Please note that your nore #128 mentions "growisofs" but this is a bug
that asks for re-intrgrating the original cdrtools software.
Do you like to have the original software back again?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
yayy k3b finally came through with certain configuration settings. I did
have to reclose the ejected disc for 15-30 seconds for it to finalize.
** Attachment added: "goos k3b settings"
doing an integrity check in Brasero aftwer putting the dvd back in it
says there is no md5 to be found on the disc, but I saw it go through
the process of making the md5 hash.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
now I thought I fixed it, because it at least looked like it burned the
whole disc, by doing..
sudo apt-get install libdvdcss dvd+rw-tools libbrasero-media3-dev brasero
put swap on with gparted and don't close gparted until dvd is burned
use my usb burner instead of internal
choose explicitly to
Here's from a session from Brasero:
Checking session consistency (brasero_burn_check_session_consistency
brasero-burn.c:1739)
BraseroBurnURI called brasero_job_get_action
BraseroBurnURI called brasero_job_get_action
BraseroBurnURI called brasero_job_set_output_size_for_current_track
..and when I tried a 4.7GB non-DL disc it said there wasn't enough
space!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
having issue burning DVDs, in processx now of ordering some brand new
TDK CD-RWs no, which have worked in the past, but for some reason
burning even with k3b hasn't worked for me for a while, is this all
being phased out i lieu of flash drives or something? I do hope not ;)
here's the output of
Hi, is this an intentional status change _here_ or just an imported
status change from fedora?
Given that Ubuntu "recently" started to ship ZFS, it seems that Mark
Shuttleworth finally follows the license strategy I offered him in 2008.
This should make it obvious to include the original
Launchpad has imported 68 comments from the remote bug at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507108.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment
will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about
Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at
@Roger: As you might have guessed from my post in 2014 I was able to solve my
personal
problem. In fact I've been able to use the software written by Joerg Schilling
by
compiling it myself.
And ... more important I am also very happy that I was permitted to use
it over many years in the past
Given that the GPL does not contain the term "linking" at all, there is
no difference between static and dynamic linking.
But it may be of interest that Simon Phipps (Director at OpenSource.org)
at CeBIT (March) 2009 made the following agreement with Debian:
Debian starts shipping the original
ZFS also came to my mind. Why should ZFS be allowed to be compiled INTO
the kernel on one hand, and cdrtools not being shipped as a optional
software on the other hand?
Also, Debian ships ZFS using DKMS. On that matter, Ubuntu could also
provide packages like those (and/or flashplugin-installer)
This article on "enterprise" is wrong - sorry.
What really happened is this:
In 2004, Debian decided to attack the cdrtools project, created a buggy
fork (illegally under the original name) and stopped distributing the
original software in May 2004.
After 2 years of attempts to solve this
For Peter Funk -
A chapter out of my ebook (should work for ubuntu 14.04):
Media - Burning - CDR-Tools vs CDRKit
There are two packages that can be used for burning.
They are cdr-tools and cdrkit. cdrkit is the default for Linux Mint.
Here is an article describing why some did not like
I tried to burn a bluray BD-R on my Kubuntu 14.04 LTS laptop using k3b.
This did not work. (files from the resulting disc can not be read).
After some research I got here.
Since I could not find the cdrtools source mentioned in the messages above
using the URLs
on berlios I tried to find
Mr. Glaubitz is well known to spread hostile personal attacks at various places.
just search for glaubitz or cbmuser.
Matteo, your assessment was right. People with a real objection would be able to
verify their claims.
As you can read in comment #46, the problem was initiated by two people at
@Marcos:
No, the situation is not going to change even if Joerg Schilling is
going to change the license. He has shown several times that he has a
hostile attitude towards others in the open source community and
therefore most people who know him refuse to work with Joerg anymore.
--
You
Woa, now the ridicolousness of this debate is getting critical, I've seen
five-year-old children way more reasonable than the two opposing parties
involved in this debate.
If this wasn't keeping millions of systems with broken software it would be at
least mildly entertaining; seeing how this
@Matteo:
Debian is moving to libburnia-project.org and cdrkit is going to be
removed soon. And, no, it's not a kindergarten, it has some serious
background which I do not like to disclose here though as it might have
legal ramifications.
Just believe me that this cannot be resolved the way you
Has this bug been worked around some how?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
To manage notifications about
I am not sure how I should interpret the text in comment #44. To me it
looks as if it has been written by a very unfriendly person but I am open
for a different explanation if possible...
Let me recapitulate:
In May 2004 a new and unfriendly Debian packetizer started to attack
the cdrtools
@Schilly
If the-unfriendly-who-was-not-named made a bogus claim about licensing but then
(as you pointed out) went to the dark side of the law by actually breaking your
copyright, isn't it simpler to just SUE his @$$ and then get Debian fixed ?
(For the downstream distros that are still
Please, add this text even if you are 100% sure, that you don't *need*
to grant the permission
Schily, what's wrong with adding those words, even if they are
redundant?
