grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
Hi! I have an IDE CD-ROM Drive. It is found on the same IDE interface as a DVD Drive + CD-Rom Burner, which is a different interface than the hard-disks' one. When I use grip 3.0.7 to rip+encode a music CD, it rips it at about 4x, while the CD-ROM drive is 52x. I already used hdparm -E 52 /dev/hdd on the drive and in Windows FreeRIP rips at close to full speed. How can I rip at full speed using grip? Regards, Shlomi Fish -- Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting its license changed. Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
Hi Shlomi, 1. Is the other drive (DVD/CDR) idle during the ripping? IDE is not as efficient as SCSI with regard to multiple devices using the IDE bus at the same time. 2. Please send hdparm -i / -v output. 3. Which format do you encode to? What is the CPU usage of the encoding process? Are you CPU bound or IO bound? Shachar Tal Verint Systems -Original Message- From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 1:39 PM To: Linux-IL Subject: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed Hi! I have an IDE CD-ROM Drive. It is found on the same IDE interface as a DVD Drive + CD-Rom Burner, which is a different interface than the hard-disks' one. When I use grip 3.0.7 to rip+encode a music CD, it rips it at about 4x, while the CD-ROM drive is 52x. I already used hdparm -E 52 /dev/hdd on the drive and in Windows FreeRIP rips at close to full speed. How can I rip at full speed using grip? Regards, Shlomi Fish -- Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting its license changed. Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi Shlomi,
1. Is the other drive (DVD/CDR) idle during the ripping? IDE is not as
efficient as SCSI with regard to multiple devices using the IDE bus at the
same time.
Yes, there's nothing in the other drive.
2. Please send hdparm -i / -v output.
# hdparm -i /dev/hdd
/dev/hdd:
Model=ATAPI-CD ROM-DRIVE-52MAX, FwRev=VER 52AI, SerialNo=
Config={ Fixed Removeable DTR=5Mbs DTR10Mbs nonMagnetic }
RawCHS=0/0/0, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=0
BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=0
(maybe): CurCHS=0/0/0, CurSects=0, LBA=yes, LBAsects=0
IORDY=yes, tPIO={min:227,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:150}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 *udma2
AdvancedPM=no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] shlomi]#
# hdparm -v /dev/hdd
/dev/hdd:
HDIO_GET_MULTCOUNT failed: Invalid argument
IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq= 0 (off)
using_dma= 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 1 (on)
readahead= 8 (on)
HDIO_GETGEO failed: Invalid argument
3. Which format do you encode to? What isthe CPU usage of the encoding
process? Are you CPU bound or IO bound?
I think I'm ripping to WAVs, and know I encode to mp3. The encoding
process runs at 10x, and even before any encoding starts it is still a
slow ripping. Even a rip only rips at 5.4x.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Shachar Tal
Verint Systems
-Original Message-
From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Linux-IL
Subject: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
Hi!
I have an IDE CD-ROM Drive. It is found on the same IDE interface as a
DVD Drive + CD-Rom Burner, which is a different interface than the
hard-disks' one.
When I use grip 3.0.7to rip+encode a music CD, it rips it at about 4x,
while the CD-ROM drive is 52x. I already used hdparm -E 52 /dev/hdd on the
drive and in Windows FreeRIP rips at close to full speed.
How can I rip at full speed using grip?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than
getting
its license changed.
Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may
be privileged and confidential.The information is intended to be for the
use of the individual(s)or entity named above.If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
contents of this information is prohibited.If you have received this
electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email.
--
Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting
its license changed.
Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
I see nothing that may be the cause of this problem. Try increasing the
read-ahead size (# of sectors to read ahead, upon each request). It makes
sense on sequential access.
Shachar Tal
Verint Systems
-Original Message-
From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 2:10 PM
To: Tal, Shachar
Cc: Linux-IL
Subject: RE: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote:
Hi Shlomi,
1. Is the other drive (DVD/CDR) idle during the ripping? IDE is not as
efficient as SCSI with regard to multiple devices using the IDE bus at the
same time.
Yes, there's nothing in the other drive.
