's just the usual FUD from Jörg Schilling. Ignore it. The latest commit to cdrkit upstream was 3 weeks ago. Although you are technically right, the commits for the last two years have been boring cleanups, typo fixes and warning silencers. They don't seem to be fixing any actual bugs in CD/DVD burning. The last commit that did something which looks like a technical change was indeed on 2007-05-06 ( http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/wodim/?rev=767sc=1 ). Look here for the log and read the commit messages: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/wodim/?op=logrev=0sc=0isdir=1 So wodim does not look like a well maintained project to me. That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. The solution is obviously to fix the bug and help revive upstream, or else host a development tree on fh if upstream stays idle. - ajax signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On 11/02/2009 03:19 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Jörg seems to be watching for bug reports related to wodim and comments on them whenever someone new adds something. Same applies to brasero and cdrdao. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 18:16 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: Dne 2.11.2009 17:31, Kevin Kofler napsal: Ankur Sinha wrote: wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? It's just the usual FUD from Jörg Schilling. Ignore it. The latest commit to cdrkit upstream was 3 weeks ago. Although you are technically right, the commits for the last two years have been boring cleanups, typo fixes and warning silencers. They don't seem to be fixing any actual bugs in CD/DVD burning. The last commit that did something which looks like a technical change was indeed on 2007-05-06 ( http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/wodim/?rev=767sc=1 ). Look here for the log and read the commit messages: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debburn/cdrkit/trunk/wodim/?op=logrev=0sc=0isdir=1 So wodim does not look like a well maintained project to me. That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. The solution is obviously to fix the bug and help revive upstream, or else host a development tree on fh if upstream stays idle. Or switch to libburn and friends. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was there another reason ? Last I checked, only mkisofs is affected by that and the rest of cdrecord is pure CDDL. If we patched mkisofs away, would it be shippable ? Spot ? -denis -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 21:47:47 +0100, Denis Leroy de...@poolshark.org wrote: On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was there another reason ? Last I checked, only mkisofs is affected by that and the rest of cdrecord is pure CDDL. If we patched mkisofs away, would it be shippable ? There is also the issue that Jörg wants devices to be referenced in a particular way that most other developers don't want to do. So a fork may be needed even if licensing is resolved. It doesn't sound like fun work though. I get the impression that there are a lot of device quirks and without sample hardware and a fair amount of dedication it is going to be hard to do a good job. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote: On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was there another reason ? Last I checked, only mkisofs is affected by that and the rest of cdrecord is pure CDDL. If we patched mkisofs away, would it be shippable ? That would be a significantly notable fork. If someone did remove all the dependent GPLv2 code in the cdrecord source, I would probably be willing to audit the package for possible inclusion, but I could not in good conscience recommend that anyone maintain that forked code in Fedora, as the upstream author has a long and storied history of being... problematic. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3]. wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? Wodim is a creation of a hostile packaging person from Debian. See: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html for more information. Let me give you some facts: The fork did have less changes in the time between May 6th 2007 and today than the original source had in a lazy week. In the same time, the original software had a sustained average putback rate of 3 changes per day. Since May 2006 50% of the code was replaced or added. There is more than 30% new code since then and many many new features and bug fixes. In contrary to the fork, the orogonal project carefully listenes to the bug reports from the users and and reported bugs are typically fixed within a few hours. This is why there are no known bugs in the original software and why there are more than 100 bugs (well known since January 2007) in the fork that are not fixed. All known bugs in the fork will disappear if you just upgrade to recent original software. Roman Rakus and others did verify many times that he is not interested in the problems of the users. Please ignore comments from people like Roman Rakus as he is involved in the attacks against the OpenSource Project cdrtools and thus not interested in a discussion about the backgrounds on why Redhat started to distribute the proken fork instead of the original software. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On the other hand trying to build Jörg's stuff isn't easy on Fedora. And might not even work as he likes to use a interface that was depreciated a while back for talking to the cd/dvd drives. I would guess that you are not informed correctly. My software easily compiles on more than 30 different OS platforms by just calling make. Well, there are many well known bugs in gmake and gmake before 3.81 will not work at all. This is why I recommend to use my smake. Note that smake is much older than gmake and works on more different platforms that gmake does. I know that some Linux distributions ship with the broken original Linux kernel include files. On such distros, you will have problems to compile any software that supports linux specific features If you have problems compiling cdrtools, I recommend you to first start with the complete Schily source distribution from: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily/ as this will first compile a bootstrap smake and then use this smake to compile the rest. Note that I cannot check all platforms for oddities on a regular base as I don't own all the needed hardware. I however do regular full compiles and tests on the following platforms: SunOS-4.1 SunOS-5.x HP-UX 10.20 on HPPA HP-UX 11.11 Haiku (a BEOS clone) FragonFly BSD FreeBSD NetBSD OpenBSD Cygwin Linux (various flavors) Mac OS X All platform compiles are done in 32 _and_ 64 bit on platforms that support 64 bits. If you have proplems on your specific platform, I recommend that you make a bugreport. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. The solution is obviously to fix the bug and help revive upstream, or else host a development tree on fh if upstream stays idle. Note that is is just the other way: It is cdrkit that is undistributable as it is cdrkit that in conflict with the Copyright law and the GPL. Cdrtools has been checked for legal problems by several lawyers including the Sun legal department and none could find any legal problem. Cdrkit was created by a hostile downstream, see: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html and nobody so far was able to prove the claims about so called license problems spread by Eduard Bloch by using quotes from the GPL text. The problem with the existence is a social problem and we, the people in the OSS community need to fid a way to deal with this social problem. P.S.: Libburn is no alternative too: it misses most important features it is non-prtable and we recently learned that the Authors of libburn do not care much about where they take the software from. Note that they claimed not to use any bit from the original cdrtools project's source but they really did use code from cdrtools. I would call this a social problem Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Hey Joerg, On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 00:21 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: I've filed a bug[1] against wodim not burning dvds correctly. While browsing through another bug[2] on wodim, I came across this comment[3]. wodim is completely unmaintained since May 6th 2007, don't expect to see any fixes anytime soon as long as Redhat continues to distribute wodim instead of the original software. Can someone please clear this up? Wodim is a creation of a hostile packaging person from Debian. See: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html for more information. Let me give you some facts: The fork did have less changes in the time between May 6th 2007 and today than the original source had in a lazy week. I guess it wasn't good enough for you to get booted out of the GNOME Bugzilla? And please fix your mailer to respect threads. Cheers -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote: I guess it wasn't good enough for you to get booted out of the GNOME Bugzilla? Well, there are always some bad guys who don't like to see people who help users. The person from the GNOME project just verified that he attacks people who are helpful. He does not seem to be important. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Joerg Schilling wrote: why Redhat started to distribute the proken fork instead of the original software. The only thing that's proken (sic) is your spelling. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
Joerg Schilling wrote: It is cdrkit that is undistributable as it is cdrkit that in conflict with the Copyright law and the GPL. Maybe under your reality distortion field. In the rest of the world, that's just not true. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
W dniu 03.11.2009 00:19, Tom spot Callaway pisze: On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote: On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was there another reason ? Last I checked, only mkisofs is affected by that and the rest of cdrecord is pure CDDL. If we patched mkisofs away, would it be shippable ? That would be a significantly notable fork. If someone did remove all the dependent GPLv2 code in the cdrecord source, I would probably be willing to audit the package for possible inclusion, but I could not in good conscience recommend that anyone maintain that forked code in Fedora, as the upstream author has a long and storied history of being... problematic. ~spot opensuse are shipping cdrecord, maybe it would be worth checking what they changed, if at all? Julian -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty vacuous truth. The solution is obviously to fix the bug and help revive upstream, or else host a development tree on fh if upstream stays idle. Note that is is just the other way: It is cdrkit that is undistributable as it is cdrkit that in conflict with the Copyright law and the GPL. Cdrtools has been checked for legal problems by several lawyers including the Sun legal department and none could find any legal problem. Cdrkit was created by a hostile downstream, see: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html and nobody so far was able to prove the claims about so called license problems spread by Eduard Bloch by using quotes from the GPL text. The problem with the existence is a social problem and we, the people in the OSS community need to fid a way to deal with this social problem. P.S.: Libburn is no alternative too: it misses most important features it is non-prtable and we recently learned that the Authors of libburn do not care much about where they take the software from. Note that they claimed not to use any bit from the original cdrtools project's source but they really did use code from cdrtools. I would call this a social problem Jörg What is going on here? I thought Fedora only shipped upstream code? What's all this business about having broken forks and licensing issues? The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wodim trouble
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 01:21 +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote: Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com wrote: I guess it wasn't good enough for you to get booted out of the GNOME Bugzilla? Well, there are always some bad guys who don't like to see people who help users. The person from the GNOME project just verified that he attacks people who are helpful. He does not seem to be important. The person being Olav Vitters, one of the GNOME bugmasters, and that was at my request, after you polluted the GNOME Bugzilla with rants about your inadequately licensed software. Pur-lease. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
