Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just says that it echoes the data to /dev/dsp (or another given device). So it's bound to exactly that device interface :( Well, if you did read the man paghe, you know that cdda2wav knows the correct names for all supported platforms and in addition allows to define the name by use of an option. Maybe we're talking about different versions. Mine doesn't state this ... Are you using cdrkit instead of the original? The text is in the man page since September 2007. But still the problem remains: you need explicit support for each audio interface you want to use. Which is no problem. This is code that has been verified to work on all known platforms since 1998 ;-) 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cdd2wav is directly writing to the audio device ? IMHO not good idea: you're bound to the devices cdda2wav supports, requires it to be ported to each single audio interface you want to use (not just platform specifics, but also things like audio servers, clients which want non-standard config, ... ):( I recomment you to read the cdda2wav man page to understand how it is working. It just says that it echoes the data to /dev/dsp (or another given device). So it's bound to exactly that device interface :( Well, if you did read the man paghe, you know that cdda2wav knows the correct names for all supported platforms and in addition allows to define the name by use of an option. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
on Friday 07/04/2008 Joerg Schilling([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cdd2wav is directly writing to the audio device ? IMHO not good idea: you're bound to the devices cdda2wav supports, requires it to be ported to each single audio interface you want to use (not just platform specifics, but also things like audio servers, clients which want non-standard config, ... ):( I recomment you to read the cdda2wav man page to understand how it is working. It just says that it echoes the data to /dev/dsp (or another given device). So it's bound to exactly that device interface :( Well, if you did read the man paghe, you know that cdda2wav knows the correct names for all supported platforms and in addition allows to define the name by use of an option. Not sure who is maintaining cdrtools for gentoo, but any chance of getting alpha44 into the gentoo repository? One thing I did discover about my original problem where cdcd would not work is that it is using libcdaudio which uses some ioctl to play cd frames which I am not sure what it is doing, but does not appear to be copying to /dev/dsp -- can anyone tell me about this ioctl and how it works? The actual line of code that I see is: if(ioctl(cd_desc, CDAUDIO_PLAY_MSF, cdmsf) 0) . -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
2008/7/4, John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Not sure who is maintaining cdrtools for gentoo, but any chance of getting alpha44 into the gentoo repository? According to ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/ cdrtools-2.01.01a42 is the latest version and cdrtools-2.01.01a41 is in the tree. If you want this new version you can file a version bump request. Or just rename the ebuild and put it in an overlay as i guess not much has changed concerning the in installing procedure of cdrtools between this two versions. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It just says that it echoes the data to /dev/dsp (or another given device). So it's bound to exactly that device interface :( Well, if you did read the man paghe, you know that cdda2wav knows the correct names for all supported platforms and in addition allows to define the name by use of an option. Maybe we're talking about different versions. Mine doesn't state this ... But still the problem remains: you need explicit support for each audio interface you want to use. cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Aaron Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those still searching for background on this topic to try and understand the effects and discussions of the GPL vs CDDL licensing in other distros and how this may affect your use on Gentoo, you may find the respective articles on wikipedia instructive. Don't just read the brief blurbs included in Wikipedia, but take a look at the citations included in the articles as well. I'm not sure it gives all sides of the discussion, but it should be illuminating on some of the background details that people were requesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools#Licensing_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit#Fork Aaron P.S. I'm fully aware that the text of the wiki articles may be considered biased, that's a topic to take up on Wikipedia and not here. I'm just using the articles as a jumping point to what appear to be primary sources so people can draw their own conclusions. Have you been able to find that the people around cdrkit try to tell people that if I do something it is illegal while the same thing is legal when they do it? If you did not find this, then wikipedia does not seem to be a helful source for 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, libcdio had an illegal license change: the authors took a lot of the code from cdrtools and claim that their code (e.g. derived from cdda2wav) is GPLv2-or-any-later. Well, not a single file from cdda2wav has ever been released under this license. Ah, then you as the original author (right ?) to stop them from that copyright infringenment. In the end they, IMHO, have two options: a) remove/replace your code b) release libcdio under your terms (CDDL ?) I am not the person who did put the code together as libcdio. This was the FSF. We are talking about a Copyright violation done by the FSF. This is what I said. If they broke the license, they have to fix this. ACK. That's one of those points why I thing, libraries should LGPL instead of GPL (I admit, I'm as careful as I should be about that w/ some of my own packages yet, but just due lack of time - on request my GPL'ed libs will be moved to LGPL) The FSF has no choice to make the code LGPL, converting from GPLv2-only is already more than they are allowed to do. Probably not the FSF, but all the authors involved. Can be a tricky issue ;-P Yet another reason why I prefer to keep packages small. BUT: please, please no flamewar about license philosophies. I am not interested in license wars. I get the impression that some people start flamewars because I am relaxed about licenses and do not try to make a religion out of a license. Well, just make one qualified statement at the right places and then better ignore the trolls. They just waste our time. cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cdd2wav is directly writing to the audio device ? IMHO not good idea: you're bound to the devices cdda2wav supports, requires it to be ported to each single audio interface you want to use (not just platform specifics, but also things like audio servers, clients which want non-standard config, ... ):( I recomment you to read the cdda2wav man page to understand how it is working. It just says that it echoes the data to /dev/dsp (or another given device). So it's bound to exactly that device interface :( cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
For those still searching for background on this topic to try and understand the effects and discussions of the GPL vs CDDL licensing in other distros and how this may affect your use on Gentoo, you may find the respective articles on wikipedia instructive. Don't just read the brief blurbs included in Wikipedia, but take a look at the citations included in the articles as well. I'm not sure it gives all sides of the discussion, but it should be illuminating on some of the background details that people were requesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrtools#Licensing_change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cdrkit#Fork Aaron P.S. I'm fully aware that the text of the wiki articles may be considered biased, that's a topic to take up on Wikipedia and not here. I'm just using the articles as a jumping point to what appear to be primary sources so people can draw their own conclusions. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:15:58 +0200, b.n. wrote: I didn't know that showing a mail *you* received is illegal. It may not be illegal, but it is definitely wrong. Private mail is just that. -- Neil Bothwick Programming Language: (n.) a shorthand way of describing a series of bugs to a computer or a programmer. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
brullo nulla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said: less than 20% of human communication is done via words. If I did see you, I would have known whether your non-direct posting was meant to have an underlying hostile base or not. As I cannot see you, the only way to avoid missunderstanding is to use unambiguous words. Tip: do not assume people on a mailing list have an underlying hostile base unless they are explicitly hostile. Otherwise you're just putting fuel on flames. There is at lest one person who posted last night and who makes it hard to believe there is no hostility ;-( 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Mike Edenfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think this thread has long since left the topic of Gentoo in the dust. If you cannot just accept that Joerg is not going to be cooperative on this issue and drop it, can you please at least take this private? I am very cooperative. Some people are not. The main problem in this discussion is that people repeat wrong claims from Bloch and some Debian folks. I am cooperative, but I am not willing to deal with obvious lies. If you have something subtancial, you should be able to first prove it before asking me. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, libcdio had an illegal license change: the authors took a lot of the code from cdrtools and claim that their code (e.g. derived from cdda2wav) is GPLv2-or-any-later. Well, not a single file from cdda2wav has ever been released under this license. Ah, then you as the original author (right ?) to stop them from that copyright infringenment. In the end they, IMHO, have two options: a) remove/replace your code b) release libcdio under your terms (CDDL ?) If they choose b), what consequences does it have for importing packages ? Is, eg., GPL'ed code allowed to import this lib ? If yes, then I don't see a major problem, besides that bundling of that lib isn't allowed anymore (hah, I'd like to see that folks like Rich Felker thing about this ;-P). If you run sound-juicer, then gstreamer (being LGPL) loads and calls libcdio which is GPL. This is not allowed by the GPL. GPL and LGPL are incompatible. ACK. That's one of those points why I thing, libraries should LGPL instead of GPL (I admit, I'm as careful as I should be about that w/ some of my own packages yet, but just due lack of time - on request my GPL'ed libs will be moved to LGPL) While the GPL is asymmetric and allows GPL code to call code under any license, GPLd code is not allowed to be called from non-GPL code. Yep, that's the viral effect. I, personally like this concept, but everybody should decide for his own. BUT: please, please no flamewar about license philosophies. cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip You are publishing the cdrtools package. The cdrtools package in whole or in part contains mkisofs.c. So, you must cause the cdrtools package to be licensed as a whole under the terms of the GNU GPL, right? So, in other words, mkisofs cannot be included in an package that is not GPL'ed, right ? Wouldn't it solve the problem to just move out mkisofs to it's own package ? cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and install cdda2wav suid root. Giving the user full access to the cdrom device isnt't enough ? Actually, I really dislike to whole idea of suid root. Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. cdd2wav is directly writing to the audio device ? IMHO not good idea: you're bound to the devices cdda2wav supports, requires it to be ported to each single audio interface you want to use (not just platform specifics, but also things like audio servers, clients which want non-standard config, ... ):( I'd prefer using a pipe. cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A big problem is that on Linux _some_ SCSI commands may be send to drives Which commands does it affect, and are they needed for playback ? cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cdda2wav has an interactive mode since yesterday. Can ths code be opted-out at compile time ? I, personally, don't want like to have unnedded features on my system (- userflag ?) BTW: could cdda2wav live as an separate package ? cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I *like* the GPL because of that You have all the freedom, exept to cut down this freedom-attitude. It is like: I am a tolerant person, but not to intolerant people. And as another example: The german constitution also prohibits the change of the articles that guarantee human rights. You seem to have a major missunderstanding with the background ot the constitution. The constitution has not been written to save the constitution while ignoring possible harm to the people. The constitution does not give asymmetric rights to parts of the whole population only. Oh, it *does*. It reserves violential force to certain state instituions only (eg. police, military). Special people are allowed carry around (and also use!) lethal weapons, while the common man is prohibited to do so (in contrast to eg. the US constitution) - this is often called the monopoly of force, which the majority of politicians and lawyers here see vital to form an state. At this point the German basic law (which actually isn't a real constitution) is very asymetric at this point. But: it stricly limits the power of the state as on the use of violence (eg. killing people who are not currently trying to kill others IS NOT allowed, even if the current administration wants to do this!), splits the power of the state into the three main (ideally independent) major forces. In strong contrast, the EU does none of this (even allowing death penalty and using military force against demonstrators, just on decision of the administration) - it is in neither way constitutional, nor parlamentaric, nor democratic. The GPL however limits the usability of OpenSource as OSS and claims this is in order to save OSS. The GPL allows GPLd software to use any kind of software but disallows other OpenSource Software to use GPLd software. Right, that's what it has been built for. For good reasons. But nobody is required to like this. It's a contract, not a law, so you're free to go into the game or stay out. Same applies to all the other licenses. Another big problem with