2. Please send hdparm -i / -v output.
# hdparm -i /dev/hdd
/dev/hdd:
Model=ATAPI-CD ROM-DRIVE-52MAX, FwRev=VER 52AI, SerialNo=
Config={ Fixed Removeable DTR=5Mbs DTR10Mbs nonMagnetic }
RawCHS=0/0/0, TrkSize=0, SectSize=0, ECCbytes=0
BuffType=unknown, BuffSize=0kB, MaxMultSect=0
(maybe): CurCHS=0/0/0, CurSects=0, LBA=yes, LBAsects=0
IORDY=yes, tPIO={min:227,w/IORDY:120}, tDMA={min:120,rec:150}
PIO modes: pio0 pio1 pio2 pio3 pio4
DMA modes: mdma0 mdma1 mdma2
UDMA modes: udma0 udma1 *udma2
AdvancedPM=no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] shlomi]#
# hdparm -v /dev/hdd
/dev/hdd:
HDIO_GET_MULTCOUNT failed: Invalid argument
IO_support = 0 (default 16-bit)
unmaskirq= 0 (off)
using_dma= 1 (on)
keepsettings = 0 (off)
readonly = 1 (on)
readahead= 8 (on)
HDIO_GETGEO failed: Invalid argument
3. Which format do you encode to? What isthe CPU usage of the encoding
process? Are you CPU bound or IO bound?
I think I'm ripping to WAVs, and know I encode to mp3. The encoding
process runs at 10x, and even before any encoding starts it is still a
slow ripping. Even a rip only rips at 5.4x.
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
Shachar Tal
Verint Systems
-Original Message-
From: Shlomi Fish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 1:39 PM
To: Linux-IL
Subject: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
Hi!
I have an IDE CD-ROM Drive. It is found on the same IDE interface as a
DVD Drive + CD-Rom Burner, which is a different interface than the
hard-disks' one.
When I use grip 3.0.7to rip+encode a music CD, it rips it at about 4x,
while the CD-ROM drive is 52x. I already used hdparm -E 52 /dev/hdd on the
drive and in Windows FreeRIP rips at close to full speed.
How can I rip at full speed using grip?
Regards,
Shlomi Fish
--
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than
getting
its license changed.
Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which
may
be privileged and confidential.The information is intended to be for the
use of the individual(s)or entity named above.If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the
contents of this information is prohibited.If you have received this
electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email.
--
Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than
getting
its license changed.
Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic.
This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may
be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the
use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this
electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email.
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote: When I use grip 3.0.7 to rip+encode a music CD, it rips it at about 4x, while the CD-ROM drive is 52x. I already used hdparm -E 52 /dev/hdd on the drive and in Windows FreeRIP rips at close to full speed. How can I rip at full speed using grip? Did you try to run man grip? Especially look at the options: Disable paranoia Disable extra paranoia Disable scratch detection Disable scratch repair For more details about this (and testing cdda ripping with more info about what goes on), try using cdparanoia from the command line. -- Matan Ziv-Av. [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed
From: Matan Ziv-Av [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Linux-IL [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: grip rips at 4x speed instead of close to CD-ROM full-speed Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 14:24:24 +0200 (IST) On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Shlomi Fish wrote: When I use grip 3.0.7 to rip+encode a music CD, it rips it at about 4x, while the CD-ROM drive is 52x. I already used hdparm -E 52 /dev/hdd on the drive and in Windows FreeRIP rips at close to full speed. How can I rip at full speed using grip? Did you try to run man grip? Especially look at the options: Disable paranoia Disable extra paranoia Disable scratch detection Disable scratch repair For more details about this (and testing cdda ripping with more info about what goes on), try using cdparanoia from the command line. -- Matan Ziv-Av. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Continuing Matan's advice I recall seeing as part of grip's user documentation some mentioning about why does it rip so slow compared to Windows. Iirc, the solution had to do with scsi emulation but I don't remember exactly how. I'd suggest googling on grip and scsi and you are bound to find your answer. Hope this helps, Yosi _ On the move? Get Hotmail on your mobile phone http://www.msn.co.uk/msnmobile = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
new gideon/kdevelop3 packages