What's wrong with acting irrationally even if you're not? It appears
you are applying pressing to the wrong party here.
I
Hello.
It is no clear to me if this problem has been addresed at all since I
reported a dupplicated bug in
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrkit/+bug/1106855 ( Bug
#213215)
clic to get more info on the matter.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
** Changed in: cdrtools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: cesare (wtoro00) = (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in
Another case solved by switching to cdrecord:
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=90t=106602start=0#p601020
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include
It is amazing that this problem of Wodim is so persistent, while it
clearly compromises the quality of Ubuntu and Linux. Canonical please
seek to find a solution!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
Just a note in case this helps:
Yesterday, I reworded the file COPYING a bit in order to avoid confusion
and to make things more obvious.
Check: ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/cdrecord/alpha/COPYING
in special the new top parts that explain work-limits and the enhanced
GPL notes at the end that
Thank you very much Schily, hope your work now will be included into free
GNU/Linux distributions.
Maybe someone could inform about improved COPYING file Debian, OpenSUSE,
Fedora and other distros developers?
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:04:15PM -, Schily wrote:
Just a note in case this
Sorry for this OT but am I the only one who has the feeling that this
all is redicoulus? It really seems that this is something personal. What
is the problem in adding a bit of text? I really have the strong feeling
that you, schily, are not really interested in solving the problem. If
I'm wrong,
Well, it seems that recently some people came up with proposals that are not
realizable. Let me give some explanations on the background:
The whole problem has been initiated by an unfriendly Debian packetizer in
May 2004. At that time this person was a newcomer and the previous
Debian
Hi Jörg Schilling,
I'd be very happy to see your original cdrtools software in Debian, Ubuntu,
OpenSUSE and other free operating systems.
It seems this can be achieved very easily - you can simply add the thirty-nine
words text in sources of some libraries from cdrtools package:
You are
Your request creates the impression that the original cdrtools are not
valid OSS.
I am sorrry to see that you are wrong.
I've received a very clear statement from Eben Moglen on that the GPL of course
permits to link GPLd software against any library of any license as this is the
requirement
Schily, what's wrong with adding those words, even if they are redundant?
If your interpretation of the matter is correct (and I believe it is, although
IANAL) you are just making extra-explicit what is already permitted by of your
license and the GPL, so you aren't granting any extra permission
Well, I'll tell you what's wrong:
The claim ...If You do, you may distribute the combined work under the
terms of the GPL.
does never apply for typical OSS projects (unless someone makes _all_ parts
available under the GPL in their repspective source), so Mantas asked me to
grant something I do
** Bug watch added: Red Hat Bugzilla #507108
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507108
** Also affects: cdrtools (Fedora) via
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507108
Importance: Unknown
Status: Unknown
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
** Changed in: cdrtools (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) = cesare (wtoro00)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in
This issue has affected me for a long time, I'd be very happy to see it
resolved. The cdrkit fork is unmaintained garbage and has produced many
coasters. It's a pain to have to reinstall cdrtools manually with every
release.
Can the dependencies on cdrkit be removed while the licensing issues
Clement, have you been able to get in touch with the Debian guys?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
To
Clement told me that he likes to approach Debian at debian-
derivati...@lists.debian.org but I did not hear from him since 3 weeks.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Any update? :)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
A new cdrtools version has been released, if you like to create a binary
package, please use this one.
BTW: Meanwhile, the only currently known bugreport has been verified to
be a false alarm.
For:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257241
the reporter send the CLI parameter to repeat the
I did not publish a new cdrtools release since june even though there is
new code (e.g. available in the schily source consolidation).
If you like to make a binary package, please contact me so I can make a new
cdrtools source release and give some advise on how to compile things the
best way.
** Changed in: linuxmint
Status: Incomplete = Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
To manage
Well, I had a conversation with Schily. As far as the political/social
aspects go, I'm satisfied with his explanations and I strongly feel he
needs our support. As much as possible, we should push to get the
original cdrecord, mkisofs, cdda2wav... into Debian.
I'm still not at ease with the
@Schily: I should be on #pimpmymint (irc.spotchat.org) most of the time.
If I'm not there, you can contact oscar799 and she should be able to get
in touch with me. I'm working on the code at the moment so I tend to
turn the IRC off (too distracting), sorry for my absence :) I'd like to
chat with
Hi Clement,
Please inform us (Baltix GNU/Linux operating system developers) here about
the results of your conversation with Schily.
We also wanna to include original up-to-date cdrecord instead of old and
buggy fork wodim.
It would be nice to use the same cdrecord package for Linux Mint and
Hi Mantas,
what kind of discussion do you believe is necessary?
Cdrtools is legal OSS and thus there is no need for a contract to use
it.