the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation does not care about leality in own projects. There are at least two official FSF projects that did ilegally change the license of the code they use from other projects. libcdio did change code taken from cdrtools from GPLv2-only to GPLv2-or-any-later and vcdimager publishes code under GPL that never has been put under GPL by the author. The pure existance of contracts doesn't imply that everyone complies with agreements he had made. That's what civil courts are for. (btw: breaking licenses may also be criminal) And if I wrote software, I would not want people to reuse the codeit in closed source. So GPL is the right choice for me, because of the viral and supposed non-free issue. If you like this, you do not need to forbid to use the software for other OSS as done by the GPL. The point is, the GPL requires everyone who uses derived work to be published under the same terms. Fine for some people, but not for others. But it's just a contract between the original authors and those who want to derive work. You're not forced to do so, it's just one option of many. But remember, if more people contibute to a software project, then the license is some essential part of the collaboration. Changing it requires the consensus of *all* people who *ever* contributed to it. You are obviously uninformed about legal facts. In Europe as well as in the USA, minor contributors are not given the right to decide on this. Any sources on that, at least for Germany ? Ah, please forget EU directives, as long as they're not explicitly implemented in our law (passed both houses). The EU, according to German base law and laws of nations has *NO* real legal power - it's almost completely based on constitutional violations (at least for Germany, but most likely for the other member nations). cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The main point is that this also disallows the usage within NonOSS software. That's what counts. Many OSS licenses do not care about later closed usage, and so one backdoor is closed, where GPL code may become unfree. For me, some of the so called OSS licenses undermine the freedom and I don't want them to be spread anymore. BSD is the one license where freedom goes the step to far and is suicide. We already had to learn these hard lessons in xf86 times (and still going on w/ x.org): hw companies can close the sources of their own forks and do not need to give back anything. It even gets worse with the Linux kernel, where those trolls are allowed to publish propriatary driver crap (yes, 99% of the proprietary kernel drivers I had to cope with, like nv stuff *are* really crap which tends to lock up the whole machine). At least for the vital parts of a system, this is very bad. cu -- - Enrico Weigelt== metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ - Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ - -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, libcdio had an illegal license change: the authors took a lot of the code from cdrtools and claim that their code (e.g. derived from cdda2wav) is GPLv2-or-any-later. Well, not a single file from cdda2wav has ever been released under this license. Ah, then you as the original author (right ?) to stop them from that copyright infringenment. In the end they, IMHO, have two options: a) remove/replace your code b) release libcdio under your terms (CDDL ?) I am not the person who did put the code together as libcdio. This was the FSF. We are talking about a Copyright violation done by the FSF. If you run sound-juicer, then gstreamer (being LGPL) loads and calls libcdio which is GPL. This is not allowed by the GPL. GPL and LGPL are incompatible. ACK. That's one of those points why I thing, libraries should LGPL instead of GPL (I admit, I'm as careful as I should be about that w/ some of my own packages yet, but just due lack of time - on request my GPL'ed libs will be moved to LGPL) The FSF has no choice to make the code LGPL, converting from GPLv2-only is already more than they are allowed to do. BUT: please, please no flamewar about license philosophies. I am not interested in license wars. I get the impression that some people start flamewars because I am relaxed about licenses and do not try to make a religion out of a license. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip You are publishing the cdrtools package. The cdrtools package in whole or in part contains mkisofs.c. So, you must cause the cdrtools package to be licensed as a whole under the terms of the GNU GPL, right? So, in other words, mkisofs cannot be included in an package that is not GPL'ed, right ? Wouldn't it solve the problem to just move out mkisofs to it's own package ? The main problem would be solved if Daniel Iliev did inform himself correctly what's done in cdrtools and did not post ridiculous claims. I cannot comment claims that have no relation at all to the reality in cdrtools. If he continues to post this kind of claims, I need to ignore him. In order to discuss licensing of cdrtools, some basic knowledge about facts is needed. It does not help to write claims that do not apply to cdrtools as he did. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and install cdda2wav suid root. Giving the user full access to the cdrom device isnt't enough ? Actually, I really dislike to whole idea of suid root. Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. cdd2wav is directly writing to the audio device ? IMHO not good idea: you're bound to the devices cdda2wav supports, requires it to be ported to each single audio interface you want to use (not just platform specifics, but also things like audio servers, clients which want non-standard config, ... ):( I recomment you to read the cdda2wav man page to understand how it is working. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wouldn't it solve the problem to just move out mkisofs to it's own package ? let me add a second answer to the serious part of the question. Would it make Linux distribution xxzzy legal if the X binaries were moved into a different distribution? How would you answer this question? Let me give you another example: Do you still whack your wife? Answer only with yes or no... The FSF claims that the GPL is a truely free OSS License and follows the rules from: http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd In order to do this the GPL is not allowed (amongst others) to influence other software that is distributed on the same medium. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Sebastian Günther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately the GPL has not been written in an unambiguous way. This is why the OSI rated the GPL as non-free for several years. Some years ago, the FSF explained that the GPL needs to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant to the rules at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd And that is the bottom of the line in this whole elaborate discussion: The definition of freedom. I *like* the GPL because of that You have all the freedom, exept to cut down this freedom-attitude. It is like: I am a tolerant person, but not to intolerant people. And as another example: The german constitution also prohibits the change of the articles that guarantee human rights. You seem to have a major missunderstanding with the background ot the constitution. The constitution has not been written to save the constitution while ignoring possible harm to the people. The constitution does not give asymmetric rights to parts of the whole population only. The GPL however limits the usability of OpenSource as OSS and claims this is in order to save OSS. The GPL allows GPLd software to use any kind of software but disallows other OpenSource Software to use GPLd software. Another big problem with the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation does not care about leality in own projects. There are at least two official FSF projects that did ilegally change the license of the code they use from other projects. libcdio did change code taken from cdrtools from GPLv2-only to GPLv2-or-any-later and vcdimager publishes code under GPL that never has been put under GPL by the author. And if I wrote software, I would not want people to reuse the codeit in closed source. So GPL is the right choice for me, because of the viral and supposed non-free issue. If you like this, you do not need to forbid to use the software for other OSS as done by the GPL. But remember, if more people contibute to a software project, then the license is some essential part of the collaboration. Changing it requires the consensus of *all* people who *ever* contributed to it. You are obviously uninformed about legal facts. In Europe as well as in the USA, minor contributors are not given the right to decide on this. So changing a license is always cumbersome. Then you should be against the GPL as many GPL people take BSD code and illegally add GPL tags. This may be tolerated by the authors but it is still forbidden by law. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: But that's irrelevant to our discussion, because I do not want a web of pointers to copies. I want a single pointer to the (hopefully public) mailing list thread(s) where you discussed with Bloch and you were attacked by him. Where is this thread? Bloch did run these attacks in private mail. I'm sure you can post the mail exchange *in full* on your website, therefore. So -hey!- you can show the world how Bloch is the asshole you say he is. What's better than that to bring people on your side? If I was wrong, he could try to sue me. But then I would show the mail containing the insults to the judge. So he does not sue me ;-) 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote that the *thread* - digressing from useful discussion about software tools and into religion - was pissing me off. This is why I tried not to answer your first question. I know that this usually happens and try to avoid it. I asked because I wanted to hear your point of view and your reason (for changing license to CDDL). This is not very obvious when searching the web, and the reason given on your website (which I only found after asking the question) is somewhat vague. Why is the CDDL more free and why do you particularly like it? Well, the information is in the cdrtools FAQ and parts are in the Sun CDDL FAQ. When I searched the web I rather expected to find loads of mailing- list posts, blog entries and other articles and that half of them would announce what a rotter you are, the other half how poor old Joerg has been stitched up. But it is NOT so obvious from Googling. Charity is what you get for free, enviousness is something you need to earn ;-) You get this kind of enemies if you get a certain degree of familarity. As I told you already I might quite aggressively support your software if you would just make the effort to convince me. No one else on this list mistook my question for antagonism. I deliberately tried to be polite and tactful when asking you, and it did me no good at all! Frankly, therefore, I can see why everyone is against you if you insist on misconstruing an innocent question as an attack. If my example is anything to go by then I can only assume that the whole Debian and Bloch fiasco is the result of your own over-reaction (sorry to be so honest about how I see things!). This is obviously a missinterpretation of the facts. What people with english mothertonge believe is a courtesy, is usually seen as a underlying attack by Germans. Try to just be direct and there will be less missunderstanding. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am sorry I offended you, Joerg, but your are making it impossible to be your friend. You could learn to be direct and tell people what you mean. You asked in a missleading way on a list where hostile statements from other people have already been seen. As I said: less than 20% of human communication is done via words. If I did see you, I would have known whether your non-direct posting was meant to have an underlying hostile base or not. As I cannot see you, the only way to avoid missunderstanding is to use unambiguous words. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You could learn to be direct and tell people what you mean. You asked in a missleading way on a list where hostile statements from other people have already been seen. As I said: less than 20% of human communication is done via words. If I did see you, I would have known whether your non-direct posting was meant to have an underlying hostile base or not. As I cannot see you, the only way to avoid missunderstanding is to use unambiguous words. Tip: do not assume people on a mailing list have an underlying hostile base unless they are explicitly hostile. Otherwise you're just putting fuel on flames. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [30.06.08 10:48]: The GPL however limits the usability of OpenSource as OSS and claims this is in order to save OSS. The GPL allows GPLd software to use any kind of software but disallows other OpenSource Software to use GPLd software. The main point is that this also disallows the usage within NonOSS software. That's what counts. Many OSS licenses do not care about later closed usage, and so one backdoor is closed, where GPL code may become unfree. For me, some of the so called OSS licenses undermine the freedom and I don't want them to be spread anymore. BSD is the one license where freedom goes the step to far and is suicide. Another big problem with the GPL is that the Free Software Foundation does not care about leality in own projects. There are at least two official FSF projects that did ilegally change the license of the code they use from other projects. libcdio did change code taken from cdrtools from GPLv2-only to GPLv2-or-any-later and vcdimager publishes code under GPL that never has been put under GPL by the author. That's not a problem of the GPL, but of the FSF. You can't blame the GPL for that. And I'm just curious: under which license was that code, which is now in vcdimager? And if I wrote software, I would not want people to reuse the codeit in closed source. So GPL is the right choice for me, because of the viral and supposed non-free issue. If you like this, you do not need to forbid to use the software for other OSS as done by the GPL. This is a all or nothing matter, or you end up categorizing every single license if it fits. overstatement And remember the GPL is a virus, that wants world domination. /overstatement But remember, if more people contibute to a software project, then the license is some essential part of the collaboration. Changing it requires the consensus of *all* people who *ever* contributed to it. You are obviously uninformed about legal facts. In Europe as well as in the USA, minor contributors are not given the right to decide on this. Well, in which crude copyright law is this stated? link please. I think it is more a problem of the enforcement, not the laws itself. If you do not fight for your right, you loose it. But I agree, that in our society, it is a matter of money. But that is a problem in society. So changing a license is always cumbersome. Then you should be against the GPL as many GPL people take BSD code and illegally add GPL tags. This may be tolerated by the authors but it is still forbidden by law. That is *again* not an issue of the GPL but of the authors, s.o., and the licences changers. It's a people problem. And an issue of the BSD license: I'm not quite sure, but can't you do anything with source code under BSD licences, as long this infamous copyright notice stays? What can happen to BSD code is shown with Kerberos, which ended up in Active Directory with some uncompatiple changes and some really lousy, security short commings. Jörg When it is free, than it shall be free from here to eternity. Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgp3rhDg4HE56.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: But that's irrelevant to our discussion, because I do not want a web of pointers to copies. I want a single pointer to the (hopefully public) mailing list thread(s) where you discussed with Bloch and you were attacked by him. Where is this thread? Bloch did run these attacks in private mail. I'm sure you can post the mail exchange *in full* on your website, therefore. So -hey!- you can show the world how Bloch is the asshole you say he is. What's better than that to bring people on your side? If I was wrong, he could try to sue me. But then I would show the mail containing the insults to the judge. So he does not sue me ;-) And why can't you show these mails to us? Bloch could also well not give a f**k about your claims and maybe does not want to spend money etc. just to sue an upset programmer. I most probably wouldn't sue you, if I was him. You're tiptoeing around the main issue, that is: You bring no proof of your most important claims. You cannot expect widespread support of your cause without proof. If you want us on your side, Show. The. Evidence. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bloch could also well not give a f**k about your claims and maybe does not want to spend money etc. just to sue an upset programmer. I most probably wouldn't sue you, if I was him. You're tiptoeing around the main issue, that is: You bring no proof of your most important claims. You cannot expect widespread support of your cause without proof. If you want us on your side, Show. The. Evidence. I am not going to do illegal things, therefore I cannot show the evidence. If needed, I will show it a judge. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bloch could also well not give a f**k about your claims and maybe does not want to spend money etc. just to sue an upset programmer. I most probably wouldn't sue you, if I was him. You're tiptoeing around the main issue, that is: You bring no proof of your most important claims. You cannot expect widespread support of your cause without proof. If you want us on your side, Show. The. Evidence. I am not going to do illegal things, therefore I cannot show the evidence. If needed, I will show it a judge. I didn't know that showing a mail *you* received is illegal. Maybe I can contact Bloch and ask him permission? m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. wrote: I didn't know that showing a mail *you* received is illegal. Maybe I can contact Bloch and ask him permission? I think this thread has long since left the topic of Gentoo in the dust. If you cannot just accept that Joerg is not going to be cooperative on this issue and drop it, can you please at least take this private? --Mike -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Mark Kirkwood ha scritto: b.n. wrote: (The other is your admittedly elusive attitude to release fully details on what happened, both on your webpages and this thread -for example, we still have *no* link about the supposed attacks you received *before* the relicensing, despite repeated requests for that). m. I think it is in here: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html specifically (quote): In fact, this happened around y2004. I received a patch that was intended to add UTF-8 support to mkisofs. Unfortunately, the code quality of this patch was lousy. It tried to incorrectly initialize a structure and it handled only a few obvious cases. Many important issues with UTF-8 support have been completely ignored. As a result, I rejected this patch because I do care about code quality (I still need to be able to maintain the code in a few years). The people in the Linux distribution could have fixed the problems and created a useful solution but they did not do this. Now these people have been in trouble and needed an excuse for their behavior. They created the fairy tale that there is a license problem in cdrtools. They created a network of cooperation and supported some people which created a fork of cdrtools based on the fairy tale. I've read that, but 1)there is no *reference.* No link to a mailing list thread or such (I don't remember if even the infamous Debian bug where the licensing problem started is linked on Joerg pages, but at least it is easy to find it) -so I don't know if it's true or not. Maybe that' me being a scientist, so I am accustomed to expect at least a literature reference if there is a potentially questionable statement in a scientific paper -but I think it would help to actually see what he is talking about. 2)Statements like now these people have been in trouble and needed an excuse for their behaviour looks like pure conspiracy theory. Why a patch rejected puts people in trouble? Why did they need an excuse? There is no logic in that. Such claims require proof. Again, it is entirely possible that Joerg, despite his somehow weird behaviour, could be right. But I fail to see the strong evidence that should backup his strong statements. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Saturday 28 June 2008, Daniel Iliev wrote: It seems to me that you are obliged to publish cdrtools under the GNU GPL until cdrtools contains at least one piece of work which is licensed under the GNU GPL. Actually that is what the GNU GPL is all about - to force you to keep the source of a given project open if you had used any GPLd work for that project. To understand how to use the GPL it is necessary to understand what it was designed to do: Create an entire body of free code that can never be made un-free. That entire body is GNU. RMS says so in one of his many essays and faqs on the subject[1]. The original intent is obviously for people who want to contribute to GNU - they must license their code for GNU under GPL, and their code then becomes a coherent part of something much larger. Picking and choosing bits of code here and there is liable to get one in trouble with incompatible licenses, as this is not the original intent. How can this be achieved? Simply the GPL applies itself to the whole system if even the smallest part of the system was licenced under it. Yes, that is a side effect. But I don't think the intent was to infect other code with GPL due to the presence of GPL'ed code, as GNU was started to replace existing proprietary Unixes. More like new GPL code is added to the GNU that already exists. Stunningly obvious conclusion: Don't mix and match GPL code with other code (except BSD where this problem doesn't arise) -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Sunday 29 June 2008, b.n. wrote: Again, it is entirely possible that Joerg, despite his somehow weird behaviour, could be right. But I fail to see the strong evidence that should backup his strong statements. That is the same conclusion that so many other people have already come to. Joerg consistently conducts debates in this manner, consistently does not answer direct questions and consistently does not back up his statements. Hence the overriding opinion in the free software world that despite Joerg's undisputed coding skill (he truly is an excellent coder - read his stuff) and his considerable knowledge in this field, he is impossible to work with unless you agree to agree with him. The pain of trying to work with him dwarfs the benefit of using his code. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, it is entirely possible that Joerg, despite his somehow weird behaviour, could be right. But I fail to see the strong evidence that should backup his strong statements. So you like to tell us that if a few people like to spread a lie, all they need to do is to create a web of pointers to copies of this lie? A single person who tells the truth seems to have no chance in your world because people do not make a reality check on statements but just count the number of copies? This web of lies is very efficient. Nobody seems to care that the claims from the people around Bloch live in a world of reversed timelines. Why else would people believe claims that obviously reverse cause and effect? It would be easy to check timelines to get an impression of the credibility of the people around Bloch. I should mention that Bloch did not get much attention inside Debian with his hirst attack which started around 2004. The CDDL was accepted by Debian and nobody complained in February 2005 when I changed the first project from GPL to CDDL. Nothing happened after I published the first OpenSolaris distribution on June 17th 2005 - 3 days after the first OpenSolaris source was out. The attacks from Debian against the CDDL started in September 2005 after the Nexenta distro (Debian userland on top of Solaris) was published. A year later but still a week _before_ the cdrkit project started, Debian finally accepted the CDDL as free license. The people from the cdrkit project still claim that the fork was done because the CDDL is not free. Do you believe people who repeatedly contradict themself? 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Mick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I run cdda2wav -e -N -B I get: === recording 3884.2933 seconds stereo with 16 bits @ 44100.0 Hz percent_done: 100% track 1 recorded successfully === The recording part confuses me. Does this mean that the command actually writes a file on my hard drive or just plays it by passing it on to /dev/dsp? Am I going to run out of disk space? -N means: do not create audio sample files -e means: echo audio data to sound device (see -K) SOUND_DEV 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stroller wants to hear *your* point of view. As a token of respect for all the users of your software (the original, not the fork) who are here and reading this, could you please just describe your position, and omit all references as to why other points of view are wrong. He wrote that he is pissed off... If he did not attack me, then he at least does not care whether he could. I have been attacked for cdrtools and other software by many people in the past. I expect some care from people who are really interested in 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, mkisofs.c is the Program and cdrtools is a work based on the Program, right? If you believe this and what you claimed later, then the GPL would be a definitely non-free license. See the OpenSource definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Unfortunately the GPL has not been written in an unambiguous way. This is why the OSI rated the GPL as non-free for several years. Some years ago, the FSF explained that the GPL needs to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant to the rules at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Am Sonntag 29 Juni 2008 13:05:24 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stroller wants to hear *your* point of view. As a token of respect for all the users of your software (the original, not the fork) who are here and reading this, could you please just describe your position, and omit all references as to why other points of view are wrong. He wrote that he is pissed off... If you quoted him correctly before, you'd know it was not meant as an attack. He wrote [...] this latest thread just started to piss me off. It's not about you, neither about your work. It's about this thread! People have been extremely understanding in this thread for long but asking for the same information over and over again and those questions being ignored sure is tiring and pissing people off. Don't you agree? This thread is ridiculously long. People have kindly asked for information and references for your statements but all they got back is they all are lying, don't believe anybody and why didn't you look yourself. You ignored important questions. Isn't a lie usually a (wrong) statement without proof that is meant to be believed by the other? Why do you expect us to believe you when you don't give any references at all? Show us the lies they spread. And explain why they are wrong. Then people will believe you. But repeating they are lying over and over does not make it more true for us. Come on, all that people want are references. Say, isn't that thread pissing you off by now? It was pretty pointless till now, don't you agree? Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The GPL tries to take off freedom in otder to keep freedom. This does not work in most cases (I tried to sue two companies to no avail), so why take off freedom at all? OK, all this means that in your opinion CDDL is better than GPL, but by no means it grants you the right to disregard GPL in favour of CDDL. Like it or not, there are GPL-ed pieces in cdrtools and if you want to use those pieces you have to comply with the GPL. That's the will of their respective authors. I don't like the EULA of Microsoft, so I don't use their products. It's as simple as that. If you like to discuss things with the author of software you should not disregard his will. The license change to a more free license on cdrtools has been planned since 2001 which is long before the attacks from Eduard Bloch started. As I see it there are two options to stop the pointless discussion if CDDL and GPL can be legally mixed in cdrtools. First - revert back to GPL, second - move everything to CDDL. I see two solutions for the second choice: Making pointless proposals like the one you did is one of the reasons why there are endless discussions. While the current license set up and the combination in use for cdrtools has been verified by specialized lawyers, the claims from the people around Bloch are all made by laymen only. If you like it or not, the GPL has been intentionally made asymmetric to allow the combination used for mkisofs. If the GPL was defined the way some license trolls like to see it, then GPLd software would be illegal on MS-WIN, HP-UX, AIX, ... It was very important for Stallman to allow to use GPLd software on Closed Source operating systems and for this reason, the GPL allows GPLd code to use other code from any license. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, it is entirely possible that Joerg, despite his somehow weird behaviour, could be right. But I fail to see the strong evidence that should backup his strong statements. So you like to tell us that if a few people like to spread a lie, all they need to do is to create a web of pointers to copies of this lie? Well, that's exactly what happens everyday. Welcome to the real world. :) But that's irrelevant to our discussion, because I do not want a web of pointers to copies. I want a single pointer to the (hopefully public) mailing list thread(s) where you discussed with Bloch and you were attacked by him. Where is this thread? A single person who tells the truth seems to have no chance in your world because people do not make a reality check on statements but just count the number of copies? It has all chances possible. It is enough to bring *proof*. Not a billion copies of proof: just proof. That number of copies stuff is something you put into the discussion and that I never, ever asked for. It would be easy to check timelines to get an impression of the credibility of the people around Bloch. I should mention that Bloch did not get much attention inside Debian with his hirst attack which started around 2004. The CDDL was accepted by Debian and nobody complained in February 2005 when I changed the first project from GPL to CDDL. Nothing happened after I published the first OpenSolaris distribution on June 17th 2005 - 3 days after the first OpenSolaris source was out. The attacks from Debian against the CDDL started in September 2005 after the Nexenta distro (Debian userland on top of Solaris) was published. A year later but still a week _before_ the cdrkit project started, Debian finally accepted the CDDL as free license. The people from the cdrkit project still claim that the fork was done because the CDDL is not free. Do you believe people who repeatedly contradict themself? I don't care about credibility. I care about individual statements. As far as I have understood, the problem is not CDDL not being free, but being incompatible with the GPL in the particular build system you choose for cdrtools. So, I see no contradiction here. Maybe I'm wrong, but again, we want *proof*. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Sascha Hlusiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Sonntag 29 Juni 2008 13:05:24 schrieb Joerg Schilling: Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stroller wants to hear *your* point of view. As a token of respect for all the users of your software (the original, not the fork) who are here and reading this, could you please just describe your position, and omit all references as to why other points of view are wrong. He wrote that he is pissed off... If you quoted him correctly before, you'd know it was not meant as an attack. He wrote [...] this latest thread just started to piss me off. It's not about you, neither about your work. It's about this thread! People have been extremely understanding in this thread for long but asking for the same information over and over again and those questions being ignored sure is If he is interested in a real discussion, he could try to be more obvious and avoid to point to questionable claims. There is a different way of asking that does not create the impression that you stand behind the claims from a quoted URL. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Again, it is entirely possible that Joerg, despite his somehow weird behaviour, could be right. But I fail to see the strong evidence that should backup his strong statements. So you like to tell us that if a few people like to spread a lie, all they need to do is to create a web of pointers to copies of this lie? Well, that's exactly what happens everyday. Welcome to the real world. :) But that's irrelevant to our discussion, because I do not want a web of pointers to copies. I want a single pointer to the (hopefully public) mailing list thread(s) where you discussed with Bloch and you were attacked by him. Where is this thread? Bloch did run these attacks in private mail. I don't care about credibility. I care about individual statements. As far as I have understood, the problem is not CDDL not being free, but being incompatible with the GPL in the particular build system you choose for cdrtools. So, I see no contradiction here. Maybe I'm wrong, but again, we want *proof*. If you claim that what I do with mkisofs is not legal, you would need to prove this. As it seems that you cannot prove this claim, please stop spreading 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
He wrote that he is pissed off... If you quoted him correctly before, you'd know it was not meant as an attack. He wrote [...] this latest thread just started to piss me off. It's not about you, neither about your work. It's about this thread! People have been extremely understanding in this thread for long but asking for the same information over and over again and those questions being ignored sure is If he is interested in a real discussion, he could try to be more obvious and avoid to point to questionable claims. Since you refused to give and references to your claims he searched himself and came up with those articles. At least he came up with something that we can base a discussion on, maybe it be true or not, serious or not. It would have been so easy to explain, where those articles are not correct. Instead of using this excellent opportunity to explain the background, you refused to discuss it at all. There is a different way of asking that does not create the impression that you stand behind the claims from a quoted URL. The information given from this URLs seemed to explain things a bit and do not look like completely wrong. I'd rather have some questionable reference that we can talk about than no reference at all. Even lies and questionable articles can be used for discussion. You agree that referring to a non public email attack is of absolutely no value nor interest for us. You might want to publish those email threads, if you want to prove your point. Sascha signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:37:12 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, mkisofs.c is the Program and cdrtools is a work based on the Program, right? If you believe this and what you claimed later, then the GPL would be a definitely non-free license. See the OpenSource definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd No, I don't believe in anything. I'm just trying to provoke you to finally explain those things here. You see, I'm such kind of person, who even doesn't need you to show any reference to public sources where the attacks against you could be seen. I would understand and accept your position even if you had only explained it and answered the questions it arises. Unfortunately you don't do that. You don't say There is no problem in mixing GPL and CDDL in cdrtools because..., the only thing I saw you saying was If there is problem with cdrtools, the fork has the same problem and another 1 other problems Well, I don't give a damn if the fork has any problems, I don't use it, I use your package, cdrtools. So, I'm interested only and only in the cdrtools case. Yes, the questions that I'm arising were originally asked by the people you say attacked you, I don't try to hide that. The problem is I see logic in those questions and unfortunately I never saw you or anyone else for that matter explaining why there is no problem to mix CDDL and GPL in cdrtools. The only thing I saw was something like I consulted layers and they said there was no problem. Well, that's not enough. Quote those layers. Ask them to allow you to make their statement public and publish it. Do something logical at last for crying out loud! Unfortunately the GPL has not been written in an unambiguous way. This is why the OSI rated the GPL as non-free for several years. Some years ago, the FSF explained that the GPL needs to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant to the rules at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Jörg Alright! GPL is bad! But it out is there, and some parts of cdrtools are under that bad license. Like it or not, you have to obey it. So, please, explain how one (meaning you) could mix GPL and CDDL w/o violating GPL. Interpret it for me, please. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
PLEASE IGNORE my previous message. I saw Joerg had replied after I sent it, so it is irrelevant in the new context. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: But that's irrelevant to our discussion, because I do not want a web of pointers to copies. I want a single pointer to the (hopefully public) mailing list thread(s) where you discussed with Bloch and you were attacked by him. Where is this thread? Bloch did run these attacks in private mail. I'm sure you can post the mail exchange *in full* on your website, therefore. So -hey!- you can show the world how Bloch is the asshole you say he is. What's better than that to bring people on your side? I don't care about credibility. I care about individual statements. As far as I have understood, the problem is not CDDL not being free, but being incompatible with the GPL in the particular build system you choose for cdrtools. So, I see no contradiction here. Maybe I'm wrong, but again, we want *proof*. If you claim that what I do with mkisofs is not legal, you would need to prove this. As it seems that you cannot prove this claim, please stop spreading it. I don't claim anything nor I spread anything. I want proof of claims, so I can make my opinion on them. Proof. Evidence. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:02:23 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: While the current license set up and the combination in use for cdrtools has been verified by specialized lawyers, the claims from the people around Bloch are all made by laymen only. Very well. This could end the discussion in your favour very easy. Is it possible to publish the original statement of your lawyers on your site? I believe that would be a very good proof of everything you say. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On 29 Jun 2008, at 12:05, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stroller wants to hear *your* point of view. As a token of respect for all the users of your software (the original, not the fork) who are here and reading this, could you please just describe your position, and omit all references as to why other points of view are wrong. He wrote that he is pissed off... If he did not attack me, then he at least does not care whether he could. I wrote that the *thread* - digressing from useful discussion about software tools and into religion - was pissing me off. I asked because I wanted to hear your point of view and your reason (for changing license to CDDL). This is not very obvious when searching the web, and the reason given on your website (which I only found after asking the question) is somewhat vague. Why is the CDDL more free and why do you particularly like it? I wanted to hear your opinion and what you wanted to say - I was genuinely interested in your side of the story. Considering how much else you've written in this thread that seems little enough to ask. When I searched the web I rather expected to find loads of mailing- list posts, blog entries and other articles and that half of them would announce what a rotter you are, the other half how poor old Joerg has been stitched up. But it is NOT so obvious from Googling. Since this is the case you would benefit your case by explaining better on your website. As I told you already I might quite aggressively support your software if you would just make the effort to convince me. No one else on this list mistook my question for antagonism. I deliberately tried to be polite and tactful when asking you, and it did me no good at all! Frankly, therefore, I can see why everyone is against you if you insist on misconstruing an innocent question as an attack. If my example is anything to go by then I can only assume that the whole Debian and Bloch fiasco is the result of your own over-reaction (sorry to be so honest about how I see things!). Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On 29 Jun 2008, at 14:18, Joerg Schilling wrote: ... There is a different way of asking that does not create the impression that you stand behind the claims from a quoted URL. I don't believe that: A bit of Googling lead me to a couple of articles which appear to indicate you chose to migrate your software from the GPL to the CDDL (or to a CDDL-alike license). indicates I stand behind the articles which mention this, nor any other points that those articles make. You'll also note that at that stage, when I originally asked, I did not refer to being pissed off. I said: Since I guess there's no point in hoping this discussion will simply go away, might I enquire out of curiosity why you decided to do this? I am sorry I offended you, Joerg, but your are making it impossible to be your friend. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