Hi, I have been compiling for some time gideon/kdevelop3 from cvs into rpms. The packages as well as the program it self are quite mature, so I think it's time to spam this list a little more. The packages were compiled on a stock Mandrake 9.1 and tested under 9.2, so both distors can use them. (redhat may work, if you try please comment, the same applies for suse ). %changelog * Sat Oct 25 2003 el cuco [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Fixed version (now it's [Y][M][D], better for incremental updates) - Cleaned the spec even more - Now you can compile your own rpm :) - Fix qt-doc dir - Updated description The most significant change is that you can now get the spec file and run rpm -bb kdevelop3cvs.spec and you will get your own rpm, which contains the latest cvs. I have tested once or twice and it seems to work (TM). todo for next version: * fix the icon problem (the app does not have an icon for some reason) * compile also the dot program. apparently I am missing some functionality. Here are the links: http://iglu.org.il/pub/Hebrew/diego/kdevelop/ http://iglu.org.il/pub/Hebrew/diego/kdevelop/kdevelop-3.0-cvs_20031026.i586.rpm http://iglu.org.il/pub/Hebrew/diego/kdevelop/kdevelop3cvs.spec -- diego, 30 Tishrey 5764 Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Converting to the new samba
Hi,
The solution is very simple, you need to convert the Hebrew file names on the
server to UTF-8 encoded.
Here is a script adopted from the SAMBA docs:
find /path/to/share -type f -exec bash -c 'CP={}; ISO=`echo -n $CP | \
iconv -f cp862 -t UTF-8`; if [ $CP != $ISO ]; then mv $CP \
$ISO; fi' \;
Bye
Gal
On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:07, Dotan Mazor wrote:
Well, you could try to write utf-8 instead of utf. I didn't have to
change anything, but then, I got all my Hebrew files changed to undescores
(like this: .___), which made me brake a few chairs.
Oh well, I guess you better take advices from someone who knows at least a
bit of what he's talking about...
Dotan
---
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:25:03 +0200, Ben-Nes Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi All Shana Tova
im trying to move my files from samba 2.x to 3.x version.
I mounted the old samba on /mnt/oldsmb but I couldn't find how to tell
it to
load it as utf ( on the Linux side ) and I just get gibberish on console,
win$ putty.
I think its something with the charset but I couldn't find the right
combination:
mount -t smbfs -o iocharset=he_IL.utf,codepage=win1255 //Share2/documents
/mnt/oldsmb/
--
Canaan Surfing Ltd.
Internet Service Providers
Ben-Nes Michael - Manager
Tel: 972-4-6991122
Fax: 972-4-6990098
http://www.canaan.net.il
--
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
Ahoy, On 2003/10/26 21:33, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:15, Eran Tromer wrote: The distiction is anything but simple. [snip] My answer was given in the form of two separate paragraphs and such a choice of lexical structure usually denotes two separate subjects are discussed. Indeed, such was the case with my answer but you seemed to have missed this completely. My first sentance (The distiction is anything but simple.) refers to your first paragraph. The rest of my reply refers to your second paragraph. Indeed, I neglected to employ appropriate lexical constructs and quoting conventions, leading to the present misunderstanding. I must insist, however, that the definition of derivative work, though indeed external to the GPL, is far from trivial in our case. Moreover, the GPL further muddies the water in its Section 2 paragraph 5 (not paragraph 4 as I said earlier; that was an off-by-one): --- These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. --- You could argue that the above is already implied by copyright law and its effect is thus null; however, I strongly doubt that holds for every country on the globe, and surely subtle differences of phrase can be put to great employ by those so inclined. However - since, as you mentioned, the original composer of the copyright license publicly stated that they accept these heuristics to be correct, at least in the general case, we can just as well treat them as correct in the sense that anything that the FSF considers to NOT be a derived work, isn't. Why should this holds when the copyright owners is not the FSF? By using the GPL the author does not grant the FSF any special status other than the ability to (formally!) issue new versions of the GPL. It could be argued that the ability to revise implies the ability to force an interpretation; this may have merit in some jursdictions, but is again far from simple. And please don't bring that stupid myth that the GPL is not 100% enforceable because it was not tested in a courtroom - the fact that it never GOT to a courtroom despite numerous incidents with big multinational companies with loads of cash and hordes of lawyers who mistakingly (or not) violated the license and settled with the FSF (the single exception where the GPL got to a courtroom is the MySQL case, where AFAIK the issue of whether the GPL holds was never raised) speaks more loudly then a thousand courts - the GPL is as enforceable as any contract can be. I didn't intend to bring up that myth (which, truth be said, doesn't seem very relevant to the discussion). Accepting your rebuttal, however, re-raises the opposite issue. Recall the hazy language used in the GPL, and consider -- if hordes of lawyers had so little doubt that linking is covered, then someone with lesser resources will have a hard time defending his use of (say) a pipe interface to a GPL program whose copyrights are owned by a non-FSF zealot. Eran = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: On Sunday 26 October 2003 23:38, Shachar Shemesh wrote: The GPL, by design, is not a contract. As such, you must bring yourself