As Debian did change seveal users of cdrtools with the intention to make
it hard to replace cdrkit by the original software, you may need to
remove these
Hi Schily,
I don't need any discussion, I just don't have enough time to maintain
cdrecord package, so, I simply need good cdrecord package + bugreporters
and deb package maintainers, which can help to fix major problems :)
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 01:32:41PM -, Schily wrote:
what kind of
** Also affects: linuxmint
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: linuxmint
Status: New = Incomplete
** Changed in: linuxmint
Importance: Undecided = Medium
** Changed in: linuxmint
Assignee: (unassigned) = Clement Lefebvre (clementlefebvre)
** Changed in:
I'm marking this as affecting Linux Mint and I'd be happy to chat with
you Schily to understand the problem fully and to see if we can solve
it. Feel free to contact me by email, or directly via IRC at #pimpmymint
on irc.spotchat.org.
If after this discussion we decide that we want to fix this
Schily, can't you as copyright holder 'sort' this licensing stuffs once
and for all, to finally get Ubuntu in the 21st century wrt to cd burning
( even though cd burning is becoming sooo 90's by itself .. ;) ) cdrkit
just froze on me again while trying to burn an audio cd.
--
You received this
I have no idea how I could change things since the original software has no
license
problems.
Ubuntu just seem to ignore facts and instead ships dead software that even has
problems with legality.
Ubuntu obviously is not independent and is no more than a vassal of Debian that
verified that
If there were source-only-packages (i.e. no pre-built binaries), there
would be no licencing-problems. Because of this, Gentoo can provide
(source-)packages without violating any licences[1].
Also, Canonical might want to spend some money on this issue as Oracle
(former: SUN) did to prove whether
Nobody is violating a license for distributing cdrtools either in source
or in binary form.
If you believe the people who claim that there is a problem, then Ubuntu
as a whole would be undistributable as Ubuntu is full of similar
constructions.
I had a discussion with Till Jaeger (the most well
Jörg, I did not want to propose the idea that there actually are
licencing problems. I just wanted to point out that distributing the
source only would *definitely* have no licencing problems at all -
regardless of Debian's understanding of licence compatiblity.
Would be a win-win for all of us,
If Ubuntu did not distribute the illegal cdrkit, I would fully agree
with you.
Please note that I as the Copyright holder also need to admonish people
or companies that do not follow a legal path and Ubuntu is in not on a
legal path because they publish cdrkit.
On the other side, users like
Another 6 months have passed without any progress here.. Just checking
in, showing that somebody still cares about this.. *sigh*
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please
Ok great.. so when do we - after more than 2 years - see these packages
FINALLY in Ubuntu?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools)
** Also affects: baltix
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
Title:
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
--
It seems, that Jörg Schilling recommends to use cdrtools from
ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools repository, see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cdrtools/+bug/556595/comments/4
:
Schily wrote on 2010-04-07:
I recommend you to first upgrade to recent original software:
Everything is explained in detail here:
http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/linux-dist.html
--
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to
i've also had problems with CD and DVD burning with Ubuntu Now that I'm
aware of this bad fork, I ask you to replace all these programs with the
original.
--
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
You received this bug notification
I'm not shure if it is Ok to post this here, but Jörg Schilling
(cdrtools Developer) and another User (Antiqua) from our Forum are
building actual Ubuntu-Packages in this Thread, where you can download
them:
http://forum.ubuntuusers.de/topic/kleines-projekt-mit-paketverwaltung-
die-schil/5/
--
Wodim really is a very broken and obsolete package, while it should be
providing an important part of the Linux 'desktop' experience. Please
cut the licensing b/s and switch Ubuntu back to cdrtools, which actually
_works_... Thanks!
--
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in
Just to be complete: the original Quote can be found here:
http://forum.ubuntuusers.de/topic/kleines-projekt-mit-paketverwaltung-
die-schil/3/
@16:54
--
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
You received this bug notification
This is the Statement of Jörg Schilling, the creator of cdrtools, from
our Forum (www.ubuntuusers.de). I've translated this to english:
It is up to Mark Shuttleworth, who has not met his promise,
unfortunately, to integrate the cdrtools again in Ubuntu. This promise
he has given me at OSCON 2008
...@googlemail.com wrote:
From: Thorsten Reinbold thorsten.reinb...@googlemail.com
Subject: [Bug 213215] Re: Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package
in Ubuntu
To: pandio...@yahoo.com
Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 8:30 AM
Until any decision will be made, you
can use this ppa
Until any decision will be made, you can use this ppa:
ppa:brandonsnider/cdrtools
Runs much better than the Ubuntu-Packages. Another thing to meantion is
that since Ubuntu provides the Fake-Packages, I've got burning
Problems very often. Erasing a DVD failed always, only buying Nero-Linux
solved
Marking as Wishlist and Confirmed.
** Changed in: cdrtools (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided = Wishlist
** Changed in: cdrtools (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Confirmed
--
Please include original cdrecord (cdrtools) package in Ubuntu
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/213215
You received this bug
There is no special information to provide. It's just a fact that cdrkit
packages are illegally distributed (by creating illegal links named
cdrecord etc.) and is even so flawed that if you install original
cdrtools, they will keep replacing its executables.
We just should go back to the original
71 matches
Mail list logo