* Joerg Schilling ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [29.06.08 13:38]: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, mkisofs.c is the Program and cdrtools is a work based on the Program, right? If you believe this and what you claimed later, then the GPL would be a definitely non-free license. See the OpenSource definition at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd Unfortunately the GPL has not been written in an unambiguous way. This is why the OSI rated the GPL as non-free for several years. Some years ago, the FSF explained that the GPL needs to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant to the rules at http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd And that is the bottom of the line in this whole elaborate discussion: The definition of freedom. I *like* the GPL because of that You have all the freedom, exept to cut down this freedom-attitude. It is like: I am a tolerant person, but not to intolerant people. And as another example: The german constitution also prohibits the change of the articles that guarantee human rights. Other may find this as a restricting of their freedom, for me it is the only guarantee of the freedom. We are talking about licences, quite the same as laws. They define the last ressort, the line no one should be able to cross. For the academic field a BSD-like licence is a very good choice, because one can publish it to a broad community, yet allow the moneygivers to use it in their commercial, closed product. And if I wrote software, I would not want people to reuse the codeit in closed source. So GPL is the right choice for me, because of the viral and supposed non-free issue. But note: This is *my* choice, and if somone wants to use another license, fine with me. But remember, if more people contibute to a software project, then the license is some essential part of the collaboration. Changing it requires the consensus of *all* people who *ever* contributed to it. So changing a license is always cumbersome. These are general thoughts, not personally againt you, Jörg Now my critisism on your decision: I regard the license change as weakening of freedom, reasons are hopefully clear from the above statements. And yes I am radical: I don't like the capitalism, and I found a little socialism in the GPL. And I will fight to protect it! Sebastian -- Religion ist das Opium des Volkes. Karl Marx [EMAIL PROTECTED]@N GÜNTHER mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpDudiGXMajL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples incorrect articles) before asking? Absolutely yes, I'd answer them even *more eagerly* than to others. What's the point in telling things to people that already know/agree with those things? This is what I am doing during the last 4 years when some people started the diffamation campaign against cdrtools. As a result, I have been told by many people that they don't like to read more on this topic. Do you know the history? Do you know that since summer 2004, some people (those people who now stand behind wodim) started to attack the cdrtools project? *Before* or *after* changing license? The diffamation campaign started long before I changed the license. The attacks started with repeated personal insults done by Eduard Bloch after he asked me to include a UTF-8 related patch from Debian to mkisofs. I checked the patch and explained him that the patch was buggy and not working. I send him the error message from the Sun Studio Compiler (gcc did not complain about the bugs) and at that time, the attacks from Eduard Bloch started. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On 28 Jun 2008, at 02:41, Daniel Iliev wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:20:50 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is valid and interesting, moreover it is asked very kindly. I can't see what possibly might be preventing you to answer the same way. I did answer these questions many times before and in many cases I have later been attacked. Joerg, then perhaps it would be easy for you to provide a link to those answers? If I were answering the same question many times, then I'd probably set up an FAQ page on my website. The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples incorrect articles) before asking? No, this is your assumption. Mine is the opposite - as I see it, the question is very real and the author admitted that he found those URLs using Google which implies he had nothing to do them. Yes, exactly. I Googled to try find out Joerg's side of the story it simply wasn't immediately obvious (why he chose to change to the CDDL). There was no malice in my question - from the sounds of it, Joerg's software is better than the fork. If it doesn't affect me then I won't bother one way or the other, but if one license is clearly better than the other (or if Joerg is genuinely the victim of malicious or jealous wossisname) then I'll be really militant about switching all my machines. I use Free software because my right to continue using it is protected. I mean no offense, but allow me to be blunt. This practice of yours is not only extremely annoying, but it is also very unwise because it backfires - instead of making people understand your problem, now you have a list of annoyed Gentoo fans. Exactly. For periods I don't follow the list at all, but I have encountered Joerg's posts before and this latest thread just started to piss me off. Honestly, Joerg, the tone of your messages just makes me feel you're irrational. If I felt he was righteous justified in his indignation then I'd climb on his team. Until this morning's exchange of posts I just felt he was avoiding my question because he couldn't fairly argue his position. You want to use the CDDL. On the other hand you can't release the whole project under CDDL, because there are parts written by other people who had released their work under GPL before you took the project. So, you dual-licensed the package, releasing the parts you have written by yourself as CDDL and the others w/o changing the license. That's fair enough. Why do you prefer the CDDL to the GPL, Joerg? Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples incorrect articles) before asking? No, this is your assumption. Mine is the opposite - as I see it, the question is very real and the author admitted that he found those URLs using Google which implies he had nothing to do them. Could you explain me why he did not read the information on the cdrtools web page to get the information? What do you call a modified CDDL license and why do you believe there is a modified CDDL license? Answering the question with question? (obviously I can do that too :D) It makes no sense to answer questions if the question contains a hint for a missunderstanding. Seriously, eix -v cdrtools gives GPL-2 LGPL-2.1 CDDL-Schily. I assumed you want the package released under your own licence based on the Sun's CDDL. If you read the CDDL, you should understand the background. Meanwhile it makes sense to tell the person who is responsible for the missleadingly shortened information to correct it. BTW: If you like to understand it completely compare the 1st CDDL proposal with the final text. I am responsible for the changes and these changes allow authors like me to use the CDDL. Before it was only usable in the USA and only by Sun. Do you know the history? Do you know that since summer 2004, some people (those people who now stand behind wodim) started to attack the cdrtools project? No, I've never heard about the problem before I saw your posts to this list several months ago, but I really care to see your side of the story. Why don't you then frist read the information on the cdrtools web page? First it would be interesting, second more effective for your cause and third it would hopefully cease your current practice to hijack every optical media related thread on this list and send spam that advertises your product (cdrtools). If you believe this, then we need to stop this thread immediately. Every such thread on this list that was based on Bugs introduced by the people who created wodim. I mean no offense, but allow me to be blunt. This practice of yours is not only extremely annoying, but it is also very unwise because it backfires - instead of making people understand your problem, now you have a list of annoyed Gentoo fans. Do you like to tell me that Gentoo users are not interested to know why they have problems with CD/DVD writing? Do you like to tell me that nobody is interested in a simple fix? You want to use the CDDL. On the other hand you can't release the whole project under CDDL, because there are parts written by other people who had released their work under GPL before you took the project. So, you dual-licensed the package, releasing the parts you have written by yourself as CDDL and the others w/o changing the license. (How am I doing so far?) It seems that you never tried to read the information on the cdrtools web page. Some Debian maintainers saw a problem because CDDL is not compatible with GNU GPL and they made the fork cdrkit. As I understand it the legal problem is when it comes to the binaries produced from your sources because their distribution will violate the GNU GPL. That's why most of the binary distros dropped your packet. On the other hand Gentoo and the other source based distros don't have the same problem, because they don't distribute binaries. This is the lies spread by the people around Eduard Bloch. The truth is that if these people _really_ believe their claim, they would need to take cdrkit offline immediately because it includes even more of the same violations claimed by Bloch Co against the original project. Let me give you a simple example: they claim that a GPLd source may only be compiled using GPLd build system and that the build system needs to be part of the source. Well, the second claim is correct, but they do not include the build system used for cdrkit in the cdrkit source. They even replaced the original build system by just another build system that is not under GPL too. The people around Bloch are contradicting themselves and nobody seems to care about the truth. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you continue to attack me? Do you really believe that this helps? Why didn't you use Google to find and read my FAQ for the topic on the cdrtools web page? The CD/DVD related questions on this list that I answer are all based on bugs introduced by the wodim people into wodim. Even though all these bugs are not from me, more than 90% if the cdrkit package is still written by Heiko and me. It is my task to inform people on the reason of the bugs as the initators of the bugs prefer to keep quiet and to let the bugs stay unfixed. If you don't want me to inform people on why they have problems, there is a simple way to achive this: Make the official cdrtools the default and all known problems will go away. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: No, this is your assumption. Mine is the opposite - as I see it, the question is very real and the author admitted that he found those URLs using Google which implies he had nothing to do them. Could you explain me why he did not read the information on the cdrtools web page to get the information? Read it (admittedly, read mostly the google cache because berlios.de seems slow/unreachable now). It just says I choose CDDL because it's more free than GPL and stuff like that. This is better than the complete nothing we had before, but it is still quite obscure. I gave a (quick) look at the CDDL and on one side I feel sympathetic with you (it seems the incompatibility claimed by Debian is extremly technical and doesn't seem to pose peculiar problems) but on the other side it seems CDDL and GPL are similar enough that I see no strong reason to change license. - Why is it in your opinion more free, in a few words? - Why did you prefer to release it CDDL and see people go berserk (right or wrong they are, it doesn't count here) instead of keeping it GPL and let everyone live peacefully? In other words: why is CDDL *so important* to you that you prefer to see bad forks of your software pop out instead of having a compromise about licenses and let your software live happily? What do you call a modified CDDL license and why do you believe there is a modified CDDL license? Answering the question with question? (obviously I can do that too :D) It makes no sense to answer questions if the question contains a hint for a missunderstanding. Again, you don't understand the purpose of *human communication*. Communication is exactly made to iron out misunderstandings. Communicating with people that are already on your side/already understand what you're going to say *makes no sense*. First it would be interesting, second more effective for your cause and third it would hopefully cease your current practice to hijack every optical media related thread on this list and send spam that advertises your product (cdrtools). If you believe this, then we need to stop this thread immediately. Every such thread on this list that was based on Bugs introduced by the people who created wodim. I mean no offense, but allow me to be blunt. This practice of yours is not only extremely annoying, but it is also very unwise because it backfires - instead of making people understand your problem, now you have a list of annoyed Gentoo fans. Do you like to tell me that Gentoo users are not interested to know why they have problems with CD/DVD writing? Do you like to tell me that nobody is interested in a simple fix? Surely to let people aware of the cdrkit/cdrtools split and that cdrtools can fix what's made by cdrkit is useful. But it seems there is a tendency to make things degenerate into a constant either with me or against me! threading, and your conspiracy theory attitude does not help. You tell on the webpage that Debian people started attack you before the licence change. No link, for what I can see at a glance, is provided to examples of these attacks (if I'm wrong, please correct me). No reason is given for those attacks (again, if I'm wrong,etc.). Now, it is possible that Debian has been possessed by $EVIL_DEITY and that all those people are dedicating their life to annoy poor old Joerg. Bear with me however if I assign to that quite tiny odds. What I think is that those people were honestly concerned for some (maybe stupid, maybe real) reason. Why should one randomly begin to attack randomly a good developer releasing essential software? Why should one go so long to fork such hard software, if this one does not sincerely believe there is a reason to embark on such an adventure? You may disagree with them, but thinking that they're doing all that just because of a personaly conspiracy against you and cdrtools seems a bit a delusion. Here's what I'd write on your webpage if I was you: Q: Why is there a fork of cdrtools? A: In 2004, a discussion arose with Debian developers around $ISSUE (see *here*) and, later, around licensing terms (see *here*). Basically there is a disagreement between us on the possibility to relicense [...] Unfortunately, despite long and bitter discussion, no compromise had been reached and they decided to release a supposedly more free fork, called cdrkit. I personally disagree completely (CDDL is in my opinion more free than GPL), but that's their choice. Q: Is there a reason to use cdrtools instead of forks? A: Yes. cdrkit is less updated (see cdrkit activity *here* vs cdrtools activity *here*) and more buggy (see *here* for a comparison of cdrkit bugs vs cdrtools bugs). So, I strongly advice to use the original cdrtools instead of the forks. Unfortunately, many Linux distribution choose to follow Debian reasoning on licences and distribute cdrkit instead of cdrtools. A notable exception is