under its influence by wishing to distribute copyrighted work for which the GPL was declared as a license. I'm not lawyer and I might be dead wrong here, but for the best of my knowledge, the GPL is a contract by all accounts. This specific contract states that if you abide by the terms specified in it then, and only then, you are given a license by the copyright which is a party to the contract to distribute the copyrighted work in question. The one thing which is special about this this contract is the fact that for a contract to be in force, one must prove among other things that the parties accept it's terms, hence contracts are usually signed so as to establish that both parties accept the terms. With the GPL, however , this is not needed because only by accepting the terms of the contract and agreeing to be bound by it you can get the license to distribute the copyright work in question. The act of distributing the work implictly denotes acceptance of the terms of the GPL contract. That's right. If you happen not to accept the license, you should follow the local copyright laws. Again: I am not lawyer and I might be dead wrong, but this is what I think I know about this stuff. Gilad. behdad, = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 08:15:56PM +0200, Eran Tromer wrote: As for the distinction you propose: what's the essential difference between use via loadable libraries and and use via pipe commands? In one case, you're using the application as it was planned to be used by a user. In the other case, you're using it as it was planned to be used by a developer. Users have to abide by certain rules; developers - by others. Either can be easily used to simulate the other (at least in the normal case where the library and app don't share memory buffers and such), so the two cases are equivalent up to overhead. Equivalent from a technical standpoint, but different from an intent to use standpoint. Put otherwise, if pipes block GPLness then I can just put a pipe-based RPC wrapper around the GPL library (using CORBA or RMI or custom code or whatever) and voila, it can be used in in proprietary programs. Somewhat odd. You're right, and people have been doing this sort of thing for many years with mixed open source / binary only kernel modules, for example. -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://www.livejournal.com/~mulix the nucleus of linux oscillates my world - [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GPL Licensing Question
Eran Tromer wrote: Ahoy, On 2003/10/26 21:33, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:15, Eran Tromer wrote: The distiction is anything but simple. [snip] My answer was given in the form of two separate paragraphs and such a choice of lexical structure usually denotes two separate subjects are discussed. Indeed, such was the case with my answer but you seemed to have missed this completely. My first sentance (The distiction is anything but simple.) refers to your first paragraph. The rest of my reply refers to your second paragraph. Indeed, I neglected to employ appropriate lexical constructs and quoting conventions, leading to the present misunderstanding. I must insist, however, that the definition of derivative work, though indeed external to the GPL, is far from trivial in our case. Moreover, the GPL further muddies the water in its Section 2 paragraph 5 (not paragraph 4 as I said earlier; that was an off-by-one): --- These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. --- You could argue that the above is already implied by copyright law and its effect is thus null; however, I strongly doubt that holds for every country on the globe, and surely subtle differences of phrase can be put to great employ by those so inclined. The GPL, by design, is not a contract. As such, you must bring yourself under its influence by wishing to distribute copyrighted work for which the GPL was declared as a license. As such, derivative work can only be defined by the copyright laws applicable to whatever jurisdiction may apply to your case. You are right that it is not clear cut, but that is inherent to copyright laws, and nothing the GPL can do anything about. There is one thing, as Gilad already mentioned, that the copyright holders CAN do about that. If the copyright holders define a certain activity to NOT be derived work, it will be accepted by everyone not to be considered derived work. Anything else is just laweyrs and businessmen doing what they have been doing for the past decade, instead of developing software and business plans. For more info and views, I can offer you the following links: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6366 - what is derivative work http://www.ilaw.com.au/public/licencearticle.html - Problems with open source licenses, as applies to Australian laws. Has an interesting idea as to why free software writers should be payed. Why should this holds when the copyright owners is not the FSF? s/FSF/Copyright holder/ For example - the Linux kernel specifically says that user space applications are not derivative work, so they are not. End of story. I didn't intend to bring up that myth (which, truth be said, doesn't seem very relevant to the discussion). Accepting your rebuttal, however, re-raises the opposite issue. Recall the hazy language used in the GPL, and consider -- if hordes of lawyers had so little doubt that linking is covered, then someone with lesser resources will have a hard time defending his use of (say) a pipe interface to a GPL program whose copyrights are owned by a non-FSF zealot. I guess this is a cost effectiveness tradeoff. Some say you may, some say you may not. The FSF will tell you that if an interface is well publicised, they will make their libraries LGPL anyways. The general drift is torwards creating licenses that explicitly allow use where it's obvious it's allowed anyways (consider Wine? Does anyone think that a Windows program becomes derivative work of Wine, merely because it's run on Linux? So wine gets a LGPL license to allow what's allowed anyhow). Eran Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPL Licensing Question
Hi all, I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine: That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e. not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or LAM/MPICH), while keeping his server implementation, protocol implementation and part of client code proprietary, in order to actually make money off the software. Does that conform to the GNU Public License? How much of the code does the customer have to release under the GPL? I know some of you are going to start your responses with IANAL, but ..., I know most of you aren't. Just give me your best shot, and I'll take the majority's opinion to the customer, along with a very warm recommendation to actually see a lawyer. Thanks, Shachar. This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sunday 26 October 2003 23:38, Shachar Shemesh wrote: The GPL, by design, is not a contract. As such, you must bring yourself under its influence by wishing to distribute copyrighted work for which the GPL was declared as a license. I'm not lawyer and I might be dead wrong here, but for the best of my knowledge, the GPL is a contract by all accounts. This specific contract states that if you abide by the terms specified in it then, and only then, you are given a license by the copyright which is a party to the contract to distribute the copyrighted work in question. The one thing which is special about this this contract is the fact that for a contract to be in force, one must prove among other things that the parties accept it's terms, hence contracts are usually signed so as to establish that both parties accept the terms. With the GPL, however , this is not needed because only by accepting the terms of the contract and agreeing to be bound by it you can get the license to distribute the copyright work in question. The act of distributing the work implictly denotes acceptance of the terms of the GPL contract. Again: I am not lawyer and I might be dead wrong, but this is what I think I know about this stuff. Gilad. -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://benyossef.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On 2003/10/26 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: The distinction is very simple - whatever code that is a derived work from the GPLed parts (and assuming they are *GPLed* and not, LGPLed, for example) can only be distributed under the GPL license by him. In practice what this usually boils down to in most cases is that if it's code that is linked in any way (via using a loadable library, using a static library, copy paste from the sources etc.) to GPLed code then it too falls under the GPL. If you're using the GPLed software in some other way (sending commands from a propritery program via a pipe, executing the GPLed program and using the results, making use of normal well defined generic interfaces such as system calls) then your client code is not derived work and he has no obligation concerning his own code in this case. The GPL still applies on the GPLed parts though. The distiction is anything but simple. The above seems in line with the stand FSF has expressed in such matters (in the relevant FAQ and various other opportunities). Alas, while the FSF's interpretation of the GPL is socially binding in some circles, its legal status is close to null. The the GPL itself is far from such concreteness, and in fact carefully avoids any technical definitions (see Section 2 paragraph 4). As for the distinction you propose: what's the essential difference between use via loadable libraries and and use via pipe commands? Either can be easily used to simulate the other (at least in the normal case where the library and app don't share memory buffers and such), so the two cases are equivalent up to overhead. Put otherwise, if pipes block GPLness then I can just put a pipe-based RPC wrapper around the GPL library (using CORBA or RMI or custom code or whatever) and voila, it can be used in in proprietary programs. Somewhat odd. Eran = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sunday 26 October 2003 16:26, Tal, Shachar wrote: Hi all, I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine: That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e. not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or LAM/MPICH), while keeping his server implementation, protocol implementation and part of client code proprietary, in order to actually make money