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you continue to attack me? Do you really believe that this helps? Repeat with me, Joerg. No one is attacking me. Take a deep breath and repeat. No one is attacking me. Again and again and again. Joerg, really. You suffer some kind of paranoid syndrome. We're just trying to understand. Your behaviour is sometimes, ehm, difficult to bear with, but we're trying to do our best to listen to your side. No one is attacking you. Honestly, there is no reason whatsover for us to do that. m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Hi, Jörg, you do have a point (or two) and guys? Cut him some slack, ok? I had my 'clashes' with him in the past, and yes, sometimes he is tiresome to deal with or too tempting to provoke him, but this whole mess is really not his fault or only to a very small part that could easily explained with miscommunication. After all this years reading mails and postings he wrote I came to the conclusion that the biggest problem is a certain lack of people skills he haa. He is a great programmer but sometimes has problems to sell his ideas/thoughts/points. A lot of times I thought 'gosh, he is right, but sadly he just said it in the worst way possible'. Jörg, I don't want to attack you, it is just an observation. I have the uttermost respect for your programming skills/talent and knowledge about SCSI and everything related. His cdrtools is usually in top shape and while everybody is free to disagree with some of his choices, nobody should attack him like some in this thread. If he says that cdrkitco have bugs cdrtools has not, I believe him. I don't even google for it. Because whatever altercations you have or want to have with him - he knows his software and he fixes the bugs that pop up (except in cases when people think there is a bug and Jörg thinks otherwise, but hey that is no good reason to bash him). He is doing this for a long time - some members of this list might not even be borne when he started writiting software. And how many devs are actively strolling distribution bugzillas and mailing lists like him, looking for problems people might have with software he created or maintains? So, why not read the information on his page, google a bit, look for yourself - and admit, that Jörg is not the big evil just a little bit lacking on the 'sell my points' front. Even if he likes Solaris more like Linux. So could this fruitless near-flaming stop right here? The thread has long passed its use by date. Glück Auf, Volker -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Thursday 26 June 2008, John covici wrote: on Thursday 06/26/2008 Joerg Schilling([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. Otherwise you see human readble error messages that point you to the problem. Jörg OK, we are now getting somewhere, I did hear sound out of that, now that is interesting, but how does this work -- does it not copy the file or is it playing from the drive? I have cdcd and it thinks its playing, bu I hear nothing. Also, I can't get mplayer to do anyting, it thinks the url is wrong or something, so this is more complicated. Thanks much. When I run cdda2wav -e -N -B I get: === recording 3884.2933 seconds stereo with 16 bits @ 44100.0 Hz percent_done: 100% track 1 recorded successfully === The recording part confuses me. Does this mean that the command actually writes a file on my hard drive or just plays it by passing it on to /dev/dsp? Am I going to run out of disk space? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
on Saturday 06/28/2008 Mick([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote On Thursday 26 June 2008, John covici wrote: on Thursday 06/26/2008 Joerg Schilling([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. Otherwise you see human readble error messages that point you to the problem. Jörg OK, we are now getting somewhere, I did hear sound out of that, now that is interesting, but how does this work -- does it not copy the file or is it playing from the drive? I have cdcd and it thinks its playing, bu I hear nothing. Also, I can't get mplayer to do anyting, it thinks the url is wrong or something, so this is more complicated. Thanks much. When I run cdda2wav -e -N -B I get: === recording 3884.2933 seconds stereo with 16 bits @ 44100.0 Hz percent_done: 100% track 1 recorded successfully === The recording part confuses me. Does this mean that the command actually writes a file on my hard drive or just plays it by passing it on to /dev/dsp? Am I going to run out of disk space? The -N prevents writing to disk. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Saturday 28 June 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you continue to attack me? Joerg, He is not attacking you. Here's some good advice: drop the paranoia. please. Stroller is going out of his way and bending over backwards to invite you to answer some simple questions about why you chose to do a certain action. He is obviously genuinely interested in the answer to this question. He even seems predisposed to agree with you, but you need to give him your rationale before he will do that. Interspersing all your replies with references to other people attacking you, Debian maintainers who suck and buggy forks is not helping your cause any. Stroller wants to hear *your* point of view. As a token of respect for all the users of your software (the original, not the fork) who are here and reading this, could you please just describe your position, and omit all references as to why other points of view are wrong. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On 28 Jun 2008, at 12:02, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snipped? Why do you continue to attack me? You're a nutter, mate. Why didn't you use Google to find and read my FAQ for the topic on the cdrtools web page? Why didn't you just give me the URL of your FAQ? (which I just found after reading your reply to Daniel Iliev). Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg, I'd be glad if you (can) explain me where I'm wrong. GPL, Section 0, Sentence 1: == This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. == mkisofs.c: == /* * Program mkisofs.c - generate iso9660 filesystem based upon directory * tree on hard disk. * * Written by Eric Youngdale (1993). * * Copyright 1993 Yggdrasil Computing, Incorporated * Copyright (c) 1999,2000-2007 J. Schilling * * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) * any later version. == So, the GNU GPL applies to mkisofs.c, right? GPL, Section 0, Sentence 2: == The Program, below, refers to any such program or work, and a work based on the Program means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. == So, mkisofs.c is the Program and cdrtools is a work based on the Program, right? GPL, Section 2, b: == You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. == You are publishing the cdrtools package. The cdrtools package in whole or in part contains mkisofs.c. So, you must cause the cdrtools package to be licensed as a whole under the terms of the GNU GPL, right? It seems to me that you are obliged to publish cdrtools under the GNU GPL until cdrtools contains at least one piece of work which is licensed under the GNU GPL. Actually that is what the GNU GPL is all about - to force you to keep the source of a given project open if you had used any GPLd work for that project. How can this be achieved? Simply the GPL applies itself to the whole system if even the smallest part of the system was licenced under it. Like a virus. :) -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read it (admittedly, read mostly the google cache because berlios.de seems slow/unreachable now). berlios.de is quick - much faster than the google cache. It may be that your internet provider has a bad peering with the German research network. It just says I choose CDDL because it's more free than GPL and stuff like that. This is better than the complete nothing we had before, but it is still quite obscure. I gave a (quick) look at the CDDL and on one side I feel sympathetic with you (it seems the incompatibility claimed by Debian is extremly technical and doesn't seem to pose peculiar problems) but on the other side it seems CDDL and GPL are similar enough that I see no strong reason to change license. The CDDL has been designed to be compatible with all OSS licenses. The GPL has been designed to be incompatible (*) with all other licenses including the LGPL. OpenSource needs collaboration. This cannot happen with the asymmetric incompatibility the GPL tries to impose. *) The GPL allows GPLd code to call code from any license but disallows that GPLd code is callsed by non-GPLd code. - Why is it in your opinion more free, in a few words? The GPL tries to take off freedom in otder to keep freedom. This does not work in most cases (I tried to sue two companies to no avail), so why take off freedom at all? - Why did you prefer to release it CDDL and see people go berserk (right or wrong they are, it doesn't count here) instead of keeping it GPL and let everyone live peacefully? In other words: why is CDDL *so important* to you that you prefer to see bad forks of your software pop out instead of having a compromise about licenses and let your software live happily? If you did read my FAQ, you would know that this is wrong. I did change the license _after_ Eduard Bloch and his friends did go berserk. Answering the question with question? (obviously I can do that too :D) It makes no sense to answer questions if the question contains a hint for a missunderstanding. Again, you don't understand the purpose of *human communication*. Communication is exactly made to iron out misunderstandings. Communicating with people that are already on your side/already understand what you're going to say *makes no sense*. I am sorry to see that you don't understand how human communication works. Only 20% of human communication is done by words. For this reason, communication that is only based on words has a big chance for missunderstandings. I asked back because it was obvious that you already did missunderstand the license delaration from Gentoo. cdrecord/cdda2wav/... are under the original CDDL. There is no CDDL-Schily. Do you like to tell me that Gentoo users are not interested to know why they have problems with CD/DVD writing? Do you like to tell me that nobody is interested in a simple fix? Surely to let people aware of the cdrkit/cdrtools split and that cdrtools can fix what's made by cdrkit is useful. But it seems there is a tendency to make things degenerate into a constant either with me or against me! threading, and your conspiracy theory attitude does not help. This is again a missunderstanding at your side. As there is no development or bug fixing for cdrkit, it is obviously not possible to write something different than it still does not work. You tell on the webpage that Debian people started attack you before the licence change. No link, for what I can see at a glance, is provided to examples of these attacks (if I'm wrong, please correct me). No reason is given for those attacks (again, if I'm wrong,etc.). What you read on my web page is first hand information. All other people spread the dissinformation from Bloch. If you _really_ miss information in my FAQ, you should ask... 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you continue to attack me? Do you really believe that this helps? Repeat with me, Joerg. No one is attacking me. Just because you did not read it to it's end does not meanthat he did not attack me. He write that I am pissing him off. I was polite in the discussion and I expect the same from others. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 22:33:12 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: The CDDL has been designed to be compatible with all OSS licenses. The GPL has been designed to be incompatible (*) with all other licenses including the LGPL. OpenSource needs collaboration. This cannot happen with the asymmetric incompatibility the GPL tries to impose. *) The GPL allows GPLd code to call code from any license but disallows that GPLd code is callsed by non-GPLd code. - Why is it in your opinion more free, in a few words? The GPL tries to take off freedom in otder to keep freedom. This does not work in most cases (I tried to sue two companies to no avail), so why take off freedom at all? OK, all this means that in your opinion CDDL is better than GPL, but by no means it grants you the right to disregard GPL in favour of CDDL. Like it or not, there are GPL-ed pieces in cdrtools and if you want to use those pieces you have to comply with the GPL. That's the will of their respective authors. I don't like the EULA of Microsoft, so I don't use their products. It's as simple as that. As I see it there are two options to stop the pointless discussion if CDDL and GPL can be legally mixed in cdrtools. First - revert back to GPL, second - move everything to CDDL. I see two solutions for the second choice: - remove/rewrite the GPLd parts (which would be enormous waste of labour and/or crippling the package) - you could try to ask those authors to release a new version of their work under CDDL. If they agree there will be no place for doubts - you will be well within your rights to use CDDL. - Why did you prefer to release it CDDL and see people go berserk (right or wrong they are, it doesn't count here) instead of keeping it GPL and let everyone live peacefully? In other words: why is CDDL *so important* to you that you prefer to see bad forks of your software pop out instead of having a compromise about licenses and let your software live happily? If you did read my FAQ, you would know that this is wrong. I've read it even before this thread was started and I really don't know. I have the FAQs from your site open right now and I still can't understand. The only two references to CDDL I can find are: = Cdrtools are now available unter a OSS license that gives more freedom than the GPL On May 15th 2006, most of the code has been relicensed under the CDDL. The CDDL has been selected as one of 8 preferred licenses by the OSI. [ http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/cdrecord.html ] = (...which is irrelevant to this discusion) and = The attacks have been based on the fact that cdrtools was licensed under the GPL. As a result, on May 15th 2006 most projects from the cdrtools project bundle have been relicensed under CDDL (giving more freedom to users than the GPL does). [ http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html ] = Are you saying that you went to CDDL because some people attacked you for using GPL and later the same people made a fork exactly because the CDDL in cdrtools is not compatible with the GPL? Then why didn't you just get back to GPL!? Again, you don't understand the purpose of *human communication*. Communication is exactly made to iron out misunderstandings. Communicating with people that are already on your side/already understand what you're going to say *makes no sense*. I am sorry to see that you don't understand how human communication works. Only 20% of human communication is done by words. For this reason, communication that is only based on words has a big chance for missunderstandings. I asked back because it was obvious that you already did missunderstand the license delaration from Gentoo. cdrecord/cdda2wav/... are under the original CDDL. There is no CDDL-Schily. Yes, absolutely! It is even more relevant when we write those words in a non-native language. That is why it is even more important to answer exactly to the same questions you were asked, instead of writing whatever comes to your mind at the moment. P.S. If you cared at least a little about Gentoo, you'd go to http://bugs.gentoo.org and write a bug report requesting a correct declaration of the license. I'm sure your request will be fulfilled. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you continue to attack me? Do you really believe that this helps? Repeat with me, Joerg. No one is attacking me. Just because you did not read it to it's end does not meanthat he did not attack me. He write that I am pissing him off. That's no attack Joerg. That's a statement about himself, not you. If he said something like Joerg is a moron that would be a personal attack. No one is saying that (at least, not me, nor him). He is simply stating, instead, that your behaviour makes him feel nervous, which is something different from attack. Please, please, please: stop *always* assuming bad faith from anyone that is not immediately agreeing with you. We asked this before and we ask this again, and we will ask it until it happens. Please. That's the *main* block to be surpassed if we want this to be a reasonable thread (The other is your admittedly elusive attitude to release fully details on what happened, both on your webpages and this thread -for example, we still have *no* link about the supposed attacks you received *before* the relicensing, despite repeated requests for that). m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