off the software. Does that conform to the GNU Public License? How much of the code does the customer have to release under the GPL? I know some of you are going to start your responses with IANAL, but ..., I know most of you aren't. Just give me your best shot, and I'll take the majority's opinion to the customer, along with a very warm recommendation to actually see a lawyer. [ Insert the normal IANAL/TINLA disclaimer here ] :-) The distinction is very simple - whatever code that is a derived work from the GPLed parts (and assuming they are *GPLed* and not, LGPLed, for example) can only be distributed under the GPL license by him. In practice what this usually boils down to in most cases is that if it's code that is linked in any way (via using a loadable library, using a static library, copy paste from the sources etc.) to GPLed code then it too falls under the GPL. If you're using the GPLed software in some other way (sending commands from a propritery program via a pipe, executing the GPLed program and using the results, making use of normal well defined generic interfaces such as system calls) then your client code is not derived work and he has no obligation concerning his own code in this case. The GPL still applies on the GPLed parts though. Gilad. -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm) http://www.codefidence.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sunday 26 October 2003 22:23, Eran Tromer wrote: My first sentance (The distiction is anything but simple.) refers to your first paragraph. The rest of my reply refers to your second paragraph. Indeed, I neglected to employ appropriate lexical constructs and quoting conventions, leading to the present misunderstanding. Whatever :-) I must insist, however, that the definition of derivative work, though indeed external to the GPL, is far from trivial in our case. Moreover, the GPL further muddies the water in its Section 2 paragraph 5 (not paragraph 4 as I said earlier; that was an off-by-one): Ok, maybe I should have said: as simple, or complicated, as the distinction between derived work in any other case of copyright law :-) --- These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. --- There is nothing at all muddy about this. Copyright law has the concept of aggregated work and collections as seperate and licensable works in their own right apart (or in addition to) the license of their components. Maddona has the copyright on Song X, Big Puff Daddy is the copyright holder of Song Y and Hed Artzi are the copyright holders of the *collection* Top Hitz 5. You could argue that the above is already implied by copyright law and its effect is thus null; however, I strongly doubt that holds for every country on the globe, and surely subtle differences of phrase can be put to great employ by those so inclined. The GPL specifically states that it is governed by laws of Msc. It is true though that whether or not you are bound by it or not depends on the specific copyright laws of your locality - if you are required by the local law to get a license for the work in question under locality laws then the GPL is moot because there is nothing proving you have accepted it's terms. The normal idea being that only by accepting the GPL contract terms you can get the license to distribute the work in question - if you can get the premissions to do so via other channles (for example if your local copyright low does not recognise copyrights of foreign nationals as the original Amercian copyright law was) then ypu're off the hook. However - since, as you mentioned, the original composer of the copyright license publicly stated that they accept these heuristics to be correct, at least in the general case, we can just as well treat them as correct in the sense that anything that the FSF considers to NOT be a derived work, isn't. Why should this holds when the copyright owners is not the FSF? By using the GPL the author does not grant the FSF any special status other than the ability to (formally!) issue new versions of the GPL. It could be argued that the ability to revise implies the ability to force an interpretation; this may have merit in some jursdictions, but is again far from simple. As Shachar akready said - s/FSF/Copyright holder/ And please don't bring that stupid myth that the GPL is not 100% enforceable because it was not tested in a courtroom - the fact that it never GOT to a courtroom despite numerous incidents with big multinational companies with loads of cash and hordes of lawyers who mistakingly (or not) violated the license and settled with the FSF (the single exception where the GPL got to a courtroom is the MySQL case, where AFAIK the issue of whether the GPL holds was never raised) speaks more loudly then a thousand courts - the GPL is as enforceable as any contract can be. I didn't intend to bring up that myth (which, truth be said, doesn't seem very relevant to the discussion). Accepting your rebuttal, however, re-raises the opposite issue. Recall the hazy language used in the GPL, and consider -- if hordes of lawyers had so little doubt that linking is covered, then someone with lesser resources will have a hard time defending his use of (say) a pipe interface to a GPL program whose copyrights are owned by a non-FSF zealot. The law uses the term of common practice. What the FSF says about the GPL is common practice, so unless you specifically and publicly stated otherwise (see Linus et al) everyone assume that the common practice holds. Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://benyossef.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sunday 26 October 2003 20:15, Eran Tromer wrote: On 2003/10/26 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: The distinction is very simple - whatever code that is a derived work from the GPLed parts (and assuming they are *GPLed* and not, LGPLed, for example) can only be distributed under the GPL license by him. In practice what this usually boils down to in most cases is that if it's code that is linked in any way (via using a loadable library, using a static library, copy paste from the sources etc.) to GPLed code then it too falls under the GPL. If you're using the GPLed software in some other way (sending commands from a propritery program via a pipe, executing the GPLed program and using the results, making use of normal well defined generic interfaces such as system calls) then your client code is not derived work and he has no obligation concerning his own code in this case. The GPL still applies on the GPLed parts though. The distiction is anything but simple. The above seems in line with the stand FSF has expressed in such matters (in the relevant FAQ and various other opportunities). Alas, while the FSF's interpretation of the GPL is socially binding in some circles, its legal status is close to null. The the GPL itself is far from such concreteness, and in fact carefully avoids any technical definitions (see Section 2 paragraph 4). As for the distinction you propose: what's the essential difference between use via loadable libraries and and use via pipe commands? Either can be easily used to simulate the other (at least in the normal case where the library and app don't share memory buffers and such), so the two cases are equivalent up to overhead. Put otherwise, if pipes block GPLness then I can just put a pipe-based RPC wrapper around the GPL library (using CORBA or RMI or custom code or whatever) and voila, it can be used in in proprietary programs. Somewhat odd. Eran, My answer was given in the form of two separate paragraphs and such a choice of lexical structure usually denotes two separate subjects are discussed. Indeed, such was the case with my answer but you seemed to have missed this completely. The first paragraph of my answer discussed the distinction between work which is derived of a GPL work and one that is isn't. The basis for such a distinction, as you know very well, is copyright law, not the GPL itself. Under copyright law an author of a work has a limited monopoly to limit the distribution of the work he created according to his terms and the GPL being a copyright license can therefore only effects something which is derived work of the original GPLed work in question. This distinction IS quite simple: derived work - you must obey the GPL because nothing else but excepting the terms of this contract (and it is a contract) will grant you the right to distribute the derived work you created from it. If it's not derived work no one can tell you what to do with it, at least not in context of copyright. The first paragraph was there on purpose - this is the distinction that is important. The second paragraph simple described common rules of thumb of determining where this line is drawn. They are NOT precise. They are simply accepted heuristics. However - since, as you mentioned, the original composer of the copyright license publicly stated that they accept these heuristics to be correct, at least in the general case, we can just as well treat them as correct in the sense that anything that the FSF considers to NOT be a derived work, isn't. I agree that the other way around is not as simple - not everything that the FSF claims to be derived work will be automatically considered by a court as derived work, but the FSF are very reasonable people, they have some VERY bright lawyers, and up till now they have won every single time. And please don't bring that stupid myth that the GPL is not 100% enforceable because it was not tested in a courtroom - the fact that it never GOT to a courtroom despite numerous incidents with big multinational companies with loads of cash and hordes of lawyers who mistakingly (or not) violated the license and settled with the FSF (the single exception where the GPL got to a courtroom is the MySQL case, where AFAIK the issue of whether the GPL holds was never raised) speaks more loudly then a thousand courts - the GPL is as enforceable as any contract can be. Sorry if I sound a little excited. My back hurts and I just got a back rub with Tiger Balm lotion and it burns like hell :-) Have a nice day, Gilad IANAL Ben-Yossef -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://benyossef.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Converting to the new samba
Well, you could try to write utf-8 instead of utf. I didn't have to change anything, but then, I got all my Hebrew files changed to undescores (like this: .___), which made me brake a few chairs. Oh well, I guess you better take advices from someone who knows at least a bit of what he's talking about... Dotan --- On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 13:25:03 +0200, Ben-Nes Michael [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All Shana Tova im trying to move my files from samba 2.x to 3.x version. I mounted the old samba on /mnt/oldsmb but I couldn't find how to tell it to load it as utf ( on the Linux side ) and I just get gibberish on console, win$ putty. I think its something with the charset but I couldn't find the right combination: mount -t smbfs -o iocharset=he_IL.utf,codepage=win1255 //Share2/documents /mnt/oldsmb/ -- Canaan Surfing Ltd. Internet Service Providers Ben-Nes Michael - Manager Tel: 972-4-6991122 Fax: 972-4-6990098 http://www.canaan.net.il -- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote: Hi all, I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine: That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e. not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or LAM/MPICH), while keeping his server implementation, protocol implementation and part of client code proprietary, in order to actually make money off the software. Does that conform to the GNU Public License? How much of the code does the customer have to release under the GPL? you might want to read the FSF's GPL FAQ (too many TLAs there ;) ). for example, regarding 'mere aggregation' Vs. 'combining': http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCMereAggregation or regarding linking a GPL-ed program with non-free libraries: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCMoneyGuzzlerInc -- guy For world domination - press 1, or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator. -- nob o. dy = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
, 26 2003, 16:26,Tal, Shachar: not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or LAM/MPICH), while keeping his server implementation, protocol implementation gtk is LGPL you are safe. -- diego, 30 Tishrey 5764 Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote: Hi all, I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine: That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e. not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or LAM/MPICH), Gtk is not GPLed, but LGPLed. As such it has fewer of the GPL restrictions. Python has its own license which again does not force to release binaries linked against its libraries under a GPL-compatible license. while keeping his server implementation, protocol implementation and part of client code proprietary, in order to actually make money off the software. If a client is written in C and links against a GPLed C library, then all of its code must be released under a GPL-compatible license. GPL-compatible licenses are a subset of free software licenses, which are themselves subsets of open-source licenses. In any case, they are not proprietary. Note that a GPLed interpreter can run a non-GPL-compatible script. IANAL, so all legal caveats apply. Regards, Shlomi Fish -- Shlomi Fish[EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/ Writing a BitKeeper replacement is probably easier at this point than getting its license changed. Matt Mackall on OFTC.net #offtopic. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Licensing Question
On Sunday 26 October 2003 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: On Sunday 26 October 2003 16:26, Tal, Shachar wrote: Hi all, I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine: That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e. not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or LAM/MPICH), while keeping his server implementation, protocol implementation and part of client code proprietary, in order to actually make money off the software. Oh, I also forgot to add that you can make money off of Free Software as well, so that's no execuse. I guess s/he is just greedy ;-) Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm) http://www.codefidence.com = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: GPL Licensing Question
Thanks. Though, his particular implementation is patented, hence his reluctance to release it under the GPL. Shachar Tal Verint Systems -Original Message- From: Gilad Ben-Yossef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2003 7:25 PM To: Tal, Shachar; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: Re: GPL Licensing Question On Sunday 26 October 2003 19:06, Gilad Ben-Yossef wrote: On Sunday 26 October 2003 16:26, Tal, Shachar wrote: Hi all, I have a GPL licensing question that came from a customer of mine: That customer is currently developing a distributed client-server, where the communication protocols between clients and servers are non-standard (i.e. not HTTP or likes of it). The customer wishes to include somewhat-modified GPLed software components in its client software (e.g. python, GTK or LAM/MPICH), while keeping his server implementation, protocol implementation and part of client code proprietary, in order to actually make money off the software. Oh, I also forgot to add that you can make money off of Free Software as well, so that's no execuse. I guess s/he is just greedy ;-) Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm) http://www.codefidence.com This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