b.n. wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling ha scritto: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why do you continue to attack me? Do you really believe that this helps? Repeat with me, Joerg. No one is attacking me. Just because you did not read it to it's end does not meanthat he did not attack me. He write that I am pissing him off. That's no attack Joerg. That's a statement about himself, not you. If he said something like Joerg is a moron that would be a personal attack. No one is saying that (at least, not me, nor him). He is simply stating, instead, that your behaviour makes him feel nervous, which is something different from attack. Please, please, please: stop *always* assuming bad faith from anyone that is not immediately agreeing with you. We asked this before and we ask this again, and we will ask it until it happens. Please. That's the *main* block to be surpassed if we want this to be a reasonable thread (The other is your admittedly elusive attitude to release fully details on what happened, both on your webpages and this thread -for example, we still have *no* link about the supposed attacks you received *before* the relicensing, despite repeated requests for that). m. I think it is in here: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html specifically (quote): In fact, this happened around y2004. I received a patch that was intended to add UTF-8 support to mkisofs. Unfortunately, the code quality of this patch was lousy. It tried to incorrectly initialize a structure and it handled only a few obvious cases. Many important issues with UTF-8 support have been completely ignored. As a result, I rejected this patch because I do care about code quality (I still need to be able to maintain the code in a few years). The people in the Linux distribution could have fixed the problems and created a useful solution but they did not do this. Now these people have been in trouble and needed an excuse for their behavior. They created the fairy tale that there is a license problem in cdrtools. They created a network of cooperation and supported some people which created a fork of cdrtools based on the fairy tale. (end quote) regards Mark -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
OK, it works! this what I did: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/music $ cdda2wav -e -N -B cdda2wav: No such file or directory. Cannot open '-1'. Cannot open SCSI driver. cdda2wav: For possible targets try 'wodim -scanbus'. Make sure you are root. Use the script scan_scsi.linux to find out more. Probably you did not define your SCSI device. Set the CDDA_DEVICE environment variable or use the -D option. You can also define the default device in the Makefile. For possible transport specifiers try 'wodim dev=help'. Then I tried: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/music $ cdda2wav -e -N -B -D /dev/cdrom with much success. So I guess various programs probably try to play the wrong device. How do I point them to the correct one? On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. I'd check this first. If this is a laptop, it might well be that the connection between the two subsystems was left out intentionally by the manufacturer to save a couple of cents. Some do that. :-( I am having the same problem -- but additionally my CDROM has no place to even put such a cable -- at least according to the person who actually put the machine together. I have not opened up the box to check, but if so, what can I do to play cds? It is most inlikely that thius is related to this cable I recommend you to get a recent cdrtools (e.g. from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/) and install cdda2wav suid root. Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. Otherwise you see human readble error messages that point you to the problem. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED][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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 26 June 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote: A more general problem is the license incompatibility with libcdio. Sun dropped libcdio already a year ago after Sun lawyers detected the problem and I expect that Linux distros will do the same soon. Could you elaborate a little on what the license incompatibility is? First, libcdio had an illegal license change: the authors took a lot of the code from cdrtools and claim that their code (e.g. derived from cdda2wav) is GPLv2-or-any-later. Well, not a single file from cdda2wav has ever been released under this license. If we ignore this, we come to the problem identified by the Sun lawyers: If you run sound-juicer, then gstreamer (being LGPL) loads and calls libcdio which is GPL. This is not allowed by the GPL. GPL and LGPL are incompatible. While the GPL is asymmetric and allows GPL code to call code under any license, GPLd code is not allowed to be called from non-GPL code. The LGPL has a cure for this problem but if you try to use it, you even come into more problems: The LGPL allows you to change your local copy of code from LGPL to GPL, but this change is irreversible and valid to your local copy and all copies taken from this code. If you did do the change, you would end up in a bunch of GPL libraries that cannot be used anymore by non-GPL code, making your distro unusable. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Yoav Luft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, it works! this what I did: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~/music $ cdda2wav -e -N -B cdda2wav: No such file or directory. Cannot open '-1'. Cannot open SCSI driver. cdda2wav: For possible targets try 'wodim -scanbus'. Make sure you are root. Use the script scan_scsi.linux to find out more. This is not cdda2wav, but a defective and very putdated fork - don't use it. The real cdda2wav does not need the device parameter if yo only have one CD-ROM in your system. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 26 June 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote: A more general problem is the license incompatibility with libcdio. Sun dropped libcdio already a year ago after Sun lawyers detected the problem and I expect that Linux distros will do the same soon. Could you elaborate a little on what the license incompatibility is? First, libcdio had an illegal license change... Since you now appear to be answering license questions, could I trouble you, please, to address this query? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/200045 Thanks in advance, Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Friday 27 June 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote: If we ignore this, we come to the problem identified by the Sun lawyers: If you run sound-juicer, then gstreamer (being LGPL) loads and calls libcdio which is GPL. This is not allowed by the GPL. GPL and LGPL are incompatible. Thanks for the explanation -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:57, Joerg Schilling wrote: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 26 June 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote: A more general problem is the license incompatibility with libcdio. Sun dropped libcdio already a year ago after Sun lawyers detected the problem and I expect that Linux distros will do the same soon. Could you elaborate a little on what the license incompatibility is? First, libcdio had an illegal license change... Since you now appear to be answering license questions, could I trouble you, please, to address this query? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/200045 If you like to have a serious answer, do not include pointers to nonserious articles like this one: http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/ Sorry, Joerg. I only included that article because it came up when I searched for cdrecord license problem. Perhaps you could overlook my ignorance just this once and explain why you chose to migrate your software from the GPL to the CDDL (or to a CDDL-alike license). To a naive reader, with only that article to go on, it does seem to be that action of yours which instigated distros dropping your software for the alternative. I'm sure, as you say, this was unjustified on their part, however some background on your choice might be helpful. Stroller. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 27 Jun 2008, at 10:25, Joerg Schilling wrote: Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 26 June 2008, Joerg Schilling wrote: A more general problem is the license incompatibility with libcdio. Sun dropped libcdio already a year ago after Sun lawyers detected the problem and I expect that Linux distros will do the same soon. Could you elaborate a little on what the license incompatibility is? First, libcdio had an illegal license change... Since you now appear to be answering license questions, could I trouble you, please, to address this query? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/200045 If you like to have a serious answer, do not include pointers to nonserious articles like this one: http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/ 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:57:43 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: Stroller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since you now appear to be answering license questions, could I trouble you, please, to address this query? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/200045 If you like to have a serious answer, do not include pointers to nonserious articles like this one: http://lwn.net/Articles/195167/ Jörg Jörg, The question is valid and interesting, moreover it is asked very kindly. I can't see what possibly might be preventing you to answer the same way. Let me rephrase the original question w/o pointers to any external sources to avoid unintentional offending you: Why do you use a modified CDDL license? What are the advantages of this license over GPL? Please, be assured that there is no single piece of sarcasm in those questions and my intention is not to blame you for anything. Those are a real questions, expressing sincere curiosity. I'm looking forward to reading your response. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is valid and interesting, moreover it is asked very kindly. I can't see what possibly might be preventing you to answer the same way. I did answer these questions many times before and in many cases I have later been attacked. The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples incorrect articles) before asking? Let me rephrase the original question w/o pointers to any external sources to avoid unintentional offending you: Why do you use a modified CDDL license? What are the advantages of this license over GPL? What do you call a modified CDDL license and why do you believe there is a modified CDDL license? Do you know the history? Do you know that since summer 2004, some people (those people who now stand behind wodim) started to attack the cdrtools project? 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling ha scritto: The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples incorrect articles) before asking? Absolutely yes, I'd answer them even *more eagerly* than to others. What's the point in telling things to people that already know/agree with those things? The best way to get people on understanding your point of view is to honestly explaining facts, instead of seeing menaces, FUD and snakeoil everywhere. There is no conspiracy against you, Joerg. Do you know the history? Do you know that since summer 2004, some people (those people who now stand behind wodim) started to attack the cdrtools project? *Before* or *after* changing license? m. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:20:50 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Schilling) wrote: Daniel Iliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is valid and interesting, moreover it is asked very kindly. I can't see what possibly might be preventing you to answer the same way. I did answer these questions many times before and in many cases I have later been attacked. The URLs mentioned did point to disinformation from lwn.net that should be easily identifyable as incorrect claims. If such URLs are published without comment, I asume that the questionair believes the incorrect claims from lwn.net. Would you answer people if they make untrue claims (e.g. by giving uncommented pointers to other peoples incorrect articles) before asking? No, this is your assumption. Mine is the opposite - as I see it, the question is very real and the author admitted that he found those URLs using Google which implies he had nothing to do them. ...And yes, I second to b.n. - I'd be explaining my position and I'd be answering every single question if I wanted the people to take my side. Even if the question is asked on purpose, it is better to answer with reason instead of flaming. Why do you use a modified CDDL license? What are the advantages of this license over GPL? What do you call a modified CDDL license and why do you believe there is a modified CDDL license? Answering the question with question? (obviously I can do that too :D) Seriously, eix -v cdrtools gives GPL-2 LGPL-2.1 CDDL-Schily. I assumed you want the package released under your own licence based on the Sun's CDDL. Do you know the history? Do you know that since summer 2004, some people (those people who now stand behind wodim) started to attack the cdrtools project? No, I've never heard about the problem before I saw your posts to this list several months ago, but I really care to see your side of the story. First it would be interesting, second more effective for your cause and third it would hopefully cease your current practice to hijack every optical media related thread on this list and send spam that advertises your product (cdrtools). I mean no offense, but allow me to be blunt. This practice of yours is not only extremely annoying, but it is also very unwise because it backfires - instead of making people understand your problem, now you have a list of annoyed Gentoo fans. The history. Well, I did some searching myself and here's the picture I see from what I managed to find in The Internet. You want to use the CDDL. On the other hand you can't release the whole project under CDDL, because there are parts written by other people who had released their work under GPL before you took the project. So, you dual-licensed the package, releasing the parts you have written by yourself as CDDL and the others w/o changing the license. (How am I doing so far?) Some Debian maintainers saw a problem because CDDL is not compatible with GNU GPL and they made the fork cdrkit. As I understand it the legal problem is when it comes to the binaries produced from your sources because their distribution will violate the GNU GPL. That's why most of the binary distros dropped your packet. On the other hand Gentoo and the other source based distros don't have the same problem, because they don't distribute binaries. All of this made you like Gentoo and hate Debian and especially the those behind the fork. Now, if you have the good will, please, do correct me and tell us your version of the story. -- Best regards, Daniel -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 06:53:24 +0100, Stroller wrote: As it bloody well should be. An analogue cable is not fixing the problem. It has for years been possible to play music from a CD-ROM connected by only the EIDE cable. Although some CD player software needs to be explicitly told to use this method. But this isn't the problem anyway,because the OP also stated that he cannot rip audio CDs, so it is a problem with reading the CDDA data from the drive, not playing it. -- Neil Bothwick Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. I'd check this first. If this is a laptop, it might well be that the connection between the two subsystems was left out intentionally by the manufacturer to save a couple of cents. Some do that. :-( I am having the same problem -- but additionally my CDROM has no place to even put such a cable -- at least according to the person who actually put the machine together. I have not opened up the box to check, but if so, what can I do to play cds? It is most inlikely that thius is related to this cable I recommend you to get a recent cdrtools (e.g. from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/) and install cdda2wav suid root. Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. Otherwise you see human readble error messages that point you to the problem. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
W.Kenworthy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some (and only some) multimedia audio broke in the last few of updates on two of my systems with cmi chipsets - I had to select IEC958 Monitor before I got sound back. Might be the same thing. and no, I am not using digital output. If this doesnt help you, might help someone else as it was a pita to find the cause as I am not using the digital outputs from the card. The OP claimed that he cannot even extract audio from his drive... This does not make it very probable that the problem is in the audio driver. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
on Thursday 06/26/2008 Joerg Schilling([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. I'd check this first. If this is a laptop, it might well be that the connection between the two subsystems was left out intentionally by the manufacturer to save a couple of cents. Some do that. :-( I am having the same problem -- but additionally my CDROM has no place to even put such a cable -- at least according to the person who actually put the machine together. I have not opened up the box to check, but if so, what can I do to play cds? It is most inlikely that thius is related to this cable I recommend you to get a recent cdrtools (e.g. from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/) and install cdda2wav suid root. Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. Otherwise you see human readble error messages that point you to the problem. Jörg OK, we are now getting somewhere, I did hear sound out of that, now that is interesting, but how does this work -- does it not copy the file or is it playing from the drive? I have cdcd and it thinks its playing, bu I hear nothing. Also, I can't get mplayer to do anyting, it thinks the url is wrong or something, so this is more complicated. Thanks much. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recommend you to get a recent cdrtools (e.g. from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/) and install cdda2wav suid root. Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. Otherwise you see human readble error messages that point you to the problem. Jörg OK, we are now getting somewhere, I did hear sound out of that, now that is interesting, but how does this work -- does it not copy the file or is it playing from the drive? I have cdcd and it thinks its playing, bu I hear nothing. Also, I can't get mplayer to do anyting, it thinks the url is wrong or something, so this is more complicated. cdda2wav does things as they should be done ;-) There are many possible reasons for your problems. A big problem is that on Linux _some_ SCSI commands may be send to drives without haveing root privileges and developers created GUI tools that did things that will not work on other platforms and that will not even work for all drives on Linux. If the applications that does not work does not tell you why, you are lost. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
on Thursday 06/26/2008 Joerg Schilling([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recommend you to get a recent cdrtools (e.g. from ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/) and install cdda2wav suid root. Then call: cdda2wav -e -N -B If everything is OK, then you will be able to listen to the music. Otherwise you see human readble error messages that point you to the problem. Jörg OK, we are now getting somewhere, I did hear sound out of that, now that is interesting, but how does this work -- does it not copy the file or is it playing from the drive? I have cdcd and it thinks its playing, bu I hear nothing. Also, I can't get mplayer to do anyting, it thinks the url is wrong or something, so this is more complicated. cdda2wav does things as they should be done ;-) There are many possible reasons for your problems. A big problem is that on Linux _some_ SCSI commands may be send to drives without haveing root privileges and developers created GUI tools that did things that will not work on other platforms and that will not even work for all drives on Linux. If the applications that does not work does not tell you why, you are lost. Well, cdcd is what I would like to use, it thinks it is playing, and did work when I had a driv with that cable, but I hear no sound now. I think it is reading the data off of the cd and I guess its not doing the correct thing with it. Can you recomend a console player with some features like rewind, fast forward, pause and title lookup, etc -- I don't mind changing if I need to change. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, cdcd is what I would like to use, it thinks it is playing, and did work when I had a driv with that cable, but I hear no sound now. I think it is reading the data off of the cd and I guess its not doing the correct thing with it. Can you recomend a console player with some features like rewind, fast forward, pause and title lookup, etc -- I don't mind changing if I need to change. Sun lawyewrs found a legal problem with libcdio. I am just working on a legal replacement for libcdio together with some GOME developers from Sun. This will be based on a wrapper around cdda2wav. If your problem is reading from CD, this will fix the problems but it will take ~ 1-2 weeks to finish. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
John covici wrote: Can you recomend a console player with some features like rewind, fast forward, pause and title lookup, etc -- I don't mind changing if I need to change. Not a console player, but totem plays cds and movies with minimum of fuss, and if you have the complete Gnome install then it is just there. Cheers Mark -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
I wrote: Not a console player, but totem plays cds and movies with minimum of fuss, and if you have the complete Gnome install then it is just there. Actually, I am completely mistaken...it's sound-juicer that is playing the cd I'm listening to right now (I usually listen to streaming mp3s that *are* played by totem)... sorry for the confusion! best wishes Mark -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: Not a console player, but totem plays cds and movies with minimum of fuss, and if you have the complete Gnome install then it is just there. Actually, I am completely mistaken...it's sound-juicer that is playing the cd I'm listening to right now (I usually listen to streaming mp3s that *are* played by totem)... sorry for the confusion! sound-juicer has several problems: - it depends on gstreamer/libcdio which is not a logal code combination. - It uses libmusicbrainz to extract the TOC and gets wrong TOC information for CD-extra, then tries to play data tracks. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
on Thursday 06/26/2008 Joerg Schilling([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: Not a console player, but totem plays cds and movies with minimum of fuss, and if you have the complete Gnome install then it is just there. Actually, I am completely mistaken...it's sound-juicer that is playing the cd I'm listening to right now (I usually listen to streaming mp3s that *are* played by totem)... sorry for the confusion! sound-juicer has several problems: -it depends on gstreamer/libcdio which is not a logal code combination. -It uses libmusicbrainz to extract the TOC and gets wrong TOC information for CD-extra, then tries to play data tracks. And it wants a non-existent library libesdat.so.0 -- I await the player you are working on, but a text console version would be very convenient. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote: This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. you don't need that cable. Really. You don't. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
John covici [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it wants a non-existent library libesdat.so.0 -- I await the player you are working on, but a text console version would be very convenient. cdda2wav has an interactive mode since yesterday. Check 2.01.01a42 call: cdda2wav -e -N -B to play all tracks non-interactive or call cdda2wav -e -N -interactive if you then enter e.g. read tracks 3 it will play from track 3. You may enter any new command while it is playing. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:06:18 -0400, John covici wrote: Well, cdcd is what I would like to use, it thinks it is playing, and did work when I had a driv with that cable, but I hear no sound now. I think it is reading the data off of the cd and I guess its not doing the correct thing with it. Does it work if you run it as root? -- Neil Bothwick Walk softly and carry a fully charged phazer. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote: This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. you don't need that cable. Really. You don't. Sure. Some software can rip tracks off the CD in the background and feed the sound subsystem with them. But it uses a lot of CPU. I rather have the cable. ;-) Uwe -- Ignorance killed the cat, sir, curiosity was framed! -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Uwe Thiem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 26 June 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Uwe Thiem wrote: This looks like the two-wire cable between the CD ROM and your soundcard is missing or loose. you don't need that cable. Really. You don't. Sure. Some software can rip tracks off the CD in the background and feed the sound subsystem with them. But it uses a lot of CPU. I Not true. The CPU time for ripping and playing can be neglected if done correctly. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling wrote: sound-juicer has several problems: - it depends on gstreamer/libcdio which is not a logal code combination. - It uses libmusicbrainz to extract the TOC and gets wrong TOC information for CD-extra, then tries to play data tracks. No doubt true (as you clearly know about this stuff), however: - Irrelevant to me as it plays the cds as required (thats *all* it need to do). - An enhanced cd with data tracks etc is not actually a cd according the Phillip spec... While it may be that your player will be superior when it comes out, I'm happy listening to music now... Best wishes Mark -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: sound-juicer has several problems: - it depends on gstreamer/libcdio which is not a logal code combination. - It uses libmusicbrainz to extract the TOC and gets wrong TOC information for CD-extra, then tries to play data tracks. No doubt true (as you clearly know about this stuff), however: - Irrelevant to me as it plays the cds as required (thats *all* it need to do). - An enhanced cd with data tracks etc is not actually a cd according the Phillip spec... Well, it is on the Philips specs and is called CD+ or CDextra. A more general problem is the license incompatibility with libcdio. Sun dropped libcdio already a year ago after Sun lawyers detected the problem and I expect that Linux distros will do the same soon. 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 -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] CD ROM does not play audio CD's
Joerg Schilling wrote: Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - An enhanced cd with data tracks etc is not actually a cd according the Phillip spec... Well, it is on the Philips specs and is called CD+ or CDextra. Thanks Joerg - you are correct, I was not aware of the addition to the spec that allowed this (Blue Book vs Red Book spec I think?). Also I suspect I'd confused this with the copy protection additions and other stuff that really does break (either) spec... Cheers Mark -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
